UK independant Trident launch.

Foo Fighter

Cum adolescunt hominem verum esse volo.
Senior Member
Joined
19 July 2016
Messages
3,703
Reaction score
2,665
OK, I have some people who think that there is a real chance that the UK is able to and would launch these weapons pre-emptively without recourse to a proportional NATO deployment. I say it will and can never happen, especially as we only have 8 weapons at ready state at any one time. Any thoughts on this?
 
8 weapons? According to whom?

My understanding is that the UK's submarines carry 16 missiles. Each missile in turn carries up to 8 warheads. That means 16 x 8 = 128 warheads (in theory) on each Vanguard submarine. You're basically claiming that one missile is active at any time?

As for independent use of the UK's nuclear weapons, that would be up to the UK Government. While I don't doubt that the UK has entered an agreement with the US (because of the mutual support for the UK's nuclear missiles/warheads) as to where and when it can use it's missile, I'd suspect there is a Sir Humphrey style clause that allows them to use them "when appropriate".
 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know


UK and nuclear disarmament

as a responsible nuclear weapon state and party to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the UK also remains committed to the long term goal of a world without nuclear weapons

we have reduced our own nuclear forces by over half from their Cold War peak in the late 1970s

we are the only nuclear weapon State recognised under the NPT which has reduced its deterrent capability to a single nuclear weapon system; We have dismantled our maritime tactical nuclear capability and the RAF’s WE177 free fall bombs
as a result of our reassessment of the minimum necessary requirements for credible deterrence, since 2010 we have:
reduced the number of warheads onboard each submarine from 48 to 40
reduced our requirement for operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120
reduced the number of operational missiles on each submarine to not more than 8
by the mid-2020s, we will reduce the overall nuclear weapon stockpile to no more than 180 warheads, meeting the commitments set out in the 2010 Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR)

of the recognised ‘nuclear weapons states’ (NWS), we possess only approximately 1% of the total global stockpile of nuclear weapons, the smallest of all the NPT nuclear weapon states

our submarines on patrol are at several days’ notice to fire and, since 1994, we do not target our missiles at any state
the UK plays a leading role on disarmament verification with the US and Norway

8 operational missiles per boat at sea.

Further to your mention that there will be an agreement with the US there will also be an agreement with NATO and I do not see a totally independant launch of any kind. What would be a realistic scenario where the UK would independently launch?
 
After this last election? Not likely, I believe they still carry sealed orders from the PM in the event of comms breakdown, so....
 
As far as I know the launch sequence goes from PM (Whitehall)-Northwood-Submarine.
Realpoltik would make it difficult not to at least discuss unilateral release with both the US and NATO as Britain's main strategic partners. Any situation where such a scenario occurred and the US or NATO was unable to help would be pretty dire. A lone pre-emptive strike is highly unlikely in most scenarios, but I don't think there is anything to stop it happening beyond political willpower, active US/NATO interference (think Hunt for Red October-esque scenarios and use of ABM systems) and the possibility of the submarine crew making a judgement to ignore a 'rogue' order.

While the UK Tridents are notified to NATO as part of their effective strength, I don't think they are formally part of the NATO force structure. Since Kennedy and the Polaris MLF arguments great efforts have been made to prevent that, but I agree its a grey area and I've never seen published evidence on the extent of NATO involvement. To turn the argument on its head, NATO or the US can't order the Vanguard subs to release without the express consent and command from the UK Government.
 
I was involved in several site guard ops which were as dull as watching paint dry. We were informed that no individual nation within NATO would be able to launch solo. I never have believed that the US would agree to such a control but the rest of NATO, those with nuclear weapons well, I believed that would stand. I have never been disavowed of this belief in ANY exercise or op briefing during my military service, I simply cannot come up with a scenario where it would be possible or allowed by other nuclear capable nations.

Someone on another site has brought 9 scenario's and a comment of sorts but cannot accept that among other things, should the US launch against the UK, there is no POINT in replying.

As I see it, the first launch of a nuclear weapon will see an escalation which we must avoid. Messy every way you look at it.
 
Must have come as a surprise to MaggieT when she sent a Polaris armed submarine to the South Atlantic in 1982 that she wouldn't be able to give the order to launch a British owned missile with British owned warheads from a British owned submarine if it was felt necessary...
 
It is certainly billed as the last of Britain's independent nuclear force. The NATO issue is interesting, there might be something on that in the history of France's rejection of NATO and the force dè frappe. Also possibly in the early discussions around the early basing and arming of West German aircraft with nukes. My understanding (from a dull memory) is that the essential tenants of the NATO charter relating to nuclear weapons hasn't changed so any model of command and control and release authority from those histories would have relevance though I don't know where to get that from off the top of my head.

It may be that a deliberate policy of ambiguity exists, certainly the CND crowd have their opinions, but in the end I highly doubt there's any i foreign ntermediaries between the PM and their subs. There might be legal intermediaries (maybe), but if they are letting the SLBMs fly then that would be a pitiful afterthought.

Anyone ever watched threads? It's an existential issue at that point not a legal one.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Must have come as a surprise to MaggieT when she sent a Polaris armed submarine to the South Atlantic in 1982 that she wouldn't be able to give the order to launch a British owned missile with British owned warheads from a British owned submarine if it was felt necessary...

Nuking Argentina would NOT have been a proportional response and would have made more support for Argentina guaranteed. Chucking nukes around because the other side does not have them is hardly going to be seen as reasonable is it? Even Maggie T would not have done that.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Kadija_Man said:
Must have come as a surprise to MaggieT when she sent a Polaris armed submarine to the South Atlantic in 1982 that she wouldn't be able to give the order to launch a British owned missile with British owned warheads from a British owned submarine if it was felt necessary...

Nuking Argentina would NOT have been a proportional response and would have made more support for Argentina guaranteed. Chucking nukes around because the other side does not have them is hardly going to be seen as reasonable is it? Even Maggie T would not have done that.

Whether she would have or not, it is on record that a Polaris Submarine was sent south. I don't doubt that MaggieT would have used it's weapons if she felt the situation was desperate enough (ie the British task force was losing). The big problem for the British was the weather. They had about six weeks in which to resecure the Falklands/Malvinas Islands before the winter storms set in. The Argentines knew this. If the weather had rendered the operation moot, the Argentines were hoping time and world opinion would tell against the British. MaggieT also knew this. It is not unbelievable that she would have used the Polaris systems to threaten the Argentine regime.
 
A threat is not a launch and there is a suggestion that should there be a problem, that US assets would have been made available. No idea where it is, I cannot find it.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Whether she would have or not, it is on record that a Polaris Submarine was sent south. I don't doubt that MaggieT would have used it's weapons if she felt the situation was desperate enough (ie the British task force was losing). The big problem for the British was the weather. They had about six weeks in which to resecure the Falklands/Malvinas Islands before the winter storms set in. The Argentines knew this. If the weather had rendered the operation moot, the Argentines were hoping time and world opinion would tell against the British. MaggieT also knew this. It is not unbelievable that she would have used the Polaris systems to threaten the Argentine regime.

Colour me extremely unconvinced. The info comes from someone selling a "tell all book", published nearly 25 years after the event, and containing such strange information - such as Exocet having "codes". Weapons having "codes" is usually linked to stuff we normally see on conspiracy websites.
 
Polaris subs were sent all over the place, whether or it was to threaten/strike Argentina can be speculated on but the fabrication theorists will no doubt follow their own agenda on this as all things. I do not believe Maggie T would have been so stupid as to actually launch on anything other than a proportional response and Argentina never had that high a threat.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Polaris subs were sent all over the place, whether or it was to threaten/strike Argentina can be speculated on but the fabrication theorists will no doubt follow their own agenda on this as all things. I do not believe Maggie T would have been so stupid as to actually launch on anything other than a proportional response and Argentina never had that high a threat.

Except the Falkland Islanders...

The Islanders hold a completely out of proportion amount of influence in British politics, even before the 1982 War. This has to be understood, to understand the reasons why MaggieT reacted the way she did to the Argentine invasion.

Whether or not she actually would have launched is immaterial. The point is that she could have launched, as the Prime Minister of the UK, if the missiles were British owned on a British owned submarine. They were British and therefore under the control of the British government ultimately. London can and has acted unilaterally in the past, where British interests have been threatened. ::)
 
Kadija_Man said:
Foo Fighter said:
Polaris subs were sent all over the place, whether or it was to threaten/strike Argentina can be speculated on but the fabrication theorists will no doubt follow their own agenda on this as all things. I do not believe Maggie T would have been so stupid as to actually launch on anything other than a proportional response and Argentina never had that high a threat.

Except the Falkland Islanders...

The Islanders hold a completely out of proportion amount of influence in British politics, even before the 1982 War. This has to be understood, to understand the reasons why Maggie T reacted the way she did to the Argentine invasion.

When have we launched nuclear weapons unilaterally, without NATO involvement? Can you demonstrate a scenario where the UK would launch unilaterally? A realistic scenario? The UK will never launch an independent strike, it just will never happen.

Whether or not she actually would have launched is immaterial. The point is that she could have launched, as the Prime Minister of the UK, if the missiles were British owned on a British owned submarine. They were British and therefore under the control of the British government ultimately. London can and has acted unilaterally in the past, where British interests have been threatened. ::)
 
Foo Fighter said:
Kadija_Man said:
Foo Fighter said:
Polaris subs were sent all over the place, whether or it was to threaten/strike Argentina can be speculated on but the fabrication theorists will no doubt follow their own agenda on this as all things. I do not believe Maggie T would have been so stupid as to actually launch on anything other than a proportional response and Argentina never had that high a threat.

Except the Falkland Islanders...

The Islanders hold a completely out of proportion amount of influence in British politics, even before the 1982 War. This has to be understood, to understand the reasons why Maggie T reacted the way she did to the Argentine invasion.

When have we launched nuclear weapons unilaterally, without NATO involvement? Can you demonstrate a scenario where the UK would launch unilaterally? A realistic scenario? The UK will never launch an independent strike, it just will never happen.

You may wish to believe that but the reality is different. The British Government likes to believe that Britain is "Great" still. The nuclear weapons are one way of reassuring itself and other nations that Britain still has the ability to influence world events. Those nuclear weapons are independently owned and based. No other nation controls them, only the UK. I'd recommend you read some books on the British development and deployment of nuclear weapons. As Ernest Bevin remarked when asked about building the bomb, "We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it." (or words to that effect).

The British to date have only ever atomic and hydrogen bombed their allies' territory (several times). This was all so they could show they had the means to use the bombs they were developing. It also showed that the British defence establishment was developing the means towards command and control of nuclear forces. While the government methods appear today rather ramshackle and makeshift, they were effective at the time.

No doubt, it reassured you to think that Britain did not have independent control of its strategic deterrence. However, the reality was different. Margaret Thatcher was the only PM since the War who might have had the balls to use the nukes. Thankfully we'll never know.
 
As I said earlier, I don't think there is any step in the command chain that is not independent. For example, its been reported the Vanguard subs lack any deployed control equipment such as the Americans use of Permissive Action Link, so in theory a Vanguard sub's missile commanders could launch without authorisation. Perhaps its indicative of a secret intermediate-stage authorisation process, but more likely it proves that the UK system is totally different to US procedure and therefore is independent of outside control.

Politically, I don't think any PM would be in such a secure position not to consult at least the US before doing anything. It is hard to think of a specific scenario that would justify such action. Its feasible in theory, but whether in practice the decision could be done is something else. Likewise, its not impossible to assume the French would not use their arsenal without first at least consulting their closest EU allies.

Interestingly, although not relevant to Trident (since VLF radio is used), the cancellation of Skynet 3 communications satellites due to cutbacks meant extending the Skynet 2 series and relying on US satellites which was identified as a problem during the Falklands which kick-started the Skynet 4 series, just one example of British efforts to maintain as little reliance on US resources as possible in strategic matters.
 
From related reading my understanding is that day to day the UK deterrent is operationally independent and the US or anyone wouldn't be able to block an order to launch.
However the UK deterrent isn't entirely independent as it relies on US logistic and technical support; if that support was withdrawn there would be a count down to when the UK deterrent would stop functioning.

It is also my understanding that some of the previous comments re: UK missile subs, the Falklands and Thatcher have been somewhat overblown.
Hard to think of any scenerio were the UK would have even threatened a Polaris launch; maybe a failed landing that left thousands of UK troops about to be massacred by Argentinian forces?
For all her flaws (I'm not a real fan) Thatcher was not a blood thirsty maniac so don't see her murdering hundreds of thousands of Argentinians in an effort to save some face if it was simply a case of "losing" the Falklands War.
To use nuclear weapons in the context of the Falklands War didn't require "balls", it required an insane person making the decision and his/her colleagues and people in the chain of command failing in their duty by not preventing such an insane order/ following it.
Also important to note that any real power or influence the British inhabitants of the Falklands had only dates from after the Argentinian invasion; before that few either knew or cared about them. And subsequently to the War their influence can be overstated; it's the large chunk of the back bench of the Conservative Party, the Press and public opinion that drove subsequent policy on the Falklands.
 
kaiserd said:
From related reading my understanding is that day to day the UK deterrent is operationally independent and the US or anyone wouldn't be able to block an order to launch.
However the UK deterrent isn't entirely independent as it relies on US logistic and technical support; if that support was withdrawn there would be a count down to when the UK deterrent would stop functioning.

It is also my understanding that some of the previous comments re: UK missile subs, the Falklands and Thatcher have been somewhat overblown.
Hard to think of any scenerio were the UK would have even threatened a Polaris launch; maybe a failed landing that left thousands of UK troops about to be massacred by Argentinian forces?
For all her flaws (I'm not a real fan) Thatcher was not a blood thirsty maniac so don't see her murdering hundreds of thousands of Argentinians in an effort to save some face if it was simply a case of "losing" the Falklands War.
To use nuclear weapons in the context of the Falklands War didn't require "balls", it required an insane person making the decision and his/her colleagues and people in the chain of command failing in their duty by not preventing such an insane order/ following it.


Also important to note that any real power or influence the British inhabitants of the Falklands had only dates from after the Argentinian invasion; before that few either knew or cared about them. And subsequently to the War their influence can be overstated; it's the large chunk of the back bench of the Conservative Party, the Press and public opinion that drove subsequent policy on the Falklands.



Basically put, there could not and will not be an independent UK launch. Those who believe there is the slightest possible chance are deluding themselves.
 
Foo Fighter said:
kaiserd said:
From related reading my understanding is that day to day the UK deterrent is operationally independent and the US or anyone wouldn't be able to block an order to launch.
However the UK deterrent isn't entirely independent as it relies on US logistic and technical support; if that support was withdrawn there would be a count down to when the UK deterrent would stop functioning.

It is also my understanding that some of the previous comments re: UK missile subs, the Falklands and Thatcher have been somewhat overblown.
Hard to think of any scenerio were the UK would have even threatened a Polaris launch; maybe a failed landing that left thousands of UK troops about to be massacred by Argentinian forces?
For all her flaws (I'm not a real fan) Thatcher was not a blood thirsty maniac so don't see her murdering hundreds of thousands of Argentinians in an effort to save some face if it was simply a case of "losing" the Falklands War.
To use nuclear weapons in the context of the Falklands War didn't require "balls", it required an insane person making the decision and his/her colleagues and people in the chain of command failing in their duty by not preventing such an insane order/ following it.

Basically put, there could not and will not be an independent UK launch. Those who believe there is the slightest possible chance are deluding themselves.
Also important to note that any real power or influence the British inhabitants of the Falklands had only dates from after the Argentinian invasion; before that few either knew or cared about them. And subsequently to the War their influence can be overstated; it's the large chunk of the back bench of the Conservative Party, the Press and public opinion that drove subsequent policy on the Falklands.

Hi Foo Fighter, I think you are inadvertainly misquoting my comments because of the way inserted your own comment (the 2 lines starting with "Basically put").
 
Yes, sorry, it was the way the text started for my reply, sorry.
 
It is inconceivable that the USA let alone the former
Soviet Union would have turned a blind eye to the use
of a nuclear weapon by the UK or any of the other
nuclear weapon states. As the UK found iin 1956
at Suez, the US could rapidly undermine British
freedom of action by causing its currency to collapse.
The importance of the UK to NATO in 1982 ensured
that the US weighed in on its side, the Polaris threat was less
realbthanbthe actualbthreat posed by conventional Vulcan
raids on airbases in Argentina.
Like Polaris, Trident could be used by the UK to force the US into
responding to Soviet or Russian aggression in Europe, but only in
the most unlikely of cases.
 
"Basically put, there could not and will not be an independent UK launch. "

What is preventing one?
 
In the last resort, nothing. If a Prime Minister
goes through the proper launch procedures
with the relevant military and civil servants
content that she is acting rationally and lawfully,
the submarine on patrol would be sent firing
instructions and her commander would then
execute them. That is the basis of the deterrent.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Basically put, there could not and will not be an independent UK launch. Those who believe there is the slightest possible chance are deluding themselves.
Politically, this is probably correct. It's almost inconceivable that the UK would be launching unless the world situation had deteriorated to such a degree that the French, Americans, Russians, Chinese, Indians and anyone else who cared to was joining in as well. Adding forty British warheads to the mix would be largely irrelevant.

Technically, there's nothing to stop the Prime Minister deciding that a Trident launch would make a really good firework for the New Year's Eve celebrations. But coming back to the political angle - if there wasn't damn good reason to let one off, technical support from the United States would quickly dry up and Trident would become untenable as-is.
 
Perhaps those who believe in the possibility could come up with a realistic scenario where a launch could occur? No?
 
The main rationale for having the same missile as the US is that any opponent
cannot be sure whether it is a British or a US weapon that has been launched.
The US welcomes this second centre of decision-making as a potential opponent
cannot be 100% sure whether both US and UK will be in the fight.
It follows that the one case where a PM and her staff might fire Trident would be
to ensure that the US were also in the nuclear fight. Russia represents the only
nuclear threat that might prompt this. I leave the scenarios to others.
 
uk 75 said:
The main rationale for having the same missile as the US is that any opponent
cannot be sure whether it is a British or a US weapon that has been launched.

I would have thought that the economics of not having to design and develop a completely new missile would have played a part... ::)
 
Sorry, of course in procurement terms the
Trident like the Polaris was the available US system.
What I meant was the rationale in the context of a UK
independent deterrent. Cheaper options such as cruise
missiles exist, but the big bonus of Trident is that UK and
US share the same strategic weapon. This has many positives
but one is undeniably the dual centres of decision making.
The USN are content thatvthe RN has the ability to stiffen
the resolve of a possibly wobbly President. The relationship
between the navies is that good, as was RAF Bomber Command
and SAC before it.
 
uk 75 you summarise the thinking behind the UK operation of Trident well. It is documented in at least two of Peter Hennessy's books that the inability of the adversary to tell which side of the Atlantic the missile was operated by is a critical factor in the UK's ability to magnify it's influence in the relationship.

The fact that we don't want to imagine how a British leader could be put into a position to launch, doesn't mean it isn't possible.
 
None of that suggests let alone proves the realistic scenario where an INDEPENDENT UK LAUNCH is an option for the simple reason that it will never happen.
 
Foo Fighter said:
None of that suggests let alone proves the realistic scenario where an INDEPENDENT UK LAUNCH is an option for the simple reason that it will never happen.

You have yet to prove your case. Others, myself included, have pointed out where and why an independent launch is possible. He who pays the fiddler, calls the tune and as the paycheck for the Submarine crew comes from the UK's exchequer, the UK Government calls the tune. The orders to launch do not emanate from Washington but London.
 
I am sure that the Royal Navy hopes as much as
Foo Fighter that it will never receive the order to
launch Trident. They never had to launch Polaris.
But night and day a submarine has been at sea for nearly
half a century as the nation's sanction against an enemy.
Their crews deserve our respect and gratitude.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Foo Fighter said:
None of that suggests let alone proves the realistic scenario where an INDEPENDENT UK LAUNCH is an option for the simple reason that it will never happen.

You have yet to prove your case. Others, myself included, have pointed out where and why an independent launch is possible. He who pays the fiddler, calls the tune and as the paycheck for the Submarine crew comes from the UK's exchequer, the UK Government calls the tune. The orders to launch do not emanate from Washington but London.

Actually you have not.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Kadija_Man said:
Foo Fighter said:
None of that suggests let alone proves the realistic scenario where an INDEPENDENT UK LAUNCH is an option for the simple reason that it will never happen.

You have yet to prove your case. Others, myself included, have pointed out where and why an independent launch is possible. He who pays the fiddler, calls the tune and as the paycheck for the Submarine crew comes from the UK's exchequer, the UK Government calls the tune. The orders to launch do not emanate from Washington but London.

Actually you have not.

Believe whatever you desire. I know you are wrong. Britain controls ultimately its own nuclear deterrent for its operational use.
 
I understand, there are gullible people everywhere, ready to believe it too.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I understand, there are gullible people everywhere, ready to believe it too.

To be fair there is ample evidence publicly avaiible showing that while the UK deterent is in some sense only semi-independent (would wither away medium-long term if the US withdrew logistical support) they retain the ability to autonomously initiate a launch.

It is also fair to say that given political reality (which may be changing under the current US President) there are few if any half-way realistic scenarios in which the UK would use their deterent without at least first consulting with the US. However this is also true of the French or the Israelis re: use of their (perhaps more fully) independent nuclear deterents.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I understand, there are gullible people everywhere, ready to believe it too.

So, then, tell us how does Washington intervene in the UK nuclear chain of command? You've yet to prove that Washington controls the radio link to the UK's strategic submarines. ::)
 
I have yet to claim Washington controls the radio link to UK strategic submarines. The UK will never launch nuclear weapons independently. When did I claim Washington intervenes? The independent use of nuclear weapons by anyone in NATO is not going to happen. The US is the one sticking point in the mix but that is the nature of the beast. The rest are just too small.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I have yet to claim Washington controls the radio link to UK strategic submarines. The UK will never launch nuclear weapons independently. When did I claim Washington intervenes? The independent use of nuclear weapons by anyone in NATO is not going to happen. The US is the one sticking point in the mix but that is the nature of the beast. The rest are just too small.

You are making the mistake that the issues which concern individual NATO members and the UK in particular are identical to those that concern the US in Europe. They are not, as the Falklands/Malvinas and numerous other minor conflicts have confirmed. Europe consists of 51 independent states. NATO consists of 29 nation states. The UK is the only member of NATO with an independent nuclear force. The UK and France are the only two members of Europe with an independent nuclear force. Many of the concerns of NATO are identical with the UK and France, however, many of the UK's and France's concerns have absolutely nothing to do with NATO. There is no official agreement that I am aware of that states the UK and France cannot use their nuclear forces independently if they believe it is necessary. Rationally, that would suggest that the UK and France retain national control over their strategic nuclear forces. All you have claimed, without any factual proof is that no NATO member will ever launch it's nuclear forces independently. Until you produce proof, I will not believe you.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom