HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
mph1977 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Link to reliable info please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resorthttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/70...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090400/HM...
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2...
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
In the real world, it's bizarre and illogical for the US to place greater trust in UK submarine commanders than in their own (US) submarine commanders. Therefore it is highly likely that there is control input from the US for UK launches.
Letter of last resort probably now reads "Proceed to US, if no-one's in then sail to Australia".
what part of the " her Majesties Royal Navy " is a rather different organisation to the USN is so hard to comprehend, the US despite portraying itself as ' the land of the free' has a very different military, corporate and organisational culture, while not directly related to the trident issue, My uncle is an retired RAF EngO who subsequently worked in the defence industry, his son and son in law both work for (different) US companies and the topic of Uk vs US and public vs Private organisational culture came up at a recent family get togehter and it's quite niotable that there are significant differences in how decision making is conducted and the way in which process vs outcome is considered ( the US are incredibly anal about procedure, but given the ligitious nature of the US civil law scene it;s not suprising)... yet in other things it's all " pew pew pew f
k yeah 'murica ! "V8 Fettler said:
mph1977 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Link to reliable info please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resorthttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/70...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090400/HM...
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2...
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
In the real world, it's bizarre and illogical for the US to place greater trust in UK submarine commanders than in their own (US) submarine commanders. Therefore it is highly likely that there is control input from the US for UK launches.
Letter of last resort probably now reads "Proceed to US, if no-one's in then sail to Australia".
The whole basis of the 1958 mutual defence act is for the UK to have an independent nuclear deterant. The historical context was that the UK had fired off a 3Mt staged fusion weapon and done it with no assistance and about 1/10th of the budget.
For the US sharing their bomb designs was essentially free, in exchange they got the UK as their closest and most powerful ally. They also got access to how the UK programme had created the staged fusion device at a much cheaper cost, plus access to the UKs much cheaper plutonium. Given the UK had developed it's own bomb it wasn't like the USA was in a position to attempt to control the UK nuclear weapons. The fact that the UK then bought polaris and then trident doesn't make any difference if the USA wants to control UK nuclear weapons we'd simply build our own missiles.
The USA also helped the french build their nuclear weapons, they did this on a 20 questions method allowing the french to only explore the profitable options to build a staged fusion device but without actually giving them any design information.
Talksteer said:
The US doesn't get to place any more trust in Royal Navy captain than it does in a French or a Russian one.
The whole basis of the 1958 mutual defence act is for the UK to have an independent nuclear deterant. The historical context was that the UK had fired off a 3Mt staged fusion weapon and done it with no assistance and about 1/10th of the budget.
I thought the UK only did a boosted fusion weapon in the Grapple tests, rather a full staged weapon ?The whole basis of the 1958 mutual defence act is for the UK to have an independent nuclear deterant. The historical context was that the UK had fired off a 3Mt staged fusion weapon and done it with no assistance and about 1/10th of the budget.
Talksteer said:
The US doesn't get to place any more trust in Royal Navy captain than it does in a French or a Russian one.
The whole basis of the 1958 mutual defence act is for the UK to have an independent nuclear deterant. The historical context was that the UK had fired off a 3Mt staged fusion weapon and done it with no assistance and about 1/10th of the budget.
For the US sharing their bomb designs was essentially free, in exchange they got the UK as their closest and most powerful ally. They also got access to how the UK programme had created the staged fusion device at a much cheaper cost, plus access to the UKs much cheaper plutonium. Given the UK had developed it's own bomb it wasn't like the USA was in a position to attempt to control the UK nuclear weapons. The fact that the UK then bought polaris and then trident doesn't make any difference if the USA wants to control UK nuclear weapons we'd simply build our own missiles.
The USA also helped the french build their nuclear weapons, they did this on a 20 questions method allowing the french to only explore the profitable options to build a staged fusion device but without actually giving them any design information.
Looking at it logically,assuming an opponent with enough capability to effectively wipe out us and enough of North America as makes no difference,it seems obvious that targetting us,while at the same time putting more checks,delays and controls on the targetting of North America,would create an obvious 'problem' for the 'alliance'.In that environment it is obvious that there is no way that the US would allow any independent UK pre emptive strike or response which would create a threat of a response on America.Although admittedly that is off topic.The whole basis of the 1958 mutual defence act is for the UK to have an independent nuclear deterant. The historical context was that the UK had fired off a 3Mt staged fusion weapon and done it with no assistance and about 1/10th of the budget.
