Trident

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Stirlingsays 26 Apr 17 7.28am
Originally posted by steeleye20 Your previous post is wrong there is only ever 1 submarine at sea the issue is whether an enemy could destroy it. Obviously Portillo has been conservative defence minister and has dealt with such matters. The fact that there has been one reported at sea is not defence policy. Upgrades, repairs and so on. There can be multiple subs at sea for obvious reasons. Like I said about Portillo. You are only backing his views that you agree with so to use him as an authority is dubious. He was also Minister of State for Local Government where he argued for the implementation of the poll tax. Did you agree with that then as having experience of local government he must be right eh? He was also a shadow chancellor, do you generally agree with his views on economic policies per chance? 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

26 Apr 17 7.28am

Originally posted by steeleye20

Your previous post is wrong there is only ever 1 submarine at sea the issue is whether an enemy could destroy it.

Obviously Portillo has been conservative defence minister and has dealt with such matters.

The fact that there has been one reported at sea is not defence policy. Upgrades, repairs and so on. There can be multiple subs at sea for obvious reasons.

Like I said about Portillo. You are only backing his views that you agree with so to use him as an authority is dubious.

He was also Minister of State for Local Government where he argued for the implementation of the poll tax. Did you agree with that then as having experience of local government he must be right eh?

He was also a shadow chancellor, do you generally agree with his views on economic policies per chance?

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 26 Apr 17 8.21am
Portillo thought the minimum wage was economic madness. Stick to train journeys. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 26 Apr 17 8.21am

Portillo thought the minimum wage was economic madness.

Stick to train journeys.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 Apr 17 10.46am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays The fact that there has been one reported at sea is not defence policy. Upgrades, repairs and so on. There can be multiple subs at sea for obvious reasons. Like I said about Portillo. You are only backing his views that you agree with so to use him as an authority is dubious. He was also Minister of State for Local Government where he argued for the implementation of the poll tax. Did you agree with that then as having experience of local government he must be right eh? He was also a shadow chancellor, do you generally agree with his views on economic policies per chance? During standard operations there is always one trident submarine in service, one will be conducting training and one will be in dock undergoing maintenance. During periods of raised threat, I would imagine that the one in training mode would be on active service as well. The point of trident was that it could provide a retaliatory strike even if the UK was taken out in a surprise strike that eliminated the UK. That operation Trident I believe had the capacity to strike between 12-18 cities with a massive nuclear payload (as each Polaris missile has multiple warheads). The system was set up so that even if there was no one in the UK to authorise a strike, the commander had access to a safe containing a written order from the prime minister as to whether they should launch or not. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 Apr 17 10.46am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The fact that there has been one reported at sea is not defence policy. Upgrades, repairs and so on. There can be multiple subs at sea for obvious reasons.

Like I said about Portillo. You are only backing his views that you agree with so to use him as an authority is dubious.

He was also Minister of State for Local Government where he argued for the implementation of the poll tax. Did you agree with that then as having experience of local government he must be right eh?

He was also a shadow chancellor, do you generally agree with his views on economic policies per chance?

During standard operations there is always one trident submarine in service, one will be conducting training and one will be in dock undergoing maintenance. During periods of raised threat, I would imagine that the one in training mode would be on active service as well.

The point of trident was that it could provide a retaliatory strike even if the UK was taken out in a surprise strike that eliminated the UK. That operation Trident I believe had the capacity to strike between 12-18 cities with a massive nuclear payload (as each Polaris missile has multiple warheads).

The system was set up so that even if there was no one in the UK to authorise a strike, the commander had access to a safe containing a written order from the prime minister as to whether they should launch or not.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 Apr 17 11.32am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Aren't you making a lot of guesses here? Read the 'Secret State' it details the operational functionality and methodology behind Trident. Originally posted by Stirlingsays How are they going to sink your submarines first without first firing their nukes the the targeting data to be sent? Do you think all the subs are transmitting their location at the same time of something? Doesn't really work like that - Only a Prime Minister or Nuclear deputy (in the Prime Ministers absence) can order the launch of a nuclear strike. The Submarine sits in comms silence, in a location only known to the crew (once they are there) and maybe a couple of people at the most. It only moves if the plan requires it, or if the captain has to provide an emergency order to do so (so as to avoid say Russian escort vessels) - Remember the submarine generally sits in either international waters or other countries national waters So if a Trident submarine is located its capacity to defend itself is very limited, if existent at all, remember that the UK doesn't even monitor where their submarines are or communicate with them once they are in location. They do the utmost to not give away their location. Modern Electronic warfare would likely be able to pin point the location of the submarine by its response and commination's emission). Originally posted by Stirlingsays How do you know they can intercept multiple subs in time? Well its usually safe to assume that if its a nation capable of a nuclear strike at the UK, it probably has an air force, likely a navy as well - including Hunter-Killer submarines - and has invested heavily in communications and Electronic warfare. How long do you think it takes to reprogram a nuclear missile - Longer than you think, plus you probably need to surface, wait for the transmission signal, verify that signal, download the target data, update the missiles, verify the target data against the transmission, and confirm. Remember that you have to do all this, before the enemy launches its strike as well. Certainly you won't be able to do it in 7 or 8 minutes. These are nuclear systems, there are all manner of required protocol and safety procedures in place to prevent them being duped, falling into enemy hands or being destroyed. Plus you can't protect them with your Navy, as that kind of reveals where they are. So likely they'll be able to narrow down were your subs are, and then move into position to destroy them before they launch. Originally posted by Stirlingsays I think you massively underplay how difficult it would be to destroy the subs before their themselves launch? Yes, but remember that in the cold war the Russians roughly knew where 'in terms of the ocean' Trident submarines were and conducted exercises in the area - usually with Hunter-Killer subs. Which was the case with the UK and Soviet navy, they were actively looking for each others nuclear capable submarines. When your in international and violating national waters, you can't really protest about the 'training exercises' that someone is running. Originally posted by Stirlingsays As for the location of the threat, part of the point about subs is that most locations are in range. Not really, a Polaris missiles range is about 4500 miles at the most. Its designed as a second strike option. They aren't intercontinental ballistic missiles. As I said, its ideal if you know where the attack is coming from, like in the Cold War. Its not suited to a flexible option, because it becomes less reliable, and in terms of a MAD deterant the enemy has to be aware that you can destroy them. Note that Trident is an all or nothing option - The captain can't fire a missile, just all of them (as no one on the submarine knows what the targets are). So we'd either need a different system, or a lot more submarines (remember you need at least two per country you want to defend against). Realistically though, the only countries that have a likely technology capable of a full scale nuclear strike on the UK are Russia and China (and the reality of that would be economic suicide for either given how much investment they have in the UK markets). pakistan only has short range missile and air craft deployed weapons, same with India. North Korea is too far away, France, The US and Israel are allies, South Africa no longer has nuclear capability. But once Iran comes into the equation and North Korea arguably achieves intercontinental ballistic capability, then Trident is redundant, unless we build around nine more submarines (You'd need more because the Trident can only really spend six months at the most at sea, so given the distances, you need more submarines for distant locations - because you can't re-supply them. Trident - Was an excellent cold war solution to ensuring that UK and NATO could always retaliate to the use of Soviet nuclear weapons. It isn't going to work going into a modern age. Operationally Trident is designed specifically for a single type of cold war scenario. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 Apr 17 11.32am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Aren't you making a lot of guesses here?

Read the 'Secret State' it details the operational functionality and methodology behind Trident.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays
How are they going to sink your submarines first without first firing their nukes the the targeting data to be sent? Do you think all the subs are transmitting their location at the same time of something?

Doesn't really work like that - Only a Prime Minister or Nuclear deputy (in the Prime Ministers absence) can order the launch of a nuclear strike. The Submarine sits in comms silence, in a location only known to the crew (once they are there) and maybe a couple of people at the most. It only moves if the plan requires it, or if the captain has to provide an emergency order to do so (so as to avoid say Russian escort vessels) - Remember the submarine generally sits in either international waters or other countries national waters

So if a Trident submarine is located its capacity to defend itself is very limited, if existent at all, remember that the UK doesn't even monitor where their submarines are or communicate with them once they are in location.

They do the utmost to not give away their location. Modern Electronic warfare would likely be able to pin point the location of the submarine by its response and commination's emission).

Originally posted by Stirlingsays
How do you know they can intercept multiple subs in time?

Well its usually safe to assume that if its a nation capable of a nuclear strike at the UK, it probably has an air force, likely a navy as well - including Hunter-Killer submarines - and has invested heavily in communications and Electronic warfare.

How long do you think it takes to reprogram a nuclear missile - Longer than you think, plus you probably need to surface, wait for the transmission signal, verify that signal, download the target data, update the missiles, verify the target data against the transmission, and confirm.

Remember that you have to do all this, before the enemy launches its strike as well. Certainly you won't be able to do it in 7 or 8 minutes. These are nuclear systems, there are all manner of required protocol and safety procedures in place to prevent them being duped, falling into enemy hands or being destroyed.

Plus you can't protect them with your Navy, as that kind of reveals where they are.

So likely they'll be able to narrow down were your subs are, and then move into position to destroy them before they launch.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I think you massively underplay how difficult it would be to destroy the subs before their themselves launch?

Yes, but remember that in the cold war the Russians roughly knew where 'in terms of the ocean' Trident submarines were and conducted exercises in the area - usually with Hunter-Killer subs.

Which was the case with the UK and Soviet navy, they were actively looking for each others nuclear capable submarines.

When your in international and violating national waters, you can't really protest about the 'training exercises' that someone is running.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays
As for the location of the threat, part of the point about subs is that most locations are in range.

Not really, a Polaris missiles range is about 4500 miles at the most. Its designed as a second strike option. They aren't intercontinental ballistic missiles.

As I said, its ideal if you know where the attack is coming from, like in the Cold War. Its not suited to a flexible option, because it becomes less reliable, and in terms of a MAD deterant the enemy has to be aware that you can destroy them.

Note that Trident is an all or nothing option - The captain can't fire a missile, just all of them (as no one on the submarine knows what the targets are).

So we'd either need a different system, or a lot more submarines (remember you need at least two per country you want to defend against).

Realistically though, the only countries that have a likely technology capable of a full scale nuclear strike on the UK are Russia and China (and the reality of that would be economic suicide for either given how much investment they have in the UK markets).

pakistan only has short range missile and air craft deployed weapons, same with India. North Korea is too far away, France, The US and Israel are allies, South Africa no longer has nuclear capability.

But once Iran comes into the equation and North Korea arguably achieves intercontinental ballistic capability, then Trident is redundant, unless we build around nine more submarines (You'd need more because the Trident can only really spend six months at the most at sea, so given the distances, you need more submarines for distant locations - because you can't re-supply them.

Trident - Was an excellent cold war solution to ensuring that UK and NATO could always retaliate to the use of Soviet nuclear weapons. It isn't going to work going into a modern age.

Operationally Trident is designed specifically for a single type of cold war scenario.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 26 Apr 17 11.48am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Not really, a Polaris missiles range is about 4500 miles at the most. Its designed as a second strike option. They aren't intercontinental ballistic missiles. As I said, its ideal if you know where the attack is coming from, like in the Cold War. Its not suited to a flexible option, because it becomes less reliable, and in terms of a MAD deterant the enemy has to be aware that you can destroy them. Note that Trident is an all or nothing option - The captain can't fire a missile, just all of them (as no one on the submarine knows what the targets are). So we'd either need a different system, or a lot more submarines (remember you need at least two per country you want to defend against). Realistically though, the only countries that have a likely technology capable of a full scale nuclear strike on the UK are Russia and China (and the reality of that would be economic suicide for either given how much investment they have in the UK markets). pakistan only has short range missile and air craft deployed weapons, same with India. North Korea is too far away, France, The US and Israel are allies, South Africa no longer has nuclear capability. But once Iran comes into the equation and North Korea arguably achieves intercontinental ballistic capability, then Trident is redundant, unless we build around nine more submarines (You'd need more because the Trident can only really spend six months at the most at sea, so given the distances, you need more submarines for distant locations - because you can't re-supply them. Trident - Was an excellent cold war solution to ensuring that UK and NATO could always retaliate to the use of Soviet nuclear weapons. It isn't going to work going into a modern age. Operationally Trident is designed specifically for a single type of cold war scenario. Trident becomes pretty much obsolete purely because we don't know who the enemy are any more. Do you strike back at Russia (as in the cold war)? Or N. Korea?, Or even China? Any of them could theoretically launch some form of first strike (Korea is iffy, but we don't really know for sure how advanced they are). So your "we've been wiped out, but we are taking you with us" (MAD) approach doesn't work - do we take them all out (even if we could and even though in all likelihood at least two of them are totally innocent) or do we gamble on the most likely enemy (given these subs are at sea for months, that can change and they won't want to be communicating or moving too much).
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 26 Apr 17 11.48am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Not really, a Polaris missiles range is about 4500 miles at the most. Its designed as a second strike option. They aren't intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Note that Trident is an all or nothing option - The captain can't fire a missile, just all of them (as no one on the submarine knows what the targets are).

So we'd either need a different system, or a lot more submarines (remember you need at least two per country you want to defend against).

Trident - Was an excellent cold war solution to ensuring that UK and NATO could always retaliate to the use of Soviet nuclear weapons. It isn't going to work going into a modern age.

Operationally Trident is designed specifically for a single type of cold war scenario.

Trident becomes pretty much obsolete purely because we don't know who the enemy are any more. Do you strike back at Russia (as in the cold war)? Or N. Korea?, Or even China?

Any of them could theoretically launch some form of first strike (Korea is iffy, but we don't really know for sure how advanced they are).

So your "we've been wiped out, but we are taking you with us" (MAD) approach doesn't work - do we take them all out (even if we could and even though in all likelihood at least two of them are totally innocent) or do we gamble on the most likely enemy (given these subs are at sea for months, that can change and they won't want to be communicating or moving too much).

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 Apr 17 11.51am
Sorry correction - The UK has two active submarines - as each does a three month operation tour at a time and during quiet times one submarine will be docked and the crew are on leave. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 Apr 17 11.51am

Sorry correction - The UK has two active submarines - as each does a three month operation tour at a time and during quiet times one submarine will be docked and the crew are on leave.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James 26 Apr 17 11.56am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Sorry correction - The UK has two active submarines - as each does a three month operation tour at a time and during quiet times one submarine will be docked and the crew are on leave. F**king hell Jamie, national secrets and all that. Loose lips sink ships. Good job there are no Russians on the HOL Mr Bubble Mouth.
Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James

26 Apr 17 11.56am

Send a Private Message to Part Time James

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Sorry correction - The UK has two active submarines - as each does a three month operation tour at a time and during quiet times one submarine will be docked and the crew are on leave.

F**king hell Jamie, national secrets and all that. Loose lips sink ships. Good job there are no Russians on the HOL Mr Bubble Mouth.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 26 Apr 17 1.12pm
The real winner out of all this is the submarine commander as he is the only one still alive! The PMs authorisation is worthless as the cmdr does not have to go the safe or even read the letter from an incinerated PM and MOD. Trident is very 'boys with toys' isn't it of course paid for by someone else. Its very 'Red Oktober' where the Cmdr has unlimited power and uses it to defect, this is what is best to do not fire but surrender he is not going back home is he? Its a glaring fault that he can act independently as a first strike and the sub can be completely out of contact with London. For me I just don't believe that the submarine cannot be located and destroyed with technology evolving so fast, even now actually but certainly by 2050 when these gadgets are re-booted. Russians view the testing of these by the way they are invited by us and the reason is that otherwise they would think it was the real thing. Farcical. But not a deterrent to first strike and then we are fried anyway.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 26 Apr 17 1.12pm

The real winner out of all this is the submarine commander as he is the only one still alive!

The PMs authorisation is worthless as the cmdr does not have to go the safe or even read the letter from an incinerated PM and MOD.

Trident is very 'boys with toys' isn't it of course paid for by someone else.

Its very 'Red Oktober' where the Cmdr has unlimited power and uses it to defect, this is what is best to do not fire but surrender he is not going back home is he?

Its a glaring fault that he can act independently as a first strike and the sub can be completely out of contact with London.

For me I just don't believe that the submarine cannot be located and destroyed with technology evolving so fast, even now actually but certainly by 2050 when these gadgets are re-booted.

Russians view the testing of these by the way they are invited by us and the reason is that otherwise they would think it was the real thing.

Farcical.

But not a deterrent to first strike and then we are fried anyway.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 Apr 17 1.25pm
Originally posted by Part Time James F**king hell Jamie, national secrets and all that. Loose lips sink ships. Good job there are no Russians on the HOL Mr Bubble Mouth. Oddly none of this is even restricted information - its all well published. I guess there isn't much point in having a deterrent if the other side doesn't know what its capable of, and just how well engineered the system is to ensure it can 'retaliate' in any situation. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 Apr 17 1.25pm

Originally posted by Part Time James

F**king hell Jamie, national secrets and all that. Loose lips sink ships. Good job there are no Russians on the HOL Mr Bubble Mouth.

Oddly none of this is even restricted information - its all well published. I guess there isn't much point in having a deterrent if the other side doesn't know what its capable of, and just how well engineered the system is to ensure it can 'retaliate' in any situation.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James 26 Apr 17 1.27pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Oddly none of this is even restricted information - its all well published. I guess there isn't much point in having a deterrent if the other side doesn't know what its capable of, and just how well engineered the system is to ensure it can 'retaliate' in any situation. I thought the USA was our deterrent. Everyone is a bit worried that they might help us out. Eventually.
Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James

26 Apr 17 1.27pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I thought the USA was our deterrent. Everyone is a bit worried that they might help us out. Eventually.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 Apr 17 1.44pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 The real winner out of all this is the submarine commander as he is the only one still alive! The PMs authorisation is worthless as the cmdr does not have to go the safe or even read the letter from an incinerated PM and MOD. Assuming that the entire crew go along with it, and the first mate gives his fire codes up, along with the key. Originally posted by steeleye20 Its very 'Red Oktober' where the Cmdr has unlimited power and uses it to defect, this is what is best to do not fire but surrender he is not going back home is he? Again, only if the crew play along, and if he defects what use is a submarine full of missiles pre-targeted at soviet cities to the Soviets. Its worth noting that Trident training exercises are and have been conducted without notice - Remember these guys are sat for months at a time, with no contact to the outside world and tested. Originally posted by steeleye20 Its a glaring fault that he can act independently as a first strike and the sub can be completely out of contact with London. He doesn't act entirely alone - there are other crew members that have to establish certain situations - Remember that whilst the submarine isn't able to communicate it can listen into transmissions. They're not in a total vacuum. What they can't do is broadcast. Submarine crew qualification is very hard, you get one chance to pass selection. Originally posted by steeleye20 For me I just don't believe that the submarine cannot be located and destroyed with technology evolving so fast, even now actually but certainly by 2050 when these gadgets are re-booted. They sit very deep, and operate under an almost total silence, in a very wide sea. That doesn't mean they can't be detected, but that its very difficult. Virtually no one knows where they are (including most of the crew), and they move periodically. I guess they could be found, but its going to be more about luck. Originally posted by steeleye20 But not a deterrent to first strike and then we are fried anyway. Its a deterrent in so much as it assures the capacity to retaliate (16 missiles each with four to eight nuclear war heads, each capable of independent targets). Its not quite MAD as with the US and CCCP, but its as close as we can really get. Before those letters of last resort are written by each prime minister, the navy command go through a detailed account of just how much damage a single trident submarine is capable of doing. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 Apr 17 1.44pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

The real winner out of all this is the submarine commander as he is the only one still alive!

The PMs authorisation is worthless as the cmdr does not have to go the safe or even read the letter from an incinerated PM and MOD.

Assuming that the entire crew go along with it, and the first mate gives his fire codes up, along with the key.

Originally posted by steeleye20
Its very 'Red Oktober' where the Cmdr has unlimited power and uses it to defect, this is what is best to do not fire but surrender he is not going back home is he?

Again, only if the crew play along, and if he defects what use is a submarine full of missiles pre-targeted at soviet cities to the Soviets.

Its worth noting that Trident training exercises are and have been conducted without notice - Remember these guys are sat for months at a time, with no contact to the outside world and tested.

Originally posted by steeleye20
Its a glaring fault that he can act independently as a first strike and the sub can be completely out of contact with London.

He doesn't act entirely alone - there are other crew members that have to establish certain situations - Remember that whilst the submarine isn't able to communicate it can listen into transmissions. They're not in a total vacuum. What they can't do is broadcast.

Submarine crew qualification is very hard, you get one chance to pass selection.

Originally posted by steeleye20
For me I just don't believe that the submarine cannot be located and destroyed with technology evolving so fast, even now actually but certainly by 2050 when these gadgets are re-booted.

They sit very deep, and operate under an almost total silence, in a very wide sea. That doesn't mean they can't be detected, but that its very difficult. Virtually no one knows where they are (including most of the crew), and they move periodically. I guess they could be found, but its going to be more about luck.

Originally posted by steeleye20
But not a deterrent to first strike and then we are fried anyway.

Its a deterrent in so much as it assures the capacity to retaliate (16 missiles each with four to eight nuclear war heads, each capable of independent targets). Its not quite MAD as with the US and CCCP, but its as close as we can really get.

Before those letters of last resort are written by each prime minister, the navy command go through a detailed account of just how much damage a single trident submarine is capable of doing.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 Apr 17 1.51pm
Originally posted by Part Time James I thought the USA was our deterrent. Everyone is a bit worried that they might help us out. Eventually. NATO's nuclear capability is split between France and the UK. The general assumption is that the US would come to the assistance of the UK and NATO. France has some nuclear submarines (always one in service) and a number of more conventional deployable warheads. However, the UK and Frances nuclear capability are both sovereign based, rather than assets of NATO. The UK unlike France has no real capacity for airborne deployment, since the scrapping of the Vulcan bombers. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 Apr 17 1.51pm

Originally posted by Part Time James

I thought the USA was our deterrent. Everyone is a bit worried that they might help us out. Eventually.

NATO's nuclear capability is split between France and the UK. The general assumption is that the US would come to the assistance of the UK and NATO. France has some nuclear submarines (always one in service) and a number of more conventional deployable warheads.

However, the UK and Frances nuclear capability are both sovereign based, rather than assets of NATO.

The UK unlike France has no real capacity for airborne deployment, since the scrapping of the Vulcan bombers.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Trident

Site Map

Sponsors