Why do you hate the SNP?
Discussion
Strocky said:
Rick_1138 said:
Strocky said:
Do the UK get the keys for the new Trident model or do we just get to polish it for the Yanks, like the current model?
Please stop with this rubbish, the Americans have no say in how we defend our nation with regards to the launching of nuclear weapons, We bought them from the USA, which includes parts and machining\control systems etc.We operate them, we own them, its a national defence system which will not be known to foreign governments. When US subs dock at faslane they dont all get a tour of the subs, nor do we get into theirs.
Its like when the americans bought our old harriers, we cant tell them what they can or cant do with them.
When you buy a car, the manufacturer doesn't have say on when you get to use it, as its your property.
Our control systems and launch systems are not linked to the USA systems, its like that for a reason, if during a war we lost contact with the USA etc or any NATO ally the UK govt makes the decision on when UK nuclear weapons are fired.
The only way it would work as you suggest would be if the americans had bases within the UK where the nuclear deterrent was housed, and they held the launch controls, but no british government is going to let another countries nuclear deterrent be held on british soil, nor would any other NATO nation.
Its simple internet paranoia facts that have been trotted out so often now during the referendum build up its become a cliche.
The UK is reliant on the USA's co-operation to keep Trident
Trident isnt a nice shiny missile that is bought from the Americans that happens to slip into our silo's. The system was developed jointly by the UK and the USA as a replacement for the Polaris system.
The missiles part of the weapon were created in the USA byt both UK and USA team\funding, however the warheads themselves are developed separately, the UK and USA warheads are different and developed by each country, the important bits like guidance, operation detonation and design are all secret to each country.
The bit that actually propels it up from the sub and forward at speed is what we bought from the americans, the bit that goes bang, is built and developed in the UK.
However the main bit we are looking at replacing includes the submarines, which again are a totally designed, built and operated by the MOD.
The only order that British submarines will carry out will come from the Prime minister or his designated replacement in the event of PM being un-contactable\dead. US and UK submraine orders are totally seperate.
The USA designed a system to prevent rogue submarine captains from firing missiles on their own recognizance, I.e. the 'launch codes from the president' are the only way they can be fired.
The UK never developed this system, the orders either come from whitehall, or if the submarine commander can cover a few things that would prove the UK has been hit, i.e. radio 4 being off the air as an odd example, then the captain would open the final standing orders that every PM writes and has sent to the subs as one of their first duties as a PM.
American and UK nuclear defence controls are totally seperate beasts, the only way they actually join up is being part of NATO.
This is where most of the confusion comes from, we would operate in conjuncture with NATO in any war involving nuclear weapons, but each nation has control over their own weapons, be it France, UK, USA etc.
Rick_1138 said:
Strocky said:
Rick_1138 said:
Strocky said:
Do the UK get the keys for the new Trident model or do we just get to polish it for the Yanks, like the current model?
Please stop with this rubbish, the Americans have no say in how we defend our nation with regards to the launching of nuclear weapons, We bought them from the USA, which includes parts and machining\control systems etc.We operate them, we own them, its a national defence system which will not be known to foreign governments. When US subs dock at faslane they dont all get a tour of the subs, nor do we get into theirs.
Its like when the americans bought our old harriers, we cant tell them what they can or cant do with them.
When you buy a car, the manufacturer doesn't have say on when you get to use it, as its your property.
Our control systems and launch systems are not linked to the USA systems, its like that for a reason, if during a war we lost contact with the USA etc or any NATO ally the UK govt makes the decision on when UK nuclear weapons are fired.
The only way it would work as you suggest would be if the americans had bases within the UK where the nuclear deterrent was housed, and they held the launch controls, but no british government is going to let another countries nuclear deterrent be held on british soil, nor would any other NATO nation.
Its simple internet paranoia facts that have been trotted out so often now during the referendum build up its become a cliche.
The UK is reliant on the USA's co-operation to keep Trident
Trident isnt a nice shiny missile that is bought from the Americans that happens to slip into our silo's. The system was developed jointly by the UK and the USA as a replacement for the Polaris system.
The missiles part of the weapon were created in the USA byt both UK and USA team\funding, however the warheads themselves are developed separately, the UK and USA warheads are different and developed by each country, the important bits like guidance, operation detonation and design are all secret to each country.
The bit that actually propels it up from the sub and forward at speed is what we bought from the americans, the bit that goes bang, is built and developed in the UK.
However the main bit we are looking at replacing includes the submarines, which again are a totally designed, built and operated by the MOD.
The only order that British submarines will carry out will come from the Prime minister or his designated replacement in the event of PM being un-contactable\dead. US and UK submraine orders are totally seperate.
The USA designed a system to prevent rogue submarine captains from firing missiles on their own recognizance, I.e. the 'launch codes from the president' are the only way they can be fired.
The UK never developed this system, the orders either come from whitehall, or if the submarine commander can cover a few things that would prove the UK has been hit, i.e. radio 4 being off the air as an odd example, then the captain would open the final standing orders that every PM writes and has sent to the subs as one of their first duties as a PM.
American and UK nuclear defence controls are totally seperate beasts, the only way they actually join up is being part of NATO.
This is where most of the confusion comes from, we would operate in conjuncture with NATO in any war involving nuclear weapons, but each nation has control over their own weapons, be it France, UK, USA etc.
The nuclear warheads are made in Aldermaston in Berkshire from US plutonium and US tritium gas as part of the 1958 agreement where we gave the US all our plutonium and tritium and they gave us warhead designs and access to their supply*. If we fell out with the States tomorrow, you could still use Trident but without GPS guidance, you'd if you targeted Manhattan, you'd probably hit Long Island. Part of the issue is that if we did actually launch a Trident missile, it would be indistinguishable from a US launch and would risk a retaliation on the US so I imagine there's some imperative to consult them before a launch, but it's unlikely the missile couldn't be launched regardless of what the POTUS says.
Without tritium gas you'd need to cannibalise the existing warheads to keep up yield, as the tritium decays in Helium-3 constantly (you need tritium to turn a nuclear explosion into a thermonuclear one) you need to keep warhead topped up with about 0.2g of Tritium every year (there's about 4g of tritium in an average warhead) or they lose their effectiveness.
The actual missiles themselves need serviced and their seals replaced in the US every 6 to 12 months. The UK has access to 58 missiles from the US arsenal, but since 2010 supposedly only 8 are on the active sub, with 8 on the standby and 16 stored. If the US pulled the plug, the UK's "independent nuclear deterrent" would be kaput within a year. With the effectiveness and number of available warheads reducing at least 8 per year (estimated 160 operational warheads + 24 or 15% for spares needing 32g of tritium to keep a maximum yield) and no way to replenish them.
£100bn is a lot of money for something which is operationally dependent on another country. Even if you think nukes are needed (and I don't by the way) the French managed to have a fully independent system for a lot less.
- the UK used to have 4 specially designed magrox reactor cores at Chapelcross in Arran which produced tritium from inserting Lithium-6 into the fuel mix and was used to recover tritium and plutonium from warheads. But they were shut in 2004
Strocky said:
Rick_1138 said:
Strocky said:
Rick_1138 said:
Strocky said:
Do the UK get the keys for the new Trident model or do we just get to polish it for the Yanks, like the current model?
Please stop with this rubbish, the Americans have no say in how we defend our nation with regards to the launching of nuclear weapons, We bought them from the USA, which includes parts and machining\control systems etc.We operate them, we own them, its a national defence system which will not be known to foreign governments. When US subs dock at faslane they dont all get a tour of the subs, nor do we get into theirs.
Its like when the americans bought our old harriers, we cant tell them what they can or cant do with them.
When you buy a car, the manufacturer doesn't have say on when you get to use it, as its your property.
Our control systems and launch systems are not linked to the USA systems, its like that for a reason, if during a war we lost contact with the USA etc or any NATO ally the UK govt makes the decision on when UK nuclear weapons are fired.
The only way it would work as you suggest would be if the americans had bases within the UK where the nuclear deterrent was housed, and they held the launch controls, but no british government is going to let another countries nuclear deterrent be held on british soil, nor would any other NATO nation.
Its simple internet paranoia facts that have been trotted out so often now during the referendum build up its become a cliche.
The UK is reliant on the USA's co-operation to keep Trident
Trident isnt a nice shiny missile that is bought from the Americans that happens to slip into our silo's. The system was developed jointly by the UK and the USA as a replacement for the Polaris system.
The missiles part of the weapon were created in the USA byt both UK and USA team\funding, however the warheads themselves are developed separately, the UK and USA warheads are different and developed by each country, the important bits like guidance, operation detonation and design are all secret to each country.
The bit that actually propels it up from the sub and forward at speed is what we bought from the americans, the bit that goes bang, is built and developed in the UK.
However the main bit we are looking at replacing includes the submarines, which again are a totally designed, built and operated by the MOD.
The only order that British submarines will carry out will come from the Prime minister or his designated replacement in the event of PM being un-contactable\dead. US and UK submraine orders are totally seperate.
The USA designed a system to prevent rogue submarine captains from firing missiles on their own recognizance, I.e. the 'launch codes from the president' are the only way they can be fired.
The UK never developed this system, the orders either come from whitehall, or if the submarine commander can cover a few things that would prove the UK has been hit, i.e. radio 4 being off the air as an odd example, then the captain would open the final standing orders that every PM writes and has sent to the subs as one of their first duties as a PM.
American and UK nuclear defence controls are totally seperate beasts, the only way they actually join up is being part of NATO.
This is where most of the confusion comes from, we would operate in conjuncture with NATO in any war involving nuclear weapons, but each nation has control over their own weapons, be it France, UK, USA etc.
The nuclear warheads are made in Aldermaston in Berkshire from US plutonium and US tritium gas as part of the 1958 agreement where we gave the US all our plutonium and tritium and they gave us warhead designs and access to their supply*. If we fell out with the States tomorrow, you could still use Trident but without GPS guidance, you'd if you targeted Manhattan, you'd probably hit Long Island. Part of the issue is that if we did actually launch a Trident missile, it would be indistinguishable from a US launch and would risk a retaliation on the US so I imagine there's some imperative to consult them before a launch, but it's unlikely the missile couldn't be launched regardless of what the POTUS says.
Without tritium gas you'd need to cannibalise the existing warheads to keep up yield, as the tritium decays in Helium-3 constantly (you need tritium to turn a nuclear explosion into a thermonuclear one) you need to keep warhead topped up with about 0.2g of Tritium every year (there's about 4g of tritium in an average warhead) or they lose their effectiveness.
The actual missiles themselves need serviced and their seals replaced in the US every 6 to 12 months. The UK has access to 58 missiles from the US arsenal, but since 2010 supposedly only 8 are on the active sub, with 8 on the standby and 16 stored. If the US pulled the plug, the UK's "independent nuclear deterrent" would be kaput within a year. With the effectiveness and number of available warheads reducing at least 8 per year (estimated 160 operational warheads + 24 or 15% for spares needing 32g of tritium to keep a maximum yield) and no way to replenish them.
£100bn is a lot of money for something which is operationally dependent on another country. Even if you think nukes are needed (and I don't by the way) the French managed to have a fully independent system for a lot less.
- the UK used to have 4 specially designed magrox reactor cores at Chapelcross in Arran which produced tritium from inserting Lithium-6 into the fuel mix and was used to recover tritium and plutonium from warheads. But they were shut in 2004
The seals et al do need replacing but they are for the US based stuff. The delivery system are used in both UK Vanguard Class and US Ohio Class subs, however the UK operates our stuff, Yes we would eventually run out of spares and need more but this is why we are looking to replace the system, partly to ensure supply chain and self (UK) control.
Remember too that the £100 billion isnt the missiles, it isn new sub class design which may or may not hose a US based delivery system again.
Other ideas is the tungsten rods in a missile delivery system, bit Sci-Fi but if you like non nuclear deterrent weapons, these are your boys.
Strocky said:
Mmm not what I've been lead to believe, based on the following, happy to be corrected though
The nuclear warheads are made in Aldermaston in Berkshire from US plutonium and US tritium gas as part of the 1958 agreement where we gave the US all our plutonium and tritium and they gave us warhead designs and access to their supply*.
Is this berkshire in Scotland?The nuclear warheads are made in Aldermaston in Berkshire from US plutonium and US tritium gas as part of the 1958 agreement where we gave the US all our plutonium and tritium and they gave us warhead designs and access to their supply*.
As their is no nukes in england
So it must be scotland
Strocky said:
If we fell out with the States tomorrow, you could still use Trident but without GPS guidance, you'd if you targeted Manhattan,
GPS?Would that be the GPS that doesn't work about 500mph
GPS to control a hypersonic warhead that travels at 18,000mph has a tomtom duct taped to the dashboard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II
McWigglebum4th said:
GPS?
Would that be the GPS that doesn't work about 500mph
GPS to control a hypersonic warhead that travels at 18,000mph has a tomtom duct taped to the dashboard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II
Starting to wander a tad off-topic, but in the interests of keeping us specific to the point your making Wiggly:Would that be the GPS that doesn't work about 500mph
GPS to control a hypersonic warhead that travels at 18,000mph has a tomtom duct taped to the dashboard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance#Astr...
It is a camera developed guidance system. If the US decided to take its football home, our missiles would still find their target, it uses star positioning to find its target, America cannot (so far) change the location of the stars
Again it is designed this was so it cannot be countered with jamming etc, or blinded with anti-satellite weapons.
BlackLabel said:
SNP candidate George Kerevan advocates 'imploding' the UK economy in order to get independence.
Replace the b
d english power station with a visitor centerI don't know about you guys in other areas of heavy industry but i don't remember selling any control valves to a visitor center
I could be out of step here
I am perfectly willing to accept that most visitors centers have an industrial gas turbine in the same cupboard as they keep the t-shirts
Rick_1138 said:
Starting to wander a tad off-topic, but in the interests of keeping us specific to the point your making Wiggly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance#Astr...
It is a camera developed guidance system. If the US decided to take its football home, our missiles would still find their target, it uses star positioning to find its target, America cannot (so far) change the location of the stars
Again it is designed this was so it cannot be countered with jamming etc, or blinded with anti-satellite weapons.
Next you will be telling me that a system built in the 1970s doesn't use GPS which was commissioned in the 1990shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance#Astr...
It is a camera developed guidance system. If the US decided to take its football home, our missiles would still find their target, it uses star positioning to find its target, America cannot (so far) change the location of the stars
Again it is designed this was so it cannot be countered with jamming etc, or blinded with anti-satellite weapons.
Strocky said:
Imagine joining the Navy and being asked to fking travel, it's a disgrace
I'm sure the 520 Civilian jobs could be put to another use, Longannet's needing raised to the ground due to UK/NG transmission costs
Could you please tell this english king travel, it's a disgraceI'm sure the 520 Civilian jobs could be put to another use, Longannet's needing raised to the ground due to UK/NG transmission costs
on simple thingIf they only employ 520 people
Why is the car parks so f
king big?McWigglebum4th said:
Replace the bd english power station with a visitor center
I don't know about you guys in other areas of heavy industry but i don't remember selling any control valves to a visitor center
I could be out of step here
I am perfectly willing to accept that most visitors centers have an industrial gas turbine in the same cupboard as they keep the t-shirts
We do, but that's because we build turbines d english power station with a visitor centerI don't know about you guys in other areas of heavy industry but i don't remember selling any control valves to a visitor center
I could be out of step here
I am perfectly willing to accept that most visitors centers have an industrial gas turbine in the same cupboard as they keep the t-shirts
McWigglebum4th said:
mjb1 said:
I hate the SNP because they aren't a team player - anything they achieve to benefit Scotland is going to be at the expense of the rUK.
But they could easily work to help not just scotland but the whole of the UKI want to see examples of the SNP helping the UK
1) to remove Scotland from the UK
2) end 'austerity', and spend regardless of the budget deficit.
I don't see either of those helping the UK as a whole.
If everyone works together, then the UK is a stable, relatively smooth running group. If the SNP (in particular), weren't rocking the boat, the current UK is fine. But since they are, then fine, I'd be quite happy to see Scotland cut loose to try and stand on it's own two feet. It wouldn't hurt the rUK anywhere near as much as it would Scotland (that's my opinion anyway).
Cheese Mechanic said:
MOD looking at potentially resiting Trident at Gibraltar. All because of the SNP hysterics.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/572986/Gibralt...
Easy way for the SNP to cost the country 1000's of jobs. fking idiots.
Good. Shame we can't put it in Portsmouth, the jobs would be most welcome on the South Coast.http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/572986/Gibralt...
Easy way for the SNP to cost the country 1000's of jobs. f
king idiots. McWigglebum4th said:
Rick_1138 said:
Starting to wander a tad off-topic, but in the interests of keeping us specific to the point your making Wiggly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance#Astr...
It is a camera developed guidance system. If the US decided to take its football home, our missiles would still find their target, it uses star positioning to find its target, America cannot (so far) change the location of the stars
Again it is designed this was so it cannot be countered with jamming etc, or blinded with anti-satellite weapons.
Next you will be telling me that a system built in the 1970s doesn't use GPS which was commissioned in the 1990shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance#Astr...
It is a camera developed guidance system. If the US decided to take its football home, our missiles would still find their target, it uses star positioning to find its target, America cannot (so far) change the location of the stars
Again it is designed this was so it cannot be countered with jamming etc, or blinded with anti-satellite weapons.
mjb1 said:
My (somewhat limited) knowledge of their policies gives the impression that their main aims are -
1) to remove Scotland from the UK
2) end 'austerity', and spend regardless of the budget deficit.
I don't see either of those helping the UK as a whole.
If everyone works together, then the UK is a stable, relatively smooth running group. If the SNP (in particular), weren't rocking the boat, the current UK is fine. But since they are, then fine, I'd be quite happy to see Scotland cut loose to try and stand on it's own two feet. It wouldn't hurt the rUK anywhere near as much as it would Scotland (that's my opinion anyway).
From what I can gather, the SNP are actually on similar lines to Labour re. deficit reduction. The IFS pointed out recently that the SNP plans for the UK spending are actually LOWER than Labour's for 2019/20 IIRC.1) to remove Scotland from the UK
2) end 'austerity', and spend regardless of the budget deficit.
I don't see either of those helping the UK as a whole.
If everyone works together, then the UK is a stable, relatively smooth running group. If the SNP (in particular), weren't rocking the boat, the current UK is fine. But since they are, then fine, I'd be quite happy to see Scotland cut loose to try and stand on it's own two feet. It wouldn't hurt the rUK anywhere near as much as it would Scotland (that's my opinion anyway).
They just spin themselves as "ending Tory austerity" as anything against the Tories will win votes for them.
simoid said:
From what I can gather, the SNP are actually on similar lines to Labour re. deficit reduction. The IFS pointed out recently that the SNP plans for the UK spending are actually LOWER than Labour's for 2019/20 IIRC.
They just spin themselves as "ending Tory austerity" as anything against the Tories will win votes for them.
The delicious irony of the SNP who man about the negativity in UK politics banging on about how we must block one party due to them being evil and will eat everyones children if they get into powerThey just spin themselves as "ending Tory austerity" as anything against the Tories will win votes for them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff