http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7832365.stm

I know some of you are interested in British politics here, so I wondered what your opinions were on this particular issue over here which has been a bone of contention since Blair ordered the renewal of the Trident system in 2006.

Obviously Britain doesn't possess the resources it did 75 or even fifty years ago, and maintaining a standing army of 100,000, almost all of which is committed to strenuous campaigning overseas, is beginning to take its toll, especially on the equipment available to individual army groups, but on a more micro level - the boots on the ground. Thus an argument could be made, as the former Field Marshal has done so in the link above, for scrapping a 20bn plan for the renewal of what many now see as a cold war relic - the Trident Missle system.

Do we need this? We sold out our last nuclear power share to foreign companies (I think last year we sold out the remaining shares to an American buyer) and we don't even own the nuclear warheads the Trident sub's will be equipped with. Similarly, nuclear weapons has zero deterrent in the new Terrorist Warfare of the 21st century, as can clearly be seen.

But what about the opinion voiced in the article by the shadow defence secretary that it keeps us at the top of the UN in terms of influence and importance, as well as military might? Or even that they may not be worthwhile now, but who knows what the future holds?

Any opinions?

Its doubtful any nation can continue to legitimize the expense of a vast nuclear stockpile for a sustainable period of time. All that uranium locked up in weapons that just sit to provide a deterrent against a limited number of nations should be used to make electricity, and probably will as time goes on. Considering the number of prosperous nations whose citizens enjoy happy and enriching lives without nuclear weapons in their armed forces, it really makes you wonder why have them at all.

We'll I can understand the need to have some kind of a nuclear system as a deterrent since lots of countries are still trying to get them. But with so many countries having some nukes left, aka us et all I don't think it is as important as it used to be. I think the money could be better funded into other military research.

I personally wish all countries would get rid of nukes. But that is not realistic at the moment.

I personally wish all countries would get rid of nukes. But that is not realistic at the moment.

Who knows if it will ever be realistic. Humanity will have to decide soon enough though if we want to work together to address common problems on a global scale or remain true to our nature and remain a bunch of tribes looking for an edge over their neighbors. Nations are already learning that even a small conventional conflict has alot of negative side effects.

It keeps a lot of people employed.

Besides...

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v43/n10/images/3101850f1.jpg

FFS man.. Stand Fast!

Its doubtful any nation can continue to legitimize the expense of a vast nuclear stockpile for a sustainable period of time. All that uranium locked up in weapons that just sit to provide a deterrent against a limited number of nations should be used to make electricity, and probably will as time goes on. Considering the number of prosperous nations whose citizens enjoy happy and enriching lives without nuclear weapons in their armed forces, it really makes you wonder why have them at all. Except for NK and PK, everyone else uses plutonium for nuclear weapons. And the vast majority of reactor designs aren't capable of using plutonium as fuel. There is a newer technology called MOX where the fuel is part plu, but not all reactor designs can use the stuff. And if you read books like The Curve of Binding Energy (http://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980), you'll understand that the current uranium fuel process was cobbled up to create plutonium for military use, and that electricity was the by-product (which is why the AEC wags kept claiming that nuclear generated electricity would be too cheap to meter). According to McPhee, the decline in nuclear power generation was more a result of the US government discontinuing purchasing privately produced plutonium (they had been paying about $500k/pound of plu, and a generating station would make several pounds of the stuff per year), leading to the private industry building up a stockpile of 1700 tons of the stuff over the past 35 years (at $500k/pound, that's a lot of profit the industry has lost).

The other major fuel cycle for nuclear power generation is based on thorium, but since that doesn't produce plutonium as part of its process, it was never commercially developed in the western world. The only uranium fueled reactors that don't produce plutonium are the Canadian CANDU reactors (and indeed, they don't use enriched uranium at all), but they need heavy water.

In the case of the US, the military has about 100 tons of plu, about 1/2 of which are fashioned into warheads. In contrast, the civilian nuclear power industry possesses about 1700 tons of plu. To be fair, the military plu is virtually all odd numbered isotopes, and the civilian is about 1/2 even numbered isotopes (due to physical reasons, even numbered isotopes make the stuff almost impossible to use in weapons).

The nuclear nonproliferation treaty says that every signatory has the right to peaceful nuclear technology - that includes nuclear power plants. And the NPT claims that the only nations permitted to possess nuclear weapons are the ones that had them back in 1967. This is why neither Israel, Pakistan, nor India are willing to sign the treaty - they'd be required by law to surrender and destroy their nuclear weapons. And to destroy their ability to make more.

I suspect the real reason for the UK to want to keep nukes is to preserve the possibility that they might resume their own nuclear weapon production in the future.

I suspect the real reason for the UK to want to keep nukes is to preserve the possibility that they might resume their own nuclear weapon production in the future.

Bingo. Restarting the program would take the better part of a decade, I'm sure the cost+time equation has been in favor of keeping what they have and that will remain so for the next few decades, even with the political costs countering it.

It is noteworthy that we are, finally, trying to commercialize non-plutonium cycle reactors and that India in particular is actively developing thorium fuel cycles as thorium is much more readily available.

I personally think Trident armed submarines are a luxury Britain can't afford. If the UK wants to maintain a nuclear deterrent, it might be less expensive to enable their current fleet of nuclear attack subs to launch nuclear armed cruise missiles rather than build boomers armed with Trident. The warheads would be much smaller, but spread over more submarines the missiles would be more survivable in an actual conflict and let's face it, the UK can rely on its alliance with the US (and to a lesser extent France) to provide some nuclear deterrent.

I personally think Trident armed submarines are a luxury Britain can't afford.


The newest models of the three types of Tridents are not really that expensive, they have made some very nifty advances with the use of plastics on the business end and the newest compact model can be carried on the smallest of subs.


http://www.unitedmask.com/Armor/images/pitch_forks__trident.jpg

There were horses and a man on fire and I killed a guy with a trident!

I've been meaning to talk to you about that, Brick...

You may wish to lay low for a while...

Anyway - many see our already extreme dependence on US deterence as a huge problem, especially as we just gave away our own last share in Britain's nuclear technology and power development. Of course most countries have important energy and weaponary assets in the hands of foreign powers, but I think if the pro-Triden group will lament the loss of nuclear warheads, they should have addresses this former problem a while ago, rather than moan about the loss of 20bn worth of weapons that, if fired, will probably only end in our own demise.

As a multi-trillion dollar world economy with one of the highest defence spending policies, I doubt disarming our nuclear warheads would do much to diminish our standing at the UN and in the world.

Anyway, cheers for the opinions.

Of course most countries have important energy and weaponary assets in the hands of foreign powers

Not such a bad thing. Nations that are exceptionally friendly towards each other spy on each other more than those that are rivals. Israel and the EU, of which the UK is a member, probably spies on the US as much as Russia, China and any other rival nation/bloc you can think of. If not more. Letting your friends in on some of the better secrets can avert pies in the face later if the spooks get caught. At least when it comes to Nationalized assets, anyway. Plus, its good business. Corporate property and espionage, well that's a different story.