The only US thing about our nuclear weapons is the delivery vehicle. The US provides that part and nothing more. The codes are in in UK hands, and the nuclear warheads themselves are manufactured in the UK also (at Aldermaston I believe).
We lease the missiles from the US. They can ONLY be serviced by the US.
The missiles are controlled by US software, and we have no way of telling whether the software contains hidden backdoors or timeouts.
"maintenance check overdue - system hibernated for safety reasons - please call tech support, sucker" >:(:confused::o
The guidance system relies on US GPS and other navigational data that could be switched off at any time by the US.
Arming, firing components etc - all procured from the US.
We lease the missiles from the US. They can ONLY be serviced by the US.
The missiles are controlled by US software, and we have no way of telling whether the software contains hidden backdoors or timeouts.
"maintenance check overdue - system hibernated for safety reasons - please call tech support, sucker" >:(:confused::o
The guidance system relies on US GPS and other navigational data that could be switched off at any time by the US.
Arming, firing components etc - all procured from the US.
Trident also makes use of inertial navigation. As long as it knows the launch co-ordinates, it can be fired and will navigate to the designated target without the need for a GPS signal.
I've been working in defence for some time and whilst we do make shortcuts here and there, I find it very difficult to believe that we would a system that could be disabled by another nation at any time.
The codes from my understanding are actually kept in a safe on-board each designated sub.
Trident also makes use of inertial navigation. As long as it knows the launch co-ordinates, it can be fired and will navigate to the designated target without the need for a GPS signal.
I've been working in defence for some time and whilst we do make shortcuts here and there, I find it very difficult to believe that we would a system that could be disabled by another nation at any time.
The codes from my understanding are actually kept in a safe on-board each designated sub.
And you are allowed to write about it on the internet?
I find it very difficult to believe that we would a system that could be disabled by another nation at any time.
"What the Brits don't know, wont hurt 'em..."
But the top brass know the score:
"Britain no longer has an independent nuclear deterrent ... strategic considerations as far as Britain is concerned are no longer relevant ... it could only be used after authority for the use of nuclear weapons had been conveyed from the President of the United States to SACEUR [the US general at Nato]."
The missiles are sent to US base in Kings Bay, Georgia, for maintenance and replacement.
They can only be tested under US supervision at Cape Canaveral.
Oh, and the guy running AWE is an American who spent 30 years working for....guess who....Lockheed Martin.
May I point out that King Bay is manned by U.S. Navy, industry and foreign nationals, so I assume you will now claim that the U.S. Doesn't have an independent submarine deterrent?
The servicing of the missiles are carried out under a shared agreement and has been since Polaris. It isn't the part of 'independent' that anyone is interested in.
The UK produce the important packages, including the warhead which you wrongly claimed came from the U.S. Oh, and let's not forget the UK also design/construct and maintain by far the most complex aspect of the system. The platform.
The UK are in full control of all aspects of arming and launching. It doesn't rely on GPS, and when you think of some of the nightmare scenarios it could be used in, any system relying on GPS would be ridiculous.
May I point out that King Bay is manned by U.S. Navy, industry and foreign nationals, so I assume you will now claim that the U.S. Doesn't have an independent submarine deterrent?
Your assumption relies on logic that is ludicrously stretched by any standards. I assume you're joking. The US is subserviant or equal to NO-ONE in its own main Atlantic naval base.
The servicing of the missiles are carried out under a shared agreement and has been since Polaris. It isn't the part of 'independent' that anyone is interested in.
Yeah, the agreement is "You paid us some of the development costs and agree to pay us billions every year, for decades, for a missile system that you CAN'T maintain without our direct involvement."
The UK produce the important packages, including the warhead which you wrongly claimed came from the U.S. Oh, and let's not forget the UK also design/construct and maintain by far the most complex aspect of the system. The platform.
Critical elements of the warhead ARE sourced from the US. The US also supplies the guidance software for the missiles.
The management company that runs AWE Aldermaston is predominantly owned by US corporations and the MD was a Lockheed Martin guy.
Your assumption relies on logic that is ludicrously stretched by any standards. I assume you're joking. The US is subserviant or equal to NO-ONE in its own main Atlantic naval base.
Yeah, the agreement is "You paid us some of the development costs and agree to pay us billions every year, for decades, for a missile system that you CAN'T maintain without our direct involvement."
Critical elements of the warhead ARE sourced from the US. The US also supplies the guidance software for the missiles.
The management company that runs AWE Aldermaston is predominantly owned by US corporations and the MD was a Lockheed Martin guy.
