It would appear that parts of the world are in turmoil, friends aren't who they used to be.
I've read a bit recently about how the French arsenal is 'independent' ie wholly owned and manufactured by France. (Though perhaps reliant on American satellites)
However the British Trident missiles are in effect American.
How much control do we have of them. If we seriously fall out with the USA will we still be able to control them?
Or do the Americans actually have a back door into the system and are able to say 'Alexa switch off UK Trident'. At which point we have some very expensive junk!
No. We're to a large effect independent, in that we sort the warheads ourselves. The missiles are on a rotating basis back to the US for stockpile/maintenance, but we don't loose capability overnight if we really fall out with them.
.....
When the submarine is at sea it has operational independence but still needs the right codes to initiate a launch (I worked with a guy who did that job on T-class submarines) but the weapons control systems is proprietary US technology. It is contained within a special cabinet on the submarine, but the software etc is independent of the rest of the combat system.
Coincidentally the UK Defence Journal has explained all this very day.
Can't think why 🙂
EDIT a link(s) would help https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/heres-how-britains-nukes-are-operationally-independent/ AND https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-confirms-nukes-completely-operationally-independent/
Different aspects in each article
The nuclear warheads are UK designed and built by AWE, but the delivery system, the "missile" is US built. As above, in the case of a complete pull out by the US, we wouldn't lose capability overnight, but it wouldn't be too long before maintenance issues became critical. Theoretically we could talk to the French or other European partners about collaborating on new missiles. There has been a lot of chat about the UK and France providing a European "nuclear umbrella" recently. So with some burden sharing and engineering expertise from the likes of Germany, it could be done, but not quickly. Our subs are built around Trident though, so adapting a new system to them wouldn't be easy, cheap or quick. There are other delivery options, such as aircraft (as the UK used to do with the V bombers) but these are far more vulnerable to preemptive strike than sub launched weapons. Short answer, without the US we wouldn't lose all capability, but at least in the short term it would be significantly degraded.
I thought it was the MIRV parts of the UK deterrent that depended totally on the US.
I may well be wrong, though.
It'd be daft for any bad actors to start a mutually destructive and expensive nuclear confrontation, though. Just seeing how much damage can be done with some lies on social media, some bot farms and a few bungs to local opportunist populists.
🤷♂️
It’s also such a long time since I did my security clearances that I don’t know what bits I’m not supposed to say! 🤡
"still needs the right codes to initiate"
1783?
90210?
1234?
1488, considering the present occupants of the White House?
The code is actually 00000000
Easy to remember.
But not much use unless you can get your hands on a Vanguard-class submarine with the Trident operating system.
The nuclear warheads are UK designed and built by AWE, but the delivery system, the "missile" is US built.
Delivery system always sounds fairly innocuous. The Russian Baltic fleet was out when the missile attempted to deliver to Kaliningrad so we've left the warhead with a neighbour in Minsk for them to collect later.
Have to say that if it did all go tits up, then Britain's complete nuclear arsenal would be a fart in the wind, in comparison to what was coming our way. In effect would just be launched as an act of vengeance/mass murder.
Yes it's relatively small Dyna, but there's enough to take out every Russian launch site (apart from the subs), and naval base. If we're going down I would want them taken out to give our surviving allies more of a chance. I don't think that's 'an act of vengeance or mass murder' but military useful for friendly nations not yet targeted to increase their chances of being able to defend themselves.
I'm assuming that's where our are aimed of course, I would assume the Russians would be more likely to target cities
Have to say that if it did all go tits up, then Britain's complete nuclear arsenal would be a fart in the wind, in comparison to what was coming our way. In effect would just be launched as an act of vengeance/mass murder.
That's how nuclear deterrence works. If the other side launches an attack on you, you destroy their cities in retaliation.
Yep it’s the big stick you don’t ever want to use,don’t forget that in 1991 Ukraine was the third greatest nuclear power,with all the left over USSR bits and bobs.
In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
I'm assuming that's where our are aimed of course, I would assume the Russians would be more likely to target cities
Ours are targeted at Moscow allegedly,that’s the deterrent part, 52 (or 54 can remember the advert)mins from launch to no more Moscow, even if they manage to intercept any there will be enough to do it.
Have to say that if it did all go tits up, then Britain's complete nuclear arsenal would be a fart in the wind, in comparison to what was coming our way.
A "fart in the wind" that would destroy all Russia's major cities and kill tens of millions. Russia knows this and we know what would be coming our way. Which is hopefully 😳 why they will never be used.
The fact that they have a lot more is irrelevant, theirs have to be spread more thinly. Their nuclear arsenal was designed to be targeted all across the US and Western European countries. Ours only have one country in their sights.
Is a British (or French,.or possibly American) threat less of a threat because of the western reluctance to target civilian areas compared to Russia? I mean in terms of recent conventional wars, like Ukraine, where Russia is actively targeting civilians, we are insisting Ukraine doesn't (and TBF they might not anyway) or how the Russians dealt with Allepo compared to our rules of engagement in Iraq?
What I'm saying is does this reticence make the Russians take our threat less seriously than we take theirs and therefore more likely to launch a first strike if they don't believe that we would actually retaliate? Or would just retaliate against military targets rather than dozens of cities. They can't be certain we wouldn't so it's a risk, but I'd be absolutely certain they would if we launched first.
What I'm saying is does this reticence make the Russians take our threat less seriously than we take theirs and therefore more likely to launch a first strike
No. We, the US etc. don't openly discuss nuclear targeting. Condemning the killing of civilians in a regional, conventional war is one thing. Retaliation against a strike that is likely to kill most of your own population and destroy your county is another. It has to be assumed that we would respond in kind or the threat is empty. It's a very grim calculation, but that's how it works. Mutually assured destruction.
I assume the retaliatory strike plans are classified but I'd guess several scenarios including targeting cities of whoever launched the first strike. I see little chance the government at the time would decide to abandon those plans and try to 'play nice' by just nuking military targets instead, not if UK cities had already been hit - and pretty sure the Russians understand that and would factor it in to their decision-making.
We might be more reluctant (n reality vs what might be the official position) to respond to a limited nuclear strike against a UK military target with our own nukes as we'd want to do everything possible (short of capitulation) to prevent escalation to the point cities became targets.
Given the recent change of sides of our erstwhile ally, the US, having our own nuclear deterrence isn’t looking like such a bad idea. Prerhaps we should be extracting minerals from countries under our nuclear umbrella? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (Joking!)
Maybe a second one to wherever Elon happens to be as well.
I'm not sure anything has the range to reach Cloud Cuckoo Land.
‘Limited’ nuclear strike 🙂
Seems like it was years ago that I grew in the 80’s with the continual threat of nuclear war,thought it would be all over when the USSR fell but hey here we are again.
I'm not sure anything has the range to reach Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Dunno there’s that minor inconvenience of a nuclear winter.
Is a British (or French,.or possibly American) threat less of a threat because of the western reluctance to target civilian areas compared to Russia?
My understanding is that there are sufficient nukes aimed at Moscow to obliterate it several times over. I don't think we've ever been squeamish about the ultimate target for these things.
It’s also such a long time since I did my security clearances that I don’t know what bits I’m not supposed to say! 🤡
nothing damn it say nothing
I assume the retaliatory strike plans are classified but I'd guess several scenarios including targeting cities of whoever launched the first strike.
It doesn't matter what we would do, what matters is that whoever we were likely to target doesn't know what we would do and can't guess. Planning to launch their strike (any strike) becomes hugely complicated, thereby removing the option of tactical level strikes (as one example) just in case.
This tends to keep warfare either conventional or strategic nuclear in which case it's MAD.
As I said on the Ukraine thread, consideration of cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines are avenues that we now have to explore so that we can match the conventional weapons of dozens of other states who are free from those conventions. That lowers our need to consider a nuclear option
Developing other launching solutions for the UK is another option to complicate the planning of opposing states, spread that out, give other NATO states a say in deployment, move, change, keep them guessing. France is already part way on this path with both air and sea-launched missiles, but gave up their land-based option three decades ago
Oh great, another armchair generals thread. I always find debate on this stuff fascinating. Casual discussion about the murder of millions of innocent civilians like it's a football match. It's probably about the most distasteful and macabre discussion subject on this forum. Not even sure why it isn't banned, if we were talking about the willing murder of politicians or groups of people in the UK the thread would be closed in a second.
The Trident D5 is well understood and relatively old technology which we could, if required, recreate using MBDA and BAE Systems. The control system is more difficult as it's not something we routinely interrogate, nor do we have comparable systems in another field. The PAAMS system developed by EUROPAAMS is probably the closest. The MIRVs are ours, designed, maintained and targeted by us.
A fully independent, replacement deterrent is possible within the lifetime of the current missiles, but would be expensive as it would require infrastructure for manufacture, test and refurbishment that we do not currently have.
Oh great, another armchair generals thread
Oh behave, It's nothing like that. Most (if not all) of the folks on here have lived in the shadow of these things our entire lives, how else are we supposed to rationalise the destruction of us all? Ignore it? wring our hands endless about it? News flash, we live on a spinning hunk of rock travelling through an desolate and un-caring universe, life could be wiped out in a millisecond, and it wouldn't matter a jot.
Casual discussion about the murder of millions of innocent civilians like it's a football match.
No one has said this it all!. Indeed everyone has said there's nothing casual about it - it's end of the world stuff.
With exception to on occasional glib comment about Musk and Trump, everyone is focussing on the practicalities of it. It's more a discussion about politics and engineering capabilities than it is about warfare and generals
Oh great, another armchair generals thread. I always find debate on this stuff fascinating. Casual discussion about the murder of millions of innocent civilians like it's a football match. It's probably about the most distasteful and macabre discussion subject on this forum. Not even sure why it isn't banned, if we were talking about the willing murder of politicians or groups of people in the UK the thread would be closed in a second.
You don't have to read it
It’s also such a long time since I did my security clearances that I don’t know what bits I’m not supposed to say!
For starters, this bit...
I did my security clearances
Oh great, another armchair generals thread. I always find debate on this stuff fascinating. Casual discussion
Oh great, another abusive opening post by dazh. What are the alternatives to "casual discussion"? Hysterical discussion? No discussion at all? This is the chat forum. This is one of the most significant and concerning things that is happening in the world right now. As much as we don't like it (I have kids, a nice life I'd like to hold onto thanks) the mechanics of it are relevant. Why do you come on here apart from to insult people, with your sick insinuations that people are relishing this?
Oh great, another armchair generals thread. I always find debate on this stuff fascinating. Casual discussion about the murder of millions of innocent civilians like it's a football match. It's probably about the most distasteful and macabre discussion subject on this forum. Not even sure why it isn't banned, if we were talking about the willing murder of politicians or groups of people in the UK the thread would be closed in a second.
Why on Earth can't we discuss it? This is a very real thing that concerns everyone on the planet; and for me it's been a rather morbid interest ever since I was a boy and saw RAF Fylingdales from the car window. Nobody is glorifying or promoting anything, just talking about it.
To be honest Nuclear War is more of a geopolitical thought experiment to most people than anything else. If anything there is not enough casual discourse on it, and the general public's idea of how it all works is very lacking.
the French arsenal is 'independent' ie wholly owned and manufactured by France. (Though perhaps reliant on American satellites)
I would hope the French use Galileo. Which we probably can't, post Brexit.
Casual discussion about the murder of millions of innocent civilians like it's a football match.
Since we're all the civilians in the firing line, I think it's a very important conversation to be having.
Like it or not there are people and computer models considering this stuff on a daily basis.
Oh great, another armchair generals thread. I always find debate on this stuff fascinating. Casual discussion about the murder of millions of innocent civilians like it's a football match. It's probably about the most distasteful and macabre discussion subject on this forum. Not even sure why it isn't banned, if we were talking about the willing murder of politicians or groups of people in the UK the thread would be closed in a second.
daz, what exactly is your point?
No one questions the engineering ability. It's the political will and ability of EU populations to swallow the financial and other sacrifices it will require. At a time when the world should be pouring all it's resources into mitigating and delaying climate change, instead it'll be focusing the effort and resources on building weapons of mass destruction. I doubt many voters in the EU will be willing to swallow that.
The problem is that others in the world don't want to mitigate and delay climate change while their economies positively depend on exporting fossil fuels.
It's also a political reality that some of those same states want to invade independent states for "reasons", despite the simple option of going home existing. It's also a reality that they are forming an axis of other nuclear states around them to fight on their behalf and take an active part in their war.
There are other independent states that are being shaped for invasion if Ukraine falls and all are in Europe. There's plenty for you to think about without worrying about a discussion amongst a group of cyclists.
Is a British (or French,.or possibly American) threat less of a threat because of the western reluctance to target civilian areas compared to Russia?
Maybe we can ask some Iraqis and Afghans and Yemenis about the "western reluctance to target civilian areas"...?
I would hope the French use Galileo. Which we probably can't, post Brexit.
There are plenty of satellites up there 🙂 Earlier this week France added CSO 3 to the constellation
The MUSIS programme
This programme includes three optical space components (CSO) satellites, a Mission Ground Segment, and an User Ground Segment allowing access to German SARah satellites and the realization of the CIL allowing access to Italian CSG satellites. These resources provide situational awareness and strategic intelligence capabilities, as well as support for crisis prevention and anticipation, and for the planning and conduct of operations. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-03-ariane-6-launches-cso-3-double-success-for-france-and-europe
daz, what exactly is your point?
I think it's just a typical example of Daz overemphasizing a vaguely valid point. The casual nature which the subject is being discussed is slightly alarming imo, but it simply reflects discussions which are being reported in the media, which I also find slightly alarming.
The casual nature of discussions concerning a new nuclear arms race and an expansion of nuclear proliferation, as being discussed in the media due to political developments in the US, should be a worry because nuclear war is simply not a realistic option.
If we're going down I would want them taken out to give our surviving allies more of a chance. I don't think that's 'an act of vengeance or mass murder'
Think it's comments like this which I dislike the most. Killing millions of people in response to millions of our people being killed is somewhat vengeful and murderous. I'm not naive enough to think it won't happen in the highly unlikely scenario that Russia launches nukes against us but by that time the game is already lost and there's no need to care about what comes next because whoever survives will be back in the stone age (it'll be worse actually).
AFAIK the last few PMs have written in their "final instructions" to sub captains that they were to take no retaliatory action should a nuclear armed country launch nukes at us.
This is a very real thing that concerns everyone on the planet; and for me it's been a rather morbid interest ever since I was a boy and saw RAF Fylingdales from the car window
In my teenage years my father (in the RAF) was stationed at Fylingdales and a while before that in Gutersloh (Germany) which was the main harrier base at the time (and key to trying to stop a Soviet ground invasion through Germany) so I've grown up living close to prime first strike locations and ended up with more than a passing interest in it to.
AFAIK the last few PMs have written in their "final instructions" to sub captains that they were to take no retaliatory action should a nuclear armed country launch nukes at us.
The "Letters of Last Resort" are for if a sub is cut off from communications *after* a presumed nuclear exchange and presumed destruction of the UK as a country, not just if an ICBM is fired at us. A first-strike missile against the UK would provoke a different set of responses entirely.
There are various options sealed inside the letter that are full-scale retaliation, surrender, or hand yourself to the command of an allied nation should one still exist etc. Even the contents of the letters is only purported though, and there is no way that we would actually know what they did say. Leaking the instructions from the last PM would be a grave matter of national security. It is, unfortunately, vital that an adversary is under the impression that a retaliation would take place...whether it would or not.
The casual nature which the subject is being discussed is slightly alarming imo
Formal discussions only - no bow tie, no posts 😁
The problem is that others in the world don't want to mitigate and delay climate change while their economies positively depend on exporting fossil fuels.
Yes thanks for that. I was of course already aware of why some countries like the US aren't interested in combating climate change. It is however a salutory lesson in the self-destructive myopia of the human species. Maybe a nuclear war would be best all round and Putin and Trump are to be celebrated for brining us closer to putting us out of our misery. The human race doesn't deserve to survive.
I would hope the French use Galileo.
They dont or at least I doubt they do. I assume like the US/UK and Russian missiles they use astro-inertial navigation and so are completely self contained.
Since a)it doesnt need to be ultra precise and b)gps/galileo are vulnerable to be destroyed as part of a nuclear first strike. Detonate a couple of nukes in orbit and you would wipe them (plus all other satellites including your own) out.
Anyway - all of Russia needs nukeing - history has shown that the species that inhabt that land cannot be trusted.
Wow. From normalisation of mass murder to barely disguised racism and genocide. What a thread!
Anyway - all of Russia needs nukeing - history has shown that the species that inhabt that land cannot be trusted
Wow. ..<Clinton Baptiste mode>"I'm getting the word.... Nazi"!!!</Clinton Baptiste mode>
Killing millions of people in response to millions of our people being killed is somewhat vengeful and murderous.
Yeah but no one on here is doing that killing, planning to or ever likely to be in any position to influence those who are. We are irrelevant, powerless plebs and would be targets on an obscure cycling forum. The only pressure relief valve we have is to talk about it. Are you suggesting we shouldn't even do that?
I cant help but laugh at all these rich preppers who have bought decommissioned missile silos in the US to turn into their own little nuclear bunker
Rather than being safe, its more likely those spots have been mapped and pinpointed by Russian(Chinese etc) and will be receiving a salvo.
In my teenage years my father (in the RAF) was stationed at Fylingdales and a while before that in Gutersloh (Germany) which was the main harrier base at the time (and key to trying to stop a Soviet ground invasion through Germany) so I've grown up living close to prime first strike locations and ended up with more than a passing interest in it to.
It's just a rather scary looking building isn't it! Definitely held my attention on our holidays down to Yorkshire when I was a kid. Went down a bit of a rabbit hole with it as a young teenager and spent a few years being scared to death of the idea haha. Now though it's just turned into a general interest thankfully, and I am under the impression it will likely not happen.
AFAIK the last few PMs have written in their "final instructions" to sub captains that they were to take no retaliatory action should a nuclear armed country launch nukes at us.
is your point that nobody knows or are you suggesting you know the content of what we’re presumably highly classified documents and posted the gist of them in here?
a nuclear deterrent which the enemy thinks you won’t have the nerve to use is pointless, so even if there was some such instruction it seems unlikely that anyone would be told about it who was not likely to go to jail for posting about it online. That doesn’t mean you are wrong, it means I don’t believe you are right.
Maybe a nuclear war would be best all round and Putin and Trump are to be celebrated
Yep, the resulting cloud of dust would lower climate temperatures and slow global warming
It's just a rather scary looking building isn't it! Definitely held my attention on our holidays down to Yorkshire when I was a kid. Went down a bit of a rabbit hole with it as a young teenager and spent a few years being scared to death of the idea haha. Now though it's just turned into a general interest thankfully, and I am under the impression it will likely not happen.
I had a base tour there once and whilst in the main ops centre the BMEWS detection alarm went off, I wondered why everyone wasn't more spooked by it. One of the radar operators had to look through a binder and work out it was known space junk so the alarm got cancelled but it was something that happened several times a day. Hopefully whatever systems are in place these days are a bit more sophisticated (this must have been late 80s)!
We were also told during the tour that the base would likely be attacked & neutralised by Spetsnaz prior to any Soviet nuclear launches, that didn't help put my mind at ease either :p
I had a base tour there once and whilst in the main ops centre the BMEWS detection alarm went off, I wondered why everyone wasn't more spooked by it. One of the radar operators had to look through a binder and work out it was known space junk so the alarm got cancelled but it was something that happened several times a day. Hopefully whatever systems are in place these days are a bit more sophisticated (this must have been late 80s)!
We were also told during the tour that the base would likely be attacked & neutralised by Spetsnaz prior to any Soviet nuclear launches, that didn't help put my mind at ease either :p
-----------
I'd love a tour! not sure they would do one these days, never know.
I think these days Fylingdales and the other radar systems on the ground work in conjunction with SBIRS satellites from the US, who can more or less instantly track an ICBM launch from it's exhaust plume before it powers out and starts it's space flight. So from my understanding it would be quite unlikely for the ground systems to be the first point of sight for an incoming missile strike - more that they are used once it comes over the horizon to further track and calculate trajectory. So you'd hope that they'd know about anything a few minutes beforehand...I may be wrong!
(sorry I don't know how to quote a reply properly!)
We were also told during the tour that the base would likely be attacked & neutralised by Spetsnaz prior to any Soviet nuclear launches,
Which in itself would mean its a success as an early warning system for launching missiles back the other way.
- Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
- Jim Hacker: I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
- Sir Humphrey: It's a deterrent.
- Jim Hacker: It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.
- Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
- Jim Hacker: They probably do.
- Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.
- Jim Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.
- Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.
- Jim Hacker: What?
Thing is, MAD has been rather successful hasn’t it? No one has dropped a nuke in anger since 1945, think about that for a moment. Also, the West has not been in direct confrontation with Russia throughout that period.
Well other than the few down my way Palomares (in Spain) that went off in ‘66 although that was part of an accident.
I think the odds of getting nuked again are pretty low 🙂
I assume like the US/UK and Russian missiles they use astro-inertial navigation and so are completely self contained.
Fair point. Thanks.
(sorry I don't know how to quote a reply properly!)
place your cursor over the start of the text you want to quote and while holding your left(if right handed) mouse button glide the cursor over the text and youll see a little ,, appear. Click that and the text will be quoted.
My father in law was the Weapons Commander of a Polaris nuclear sub based out of the Gairloch. I got to asked him the question would he and he answered without hesitation yes.
In some ways his answer was reassuring in that any doubt on MAD could be seen as an opportunity to strike without the inevitable retaliation. I think that time is in the past thankfully and it’s all posturing now.
A lot of oligarchs would be upset if their London mansions were vaporised and the villa in Amalfi was affected by nuclear winter.
I do wonder if Putin would find out about the terrible design of Russian windows if the crunch came, it’s just hard to know if it’s posturing until it isn’t.(The world is definitely different from the past, as it’s not the USSR who didn’t own a whole lot of really nice stuff in quite the same way as they do now and would still like to enjoy the life they have now)
I wasn’t surprised he invaded Ukraine as he had a way back and had seen how his last expansion had played out but there’s no return from a nuclear launch from his side.
I assume like the US/UK and Russian missiles they use astro-inertial navigation and so are completely self contained.
I would probably guess (jokingly) its impossible to get one to fly west from its point of launch though I do know the Mirv's have no terminal guidance
I would probably guess (jokingly) its impossible to get one to fly west from its point of launch
The last but one UK test had to be aborted cos it was doing just that. Decided to head for the USA!
On the "is it really independent?" question that the last two UK tests failed does help out the conspiracy theories.