For the US sharing their bomb designs was essentially free, in exchange they got the UK as their closest and most powerful ally. They also got access to how the UK programme had created the staged fusion device at a much cheaper cost, plus access to the UKs much cheaper plutonium. Given the UK had developed it's own bomb it wasn't like the USA was in a position to attempt to control the UK nuclear weapons. The fact that the UK then bought polaris and then trident doesn't make any difference if the USA wants to control UK nuclear weapons we'd simply build our own missiles.
The USA also helped the french build their nuclear weapons, they did this on a 20 questions method allowing the french to only explore the profitable options to build a staged fusion device but without actually giving them any design information.
The question raised in terms of the topic being wether the priority should be shifted towards greater reliance on the nuclear deterrent and away from an obviously inferior aircraft carrier that has been compromised to the point where it really isn't even fit for purpose,by the cost motive.
Talksteer said:
For the US sharing their bomb designs was essentially free, in exchange they got the UK as their closest and most powerful ally. They also got access to how the UK programme had created the staged fusion device at a much cheaper cost, plus access to the UKs much cheaper plutonium. Given the UK had developed it's own bomb it wasn't like the USA was in a position to attempt to control the UK nuclear weapons. The fact that the UK then bought polaris and then trident doesn't make any difference if the USA wants to control UK nuclear weapons we'd simply build our own missiles.
Have you a reference? I'm not a scholar but I have read a fair bit about the UK instant sunshine efforts and I don't remember anything like that.QuantumTokoloshi said:
I thought the UK only did a boosted fusion weapon in the Grapple tests, rather a full staged weapon ?
There were 2 fizzled fusion bombs and a boosted fission bomb set off in the first set of tests, with the boosted fission regarded as being a face-saver and allowing HMG to proclaim the UK to be the 3rd power to develop fusion weapons; we then had another go a few months later after Penney's boffins had used the experience gained in the first round to get it right, and achieved 1+MT with proper fusion.hidetheelephants said:
There were 2 fizzled fusion bombs and a boosted fission bomb set off in the first set of tests, with the boosted fission regarded as being a face-saver and allowing HMG to proclaim the UK to be the 3rd power to develop fusion weapons; we then had another go a few months later after Penney's boffins had used the experience gained in the first round to get it right, and achieved 1+MT with proper fusion.
Do you have a book or reference that covers that? I would be keen to read up on that. Wiki only mentions the fusion bombs tests.mph1977 said:
what part of " The physics package on UK trident is different from the US physics package " is so hard to comprehend.
what part of the " her Majesties Royal Navy " is a rather different organisation to the USN is so hard to comprehend, the US despite portraying itself as ' the land of the free' has a very different military, corporate and organisational culture, while not directly related to the trident issue, My uncle is an retired RAF EngO who subsequently worked in the defence industry, his son and son in law both work for (different) US companies and the topic of Uk vs US and public vs Private organisational culture came up at a recent family get togehter and it's quite niotable that there are significant differences in how decision making is conducted and the way in which process vs outcome is considered ( the US are incredibly anal about procedure, but given the ligitious nature of the US civil law scene it;s not suprising)... yet in other things it's all " pew pew pew fk yeah 'murica ! "
The US would not have let the UK anywhere near to Trident without maintaining control, that has been the driving force behind continued US involvement in Europe since 1945. The US became involved in European warfare in 1917-18, then went into isolationism. But they were still dragged into the next European conflict, hence US strategy and political objectives in Europe 1945 onwards: remain involved and retain control.what part of the " her Majesties Royal Navy " is a rather different organisation to the USN is so hard to comprehend, the US despite portraying itself as ' the land of the free' has a very different military, corporate and organisational culture, while not directly related to the trident issue, My uncle is an retired RAF EngO who subsequently worked in the defence industry, his son and son in law both work for (different) US companies and the topic of Uk vs US and public vs Private organisational culture came up at a recent family get togehter and it's quite niotable that there are significant differences in how decision making is conducted and the way in which process vs outcome is considered ( the US are incredibly anal about procedure, but given the ligitious nature of the US civil law scene it;s not suprising)... yet in other things it's all " pew pew pew f
k yeah 'murica ! "V8 Fettler said:
The US would not have let the UK anywhere near to Trident without maintaining control, that has been the driving force behind continued US involvement in Europe since 1945. The US became involved in European warfare in 1917-18, then went into isolationism. But they were still dragged into the next European conflict, hence US strategy and political objectives in Europe 1945 onwards: remain involved and retain control.
