agree with yell

I'm going to go the other direction on this one.

1: Extended deterrence makes the Trident systems obsolete.  As a member of both NATO and the EU, Britain has close alliances with two nuclear powers: the US and France.  Alone, either nation provides a strong deterrent force.  Together, its credibility in launching a deadly retaliation is pretty much guaranteed, short of some advance in missile defense systems.  In addition, Britain has non-submarine missile systems, such as aircraft and ICBMs.  Britain just doesn't need the Trident subs.
2: Nuclear submarines are risky business.
A: Accidents.  Historically, there have been multiple instances of nuclear submarines colliding into one another.  There's a number of reasons for why these accidents happen, but they undeniably occur.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/international/2009/feb/Nuclear-Submarine-Collision-Stokes-Fears-of-Atomic-Disaster.html

An accident which compromises the integrity of a submarine risks breaking the sub apart, releasing radition in the ocean and causing some nuclear weapons to go loose.  That's bad.

B: First strike capability.  Submarines have a unique capability as a first strike weapon.  A nuclear-equipped submarine could head toward Russia, staying within international waters, and launch a dozen nuclear missiles which would land on their targets in just a few minutes.  Although it seems to be tactically beneficial, this is extremely destabilizing in a world of nuclear deterrence.

In contrast, ICBMs, with their long range, are primarily stationed at a nation's home territory.  This means they take a half hour, or a couple hours, to reach their targets.  Aircraft armed with nuclear weapons have a similar response time, though that can be lessened by redeploying the aircraft or keeping the planes fueled.

If Russia ever thought that a nation equipped with Trident submarines was considering a first strike, Russia would have only a few minutes to retaliate.  That leaves very little room for intelligence, or any sort of verification of information.  It only leaves enough room for reaction... in this case, meaning a Russian first strike.  The clandestine nature of a submarine enhances this problem, as Russia is always living under the possibility that it may have missed a submarine it was patrolling.  On top of that, Russia does not have the most effective radar system, still keeping some detection systems from the Cold War.  That reduces the reliability of its early warning capabilities, only increasing the chance that a nuclear first strike by Russia could occur.

Even a single submarine can present this enormous risk to a nation.  The UK's Trident submarine holds 16 nuclear missiles.  I don't need to tell you that 16 missiles can represent a huge threat to 16 metropolitan areas.  However, that's not the Trident missile's purpose.  Rather, the speed and accuracy of the missiles makes them most effective in counterforce warfare,  or targeting an opponent's nuclear missiles themselves.  As a result, a single submarine can possibly shut down 16 different nuclear launch facilities, forcing opponents to reorganize their strategy.  Alternatively, one of those missiles could be redirected to produce an electromagnetic pulse over the target nation, disrupting RADAR, communications, and possibly even nuclear launch capabilities themselves, rendering a nuclear power harmless within minutes.  That creates instability.

Long story short: If Britain wants the capability to be able to initiate a nuclear war, they should keep their Trident submarines (not that this is a bad thing... a well-executed nuclear first strike could quickly put an end to an upcoming nuclear threat, or could effectively silence an escalating crisis).  However, if the sole intent of nuclear submarines is as a second strike weapon, they're useless at best, and a threat to peace at worst.

> EmperorHez wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that if the US launched a first strike against Russia tbeir Early Warning System would not be able determine if the missiles were American or British. So they would automatically retaliate by blowing up the UK as well as the US.

Agreed, with one caveat: a missile's direction can often indicate its source location.  That being said, your argument enhances my justifications for ending the submarine program.

If Britain officially ended its nuclear SLBM program, it would leave Britain blameless if a first strike would occur as a result of another country.  Britain's only nuclear options remaining would be aircraft-deployed bombs (which generally require a visible launch point) or land-based ICBMs.  Both of these launches would look vastly different from a submarine-launched attack, as the submarine would normally be only a short distance from the target's coastline.  Once it's identified that an attack was coming from a submarine (which could be determined by a mix of whatever radar blips showed up on screen, along with reports from Russian submarines or other naval forces in the area), Britain could be ruled out as a possible aggressor.

Trident should be scrapped and the money put into shoring up our economy.  Swords to ploughshares please.  It's an unnecessary throwback to the Cold War, and that ended nearly 2 decades ago.

well sure

any Chinese general who'd want to waste nukes on the UK would be denounced for corruption

Id be suspicious of France, myself, but I guess neither Vanguard or Trident helps you there

you could threaten a common market wtih Algeria and Turkey as a deterrent against France

Don't have time to construct any proper arguments here but I do have some questions which I would be interested to see people's opinions on (because I don't really know)....

The "nuclear club" is a very exclusive thing. Nations which are similar (talking similar orders of magnitude) in size, population, economy and/or world influence as the UK such as Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia don't have (their own) nukes. Are all these nations in danger of being obliterated? I doubt it, so if the UK were to say farewell to nuclear arms, we wouldn't be anymore vulnerable to whatever evil empires you want to imagine than any of those countries. But all the NATO countries have a nuclear deterrent due to alliance with the USA so would it be hypocritical to give up our nuclear weapons and boast to all the world about how we are holier than thou, even though we know we have only done it knowing that we are still covered by a nuclear deterrent which is much larger and scarier than our own ever was anyway? Is it also shitting on our most important allies by forcing them to pick up the cost for maintaining a nuclear deterrent while we save the cash?

Once UK abandons her nuclear weapons she wouldn't be able to get them back though due to non-proliferation treaties to which we the UK is a signatory, which means the decision not to upkeep a nuclear deterrent would have to be thought through very carefully. So there is no Cold War anymore, but do we know that will always be the case?

Does having nuclear weapons gain us anymore world influence than we would have anyway? Countries which don't like us -Russia, Zimbabwe, Iran for example- don't listen to us anyway even with nuclear weapons. We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, is it our nuclear capability which keeps us there?

If we were to invest in a replacement for Trident to upkeep our nuclear deterrent, would we be in any position to criticise nations like Iran and North Korea for nuclear weapons programmes?

Isn't it all a bit academic anyway? I have heard (from non-credible sources) that the UK cannot launch nukes without getting certain launch codes from the USA or relies on the USA in other ways to support the maintenance of a nuclear deterrent (don't know why this would be, but anyone know if there is any truth in it?). If this is the case, then we don't have an independent nuclear deterrent anyway, so what is the point?

I might be back later if I get more time, possibly with more time to think or construct an opinion.

the UK & US have a Mutual Defence Agreement going..well a couple of different agreements really.

basically the Trident missiles, guidance systems and other gizmos are American. the Vanguard subs sail to Georgia (the state not the country) where the missiles get taken off and swapped with the stockpile there that keeps both US & UK missiles. while their there the guidance systems and computers get maintainance done on them.

the launch authority for the Trident missiles is given to the SACEUR- the NATO Supreme Allied Command Europe which is always an American. but under agreement the UK govt in 'special' and 'extreme' circumstances can fire the missiles without US authority if needs be.

In practise however a scenario that would require the UK to launch a first strike on its own is inconceivable. and in reality Britain would never do such a thing without talking to the US first.

so the deterrent is NOT independent. if the US fell out with the UK they could easily stop techical support for Trident. without servicing it would then be simply a matter of time before the weapons fell into disrepair and became non-operational.

Nevermind... after carefully reviewing this... there is nothing here to indict my arguments.  Come on, someone argue with me!  You know, like the people who were favoring the other side of the argument?  X(

Does anyone here translate from Balszy to English?

Okay, got it.

1: We're not talking about the entire UK arsenal.  We're only talking about one portion of the triad, which means those nations still have to spread out their nuclear weapons.
2: Nuclear submarines provide absolutely no benefit in that regards, because nations rarely, if ever, plan on launching nuclear weapons directly at submarines.  If they did, nuclear-tipped torpedoes would be more commonplace.
3: The close alliance among NATO members means that this has probably already been accounted for in Russian nuclear strategy, with an overwhelming number of nuclear weapons.  Other nations are so far behind in nuclear development that it doesn't matter (China included... their missiles only reach as far as the west coast of the US, so are hardly able to threaten much of Europe).