Britain owns the land.
Well done, in such few words you have managed to show how limited your knowledge is on this subject.
And yet, you seem unwilling or unable to refute my points with anything specific.
Do you respond to every debate you're losing by taking your toys home?
I've already told you. The UK has no dependence on any other country for the arming, launch and guidance of the deterrent.
Kings Bay is manned by UK personnel along with others, so using your 'the MD of AWE is an American' I assume you would claim the U.S. Deterrent is not independent.
AWE is a GOCO, the UK do not 'just own the land' and the UK design/build/manufacturer/maintain the warhead using appropriately cleared personnel, just like any other nation.
I've already told you. The UK has no dependence on any other country for the arming, launch and guidance of the deterrent.
Assuming that we're naive enough to believe that the US hasn't got back door access via the guidance software.
Assuming that the US doesn't decide to override all on-board guidance with the self-destruct radio signal if the missile is launched without their authority.
Assuming that the missile hasn't already fallen into planned obselescence within months of lack of US controlled maintenance.
Kings Bay is manned by UK personnel along with others, so using your 'the MD of AWE is an American' I assume you would claim the U.S. Deterrent is not independent.
Britain is still, ultimately, the junior Trident partner, on both sides of the Atlantic. Especially in the US. Do you really think that any Brits are allowed significant access-all-areas clearance at the main US Atlantic naval base?
AWE is a GOCO, the UK do not 'just own the land' and the UK design/build/manufacturer/maintain the warhead using appropriately cleared personnel, just like any other nation.
The facility is co-managed by predominantly US firms and uses a great deal of US technology. The Managing director is a US born and worked for Lockheed Martin for 30 years. Can you name an equivalent Brit at anything llike the same level of seniority, managing military facilities at Kings Bay? Some of the vital nuclear explosive parts are imported from the US, as are some non-nuclear parts. The warhead factory is a copy of a facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The submarine maintenance base in Plymouth is 51 per cent owned by Halliburton of the US.
But apart from all of that, it's "British controlled". They even allow us to paint Royal Navy on the sides of the missiles to complete the illusion for home consumption. Marvellous.
Assuming that we're naive enough to believe that the US hasn't got back door access via the guidance software.
Assuming that the US doesn't decide to override all on-board guidance with the self-destruct radio signal if the missile is launched without their authority.
Assuming that the missile hasn't already fallen into obselescence within months of lack of US controlled maintenance.
Britain is still, ultimately, the junior Trident partner, on both sides of the Atlantic. Especially in the US. Do you really think that any Brits are allowed significant access-all-areas clearance at the main US Atlantic naval base?
The facility is co-managed by predominantly US firms and uses a great deal of US technology. The Managing director is a US born and worked for Lockheed Martin for 30 years. Can you name an equivalent Brit at anything llike the same level of seniority at Kings Bay? Some of the vital nuclear explosive parts are imported from the US, as are some non-nuclear parts. The warhead factory is a copy of a facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The submarine maintenance base in Plymouth is 51 per cent owned by Halliburton of the US.
But apart from all of that, it's "British controlled".
I'm sorry but you keep making reference to stuff that is either incorrect or not relevant. Maybe you would like to explain how the U.S. can 'decide to override all on board guidance', you should stick to watching films.
The UK provide components into the U.S. System, you again appear to not understand what an independent deterrent means.
What do you think the MD has access to?
And what on earth do you think Plymouth has to do with our SSBNs?
I'm sorry but you keep making reference to stuff that is either incorrect or not relevant. Maybe you would like to explain how the U.S. can 'decide to override all on board guidance',
The missiles contain explosive self-destruct devices that can be triggered remotely, should the missile malfunction.
you should stick to watching films.
While we're on the subject of fictional scenarios, no-one has yet explained why total nuclear annihilation would be preferable to occupation/invasion/threat by another nation state, which would effectively be signing it's own death warrant at the hands of NATO.
Trident does nothing to deter or prevent attack by an amorphous terrorist group using a dirty bomb in a suicide attack, for example.
The UK provide components into the U.S. System, you again appear to not understand what an independent deterrent means.
They've got to keep us sweet, haven't they? Trident contains nothing that the US couldn't make by itself, and a great deal that we couldn't make without US input.
What do you think the MD has access to?
Probably doesn't even have to leave his desk to gain access to all sorts of information via internal communication systems.
And what on earth do you think Plymouth has to do with our SSBNs?
Don't they service the all-important submarine platform?
But apart from all of that, it's "British controlled". They even allow us to paint Royal Navy on the sides of the missiles to complete the illusion for home consumption. Marvellous.
You could always just see what they say they do on their website-
Our team of world-renowned scientists, engineers and specialists undertake critical work, providing and maintaining warheads for Royal Navy submarines – everything from design and manufacture to in-service support and decommissioning.
And yet, you seem unwilling or unable to refute my points with anything specific.
Well, it's one of those things where it's really not a good idea to say 'hey, guess what I do at work'. But there's enough public/declassified information to show you're wrong.
Assuming that the missile hasn't already fallen into planned obselescence within months of lack of US controlled maintenance.
Yes, the Trident 1B includes 'DaaS' (Detonation as a Service) technology. Dear launch operator, please hold for an operator to take your new annual subscription payment. Or not. But think about the wisdom and practicalties of having always-online warheads, and the challenges of reliable radio communications during a nuclear war.
Or why we spend so much working on anti-ballistic missile defences when all we'd need to do is pwn the detonation or guidance software. A key principle of the deterrent policy is if they launch, the are going to land pretty much where they're supposed to and spoil someone's day.
What does AWE's PR front page have to do with what they actually do, except in a very vague sense?
Perhaps 95%, but it's the 5% that we don't know about that makes all the difference. And how much activity is carried out covertly by the US, right under the noses of the UK? We know that the US government spies on its allies and its own population at the drop of a hat.
They wouldn't dare jeopardise our "special relationship" by pulling the wool over our eyes though, would they?
But there's enough public/declassified information to show you're wrong.
But no information to prove that our possession of a 20th Century weapon system gives us any advantage over countries with equivalent or even greater political/economic power that don't have nuclear weapons.
Yes, the Trident 1B includes 'DaaS' (Detonation as a Service) technology. Dear launch operator, please hold for an operator to take your new annual subscription payment. Or not. But think about the wisdom and practicalties of having always-online warheads, and the challenges of reliable radio communications during a nuclear war.
You don't need always-on capability to disrupt the missile operation. Things could start to appear to "go wrong" if a certain setting wasn't reset periodically by the US maintenance system, for example.
What does AWE's PR front page have to do with what they actually do, except in a very vague sense?
That's the nuclear weapons industry. They're deliberately vague.
But no information to prove that our possession of a 20th Century weapon system gives us any advantage over countries with equivalent or even greater political/economic power that don't have nuclear weapons.
Well, they ended the war with Japan rather swiftly. Their existence tends to focus the minds of those who may wish us harm. But mostly against state actors. As in 'Her Majesty's Government wishes to express Her extreme displeasure at your actions and would like to know which of your cities you'd like glassed'.
But this is also why current posturing with Russia gets risky. We're busily sticking missile defences on Russia's borders and wondering why that triggered Russia to develop new ICBMs that might counter them. It's the whole MAD thing again. Russia can't allow itself to be unable to respond to a first-strike. Especially when we've been going around the world doing the pre-emptive self-defence thing against states we don't like.
Things could start to appear to "go wrong" if a certain setting wasn't reset periodically by the US maintenance system, for example.
Which is where the 'independent' bit comes in, ie we'd probably want to know exactly how everything worked so that couldn't happen. But that's just one of those technology transfer issues that can get in the way of arms deals.
What does AWE's PR front page have to do with what they actually do, except in a very vague sense?
Perhaps 95%, but it's the 5% that we don't know about that makes all the difference. And how much activity is carried out covertly by the US, right under the noses of the UK? We know that the US government spies on its allies and its own population at the drop of a hat.
They wouldn't dare jeopardise our "special relationship" by pulling the wool over our eyes though, would they?
But no information to prove that our possession of a 20th Century weapon system gives us any advantage over countries with equivalent or even greater political/economic power that don't have nuclear weapons.
You don't need always-on capability to disrupt the missile operation. Things could start to appear to "go wrong" if a certain setting wasn't reset periodically by the US maintenance system, for example.
You really do need to start watching some ROMCOM's and stop watching so many spy thrillers. Oh and to the bolded point, who do you think was sitting at the same computer working in conjunction with the US? The joint cooperation between the US and the UK is highly valuable to both countries and should continue so. And it is now being found that the US wasn't spying on other countries, those countries were giving them the data and information. Then hypocritically acting all shocked when it comes to light.
The missiles contain explosive self-destruct devices that can be triggered remotely, should the missile malfunction.
While we're on the subject of fictional scenarios, no-one has yet explained why total nuclear annihilation would be preferable to occupation/invasion/threat by another nation state, which would effectively be signing it's own death warrant at the hands of NATO
I expect it would be easier if we had an example from history about what happens when I side has the bomb and another doesn't.
Probably doesn't even have to leave his desk to gain access to all sorts of information via internal communication systems.
Wrong.
Don't they service the all-important submarine platform?
no they don't. As I said before, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Comments
Japan did not have a nuclear weapon to fire back.
We lease the missiles from the US. They can ONLY be serviced by the US.
The missiles are controlled by US software, and we have no way of telling whether the software contains hidden backdoors or timeouts.
"maintenance check overdue - system hibernated for safety reasons - please call tech support, sucker" >:(:confused::o
The guidance system relies on US GPS and other navigational data that could be switched off at any time by the US.
Arming, firing components etc - all procured from the US.
Trident also makes use of inertial navigation. As long as it knows the launch co-ordinates, it can be fired and will navigate to the designated target without the need for a GPS signal.
I've been working in defence for some time and whilst we do make shortcuts here and there, I find it very difficult to believe that we would a system that could be disabled by another nation at any time.
The codes from my understanding are actually kept in a safe on-board each designated sub.
And you are allowed to write about it on the internet?
"What the Brits don't know, wont hurt 'em..."
But the top brass know the score:
"Britain no longer has an independent nuclear deterrent ... strategic considerations as far as Britain is concerned are no longer relevant ... it could only be used after authority for the use of nuclear weapons had been conveyed from the President of the United States to SACEUR [the US general at Nato]."
- Air Vice-Marshal Stuart Menaul, 1980
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dan-plesch-lets-clear-away-the-trident-delusion-2083256.html
Well, and AWE.. But then Serco is involved with that lot. Hopefully they're better at tagging & tracking warheads than they are prisoners.
With the way Putin behaves it is not only ok it is sensible.
Nope main dealership ONLY.
The missiles are sent to US base in Kings Bay, Georgia, for maintenance and replacement.
They can only be tested under US supervision at Cape Canaveral.
Oh, and the guy running AWE is an American who spent 30 years working for....guess who....Lockheed Martin.
May I point out that King Bay is manned by U.S. Navy, industry and foreign nationals, so I assume you will now claim that the U.S. Doesn't have an independent submarine deterrent?
The servicing of the missiles are carried out under a shared agreement and has been since Polaris. It isn't the part of 'independent' that anyone is interested in.
The UK produce the important packages, including the warhead which you wrongly claimed came from the U.S. Oh, and let's not forget the UK also design/construct and maintain by far the most complex aspect of the system. The platform.
The UK are in full control of all aspects of arming and launching. It doesn't rely on GPS, and when you think of some of the nightmare scenarios it could be used in, any system relying on GPS would be ridiculous.
Your assumption relies on logic that is ludicrously stretched by any standards. I assume you're joking. The US is subserviant or equal to NO-ONE in its own main Atlantic naval base.
Yeah, the agreement is "You paid us some of the development costs and agree to pay us billions every year, for decades, for a missile system that you CAN'T maintain without our direct involvement."
Critical elements of the warhead ARE sourced from the US. The US also supplies the guidance software for the missiles.
The management company that runs AWE Aldermaston is predominantly owned by US corporations and the MD was a Lockheed Martin guy.
Britain owns the land.
Well done, in such few words you have managed to show how limited your knowledge is on this subject.
And yet, you seem unwilling or unable to refute my points with anything specific.
Do you respond to every debate you're losing by taking your toys home?
Better still, why not ask the Labour party puppet master.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706344/Putin-Prince-Darkness-Revealed-web-links-Peter-Mandelsons-shadowy-global-consultancy-firm-billionaire-power-brokers-Putins-Russia.html
I've already told you. The UK has no dependence on any other country for the arming, launch and guidance of the deterrent.
Kings Bay is manned by UK personnel along with others, so using your 'the MD of AWE is an American' I assume you would claim the U.S. Deterrent is not independent.
AWE is a GOCO, the UK do not 'just own the land' and the UK design/build/manufacturer/maintain the warhead using appropriately cleared personnel, just like any other nation.
Assuming that we're naive enough to believe that the US hasn't got back door access via the guidance software.
Assuming that the US doesn't decide to override all on-board guidance with the self-destruct radio signal if the missile is launched without their authority.
Assuming that the missile hasn't already fallen into planned obselescence within months of lack of US controlled maintenance.
Britain is still, ultimately, the junior Trident partner, on both sides of the Atlantic. Especially in the US. Do you really think that any Brits are allowed significant access-all-areas clearance at the main US Atlantic naval base?
The facility is co-managed by predominantly US firms and uses a great deal of US technology. The Managing director is a US born and worked for Lockheed Martin for 30 years. Can you name an equivalent Brit at anything llike the same level of seniority, managing military facilities at Kings Bay? Some of the vital nuclear explosive parts are imported from the US, as are some non-nuclear parts. The warhead factory is a copy of a facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The submarine maintenance base in Plymouth is 51 per cent owned by Halliburton of the US.
But apart from all of that, it's "British controlled". They even allow us to paint Royal Navy on the sides of the missiles to complete the illusion for home consumption. Marvellous.
I'm sorry but you keep making reference to stuff that is either incorrect or not relevant. Maybe you would like to explain how the U.S. can 'decide to override all on board guidance', you should stick to watching films.
The UK provide components into the U.S. System, you again appear to not understand what an independent deterrent means.
What do you think the MD has access to?
And what on earth do you think Plymouth has to do with our SSBNs?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6641999.stm
The missiles contain explosive self-destruct devices that can be triggered remotely, should the missile malfunction.
While we're on the subject of fictional scenarios, no-one has yet explained why total nuclear annihilation would be preferable to occupation/invasion/threat by another nation state, which would effectively be signing it's own death warrant at the hands of NATO.
Trident does nothing to deter or prevent attack by an amorphous terrorist group using a dirty bomb in a suicide attack, for example.
They've got to keep us sweet, haven't they? Trident contains nothing that the US couldn't make by itself, and a great deal that we couldn't make without US input.
Probably doesn't even have to leave his desk to gain access to all sorts of information via internal communication systems.
Don't they service the all-important submarine platform?
You could always just see what they say they do on their website-
http://www.awe.co.uk/about-us/our-company/
Our team of world-renowned scientists, engineers and specialists undertake critical work, providing and maintaining warheads for Royal Navy submarines – everything from design and manufacture to in-service support and decommissioning.
Well, it's one of those things where it's really not a good idea to say 'hey, guess what I do at work'. But there's enough public/declassified information to show you're wrong.
Yes, the Trident 1B includes 'DaaS' (Detonation as a Service) technology. Dear launch operator, please hold for an operator to take your new annual subscription payment. Or not. But think about the wisdom and practicalties of having always-online warheads, and the challenges of reliable radio communications during a nuclear war.
Or why we spend so much working on anti-ballistic missile defences when all we'd need to do is pwn the detonation or guidance software. A key principle of the deterrent policy is if they launch, the are going to land pretty much where they're supposed to and spoil someone's day.
What does AWE's PR front page have to do with what they actually do, except in a very vague sense?
Perhaps 95%, but it's the 5% that we don't know about that makes all the difference. And how much activity is carried out covertly by the US, right under the noses of the UK? We know that the US government spies on its allies and its own population at the drop of a hat.
They wouldn't dare jeopardise our "special relationship" by pulling the wool over our eyes though, would they?
But no information to prove that our possession of a 20th Century weapon system gives us any advantage over countries with equivalent or even greater political/economic power that don't have nuclear weapons.
You don't need always-on capability to disrupt the missile operation. Things could start to appear to "go wrong" if a certain setting wasn't reset periodically by the US maintenance system, for example.
That's the nuclear weapons industry. They're deliberately vague.
Well, they ended the war with Japan rather swiftly. Their existence tends to focus the minds of those who may wish us harm. But mostly against state actors. As in 'Her Majesty's Government wishes to express Her extreme displeasure at your actions and would like to know which of your cities you'd like glassed'.
But this is also why current posturing with Russia gets risky. We're busily sticking missile defences on Russia's borders and wondering why that triggered Russia to develop new ICBMs that might counter them. It's the whole MAD thing again. Russia can't allow itself to be unable to respond to a first-strike. Especially when we've been going around the world doing the pre-emptive self-defence thing against states we don't like.
Which is where the 'independent' bit comes in, ie we'd probably want to know exactly how everything worked so that couldn't happen. But that's just one of those technology transfer issues that can get in the way of arms deals.
You really do need to start watching some ROMCOM's and stop watching so many spy thrillers. Oh and to the bolded point, who do you think was sitting at the same computer working in conjunction with the US? The joint cooperation between the US and the UK is highly valuable to both countries and should continue so. And it is now being found that the US wasn't spying on other countries, those countries were giving them the data and information. Then hypocritically acting all shocked when it comes to light.
I expect it would be easier if we had an example from history about what happens when I side has the bomb and another doesn't.
Wrong.
no they don't. As I said before, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.