Not surprisingly in the case of nukes.Based on the simple issue that the US wouldn't want to take the retaliation for a unilateral British launch.Which is obviously the strategy which anyone wanting to neutralise/minimise the NATO alliance would be using.Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 7th September 19:33
QuantumTokoloshi said:
hidetheelephants said:
There were 2 fizzled fusion bombs and a boosted fission bomb set off in the first set of tests, with the boosted fission regarded as being a face-saver and allowing HMG to proclaim the UK to be the 3rd power to develop fusion weapons; we then had another go a few months later after Penney's boffins had used the experience gained in the first round to get it right, and achieved 1+MT with proper fusion.
Do you have a book or reference that covers that? I would be keen to read up on that. Wiki only mentions the fusion bombs tests.V8 Fettler said:
The US would not have let the UK anywhere near to Trident without maintaining control, that has been the driving force behind continued US involvement in Europe since 1945. The US became involved in European warfare in 1917-18, then went into isolationism. But they were still dragged into the next European conflict, hence US strategy and political objectives in Europe 1945 onwards: remain involved and retain control.
Up until the Resolution class took over the UK deterrence role in the 60s it was the RAF's job; there was no US involvement in that. It's not plausible or even technically feasible that the US could have had an active part in the Polaris chain of command. While it's possible such a thing could have been arranged with Trident I'm not seeing reasons why the MoD would live with it.Edited by hidetheelephants on Sunday 7th September 19:56
V8 Fettler said:
The US would not have let the UK anywhere near to Trident without maintaining control, that has been the driving force behind continued US involvement in Europe since 1945. The US became involved in European warfare in 1917-18, then went into isolationism. But they were still dragged into the next European conflict, hence US strategy and political objectives in Europe 1945 onwards: remain involved and retain control.
as has been explained the UK was an independent Nuclear power prior to the 1958 agreement and deployed it;s own single keyed Nuclear weapons alongside Polaris until the end of the cold war and the withdrawl of the We .177 series weapons fro mthe FAA and the RAF.mph1977 said:
as has been explained the UK was an independent Nuclear power prior to the 1958 agreement and deployed it;s own single keyed Nuclear weapons alongside Polaris until the end of the cold war
Realistically the US would never have allowed any unilateral strategic type British launch,that would have put the US at any risk of strategic retaliation that it could otherwise avoid.Unlike vice versa for us in the case of the Cuban Missile crisis.
Talksteer said:
The US doesn't get to place any more trust in Royal Navy captain than it does in a French or a Russian one.
The whole basis of the 1958 mutual defence act is for the UK to have an independent nuclear deterant. The historical context was that the UK had fired off a 3Mt staged fusion weapon and done it with no assistance and about 1/10th of the budget.
For the US sharing their bomb designs was essentially free, in exchange they got the UK as their closest and most powerful ally. They also got access to how the UK programme had created the staged fusion device at a much cheaper cost, plus access to the UKs much cheaper plutonium. Given the UK had developed it's own bomb it wasn't like the USA was in a position to attempt to control the UK nuclear weapons. The fact that the UK then bought polaris and then trident doesn't make any difference if the USA wants to control UK nuclear weapons we'd simply build our own missiles.
The USA also helped the french build their nuclear weapons, they did this on a 20 questions method allowing the french to only explore the profitable options to build a staged fusion device but without actually giving them any design information.
My understanding is that French submarine captains cannot order a launch without authorisation from French politicos. I would assume that US leverage over the French deterrent has varied over the years according to the French status within NATO. I doubt if the US trust Russian sub captains in any way whatsoever.The whole basis of the 1958 mutual defence act is for the UK to have an independent nuclear deterant. The historical context was that the UK had fired off a 3Mt staged fusion weapon and done it with no assistance and about 1/10th of the budget.
For the US sharing their bomb designs was essentially free, in exchange they got the UK as their closest and most powerful ally. They also got access to how the UK programme had created the staged fusion device at a much cheaper cost, plus access to the UKs much cheaper plutonium. Given the UK had developed it's own bomb it wasn't like the USA was in a position to attempt to control the UK nuclear weapons. The fact that the UK then bought polaris and then trident doesn't make any difference if the USA wants to control UK nuclear weapons we'd simply build our own missiles.
The USA also helped the french build their nuclear weapons, they did this on a 20 questions method allowing the french to only explore the profitable options to build a staged fusion device but without actually giving them any design information.
I see no benefit to the US handing over delivery system tech to the UK unless there was a control element (we might have leaked the tech to the Soviets, so the cost/risk to the US was potentially high), you probably read too much into the "special" relationship, it's been a pragmatic relationship for many decades, the biggest benefit to the US being access to an unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of mainland Europe and the ability to have some control over Western Europe. Biggest historical benefit to the UK (and Western Europe): keep the Soviets at bay. To be blunt: no US involvement in Europe 1945 onwards = Red Army in Tunbridge Wells, but that US involvement comes at the price of a controlling interest. Seems to have worked OK so far
Cheap plutonium? Research US wealth as a country in the 1960s, the cost of manufacturing their own plutonium was a spit in the ocean. Could the UK afford to develop a fully independent delivery system? We've not had much luck with rockets over the years.
The French had nuclear weapons before Nixon offered assistance. Prior to that, there was little love lost between the US and De Gaulle, hence French departure from NATO in 1967 and the development of the French nuclear deterrent with minimal assistance from the US.
hidetheelephants said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
hidetheelephants said:
There were 2 fizzled fusion bombs and a boosted fission bomb set off in the first set of tests, with the boosted fission regarded as being a face-saver and allowing HMG to proclaim the UK to be the 3rd power to develop fusion weapons; we then had another go a few months later after Penney's boffins had used the experience gained in the first round to get it right, and achieved 1+MT with proper fusion.
Do you have a book or reference that covers that? I would be keen to read up on that. Wiki only mentions the fusion bombs tests.V8 Fettler said:
The US would not have let the UK anywhere near to Trident without maintaining control, that has been the driving force behind continued US involvement in Europe since 1945. The US became involved in European warfare in 1917-18, then went into isolationism. But they were still dragged into the next European conflict, hence US strategy and political objectives in Europe 1945 onwards: remain involved and retain control.
Up until the Resolution class took over the UK deterrence role in the 60s it was the RAF's job; there was no US involvement in that. It's not plausible or even technically feasible that the US could have had an active part in the Polaris chain of command. While it's possible such a thing could have been arranged with Trident I'm not seeing reasons why the MoD would live with it.Edited by hidetheelephants on Sunday 7th September 19:56
Mojocvh said:
XJ Flyer said:
Realistically the US would never have allowed any unilateral strategic type British launch,that would have put the US at any risk of strategic retaliation that it could otherwise avoid.
Could I ask you for proof of that.no government is sufficiently competent to cover it up that well ...
the uk got Polaris because the US canned Skybolt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt
perhaps people are over reading the Nassua agreement , and forgetting the period in which the NATO mulilateral forces were operating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_Sales_Agreeme...
http://web.archive.org/web/20051229080220/http://w...
mph1977 said:
V8 Fettler said:
The US would not have let the UK anywhere near to Trident without maintaining control, that has been the driving force behind continued US involvement in Europe since 1945. The US became involved in European warfare in 1917-18, then went into isolationism. But they were still dragged into the next European conflict, hence US strategy and political objectives in Europe 1945 onwards: remain involved and retain control.
as has been explained the UK was an independent Nuclear power prior to the 1958 agreement and deployed it;s own single keyed Nuclear weapons alongside Polaris until the end of the cold war and the withdrawl of the We .177 series weapons fro mthe FAA and the RAF.Mojocvh said:
XJ Flyer said:
Realistically the US would never have allowed any unilateral strategic type British launch,that would have put the US at any risk of strategic retaliation that it could otherwise avoid.
Could I ask you for proof of that.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff