Talk:British replacement of the Trident system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Merge proposal

Could this not be covered at Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom? Mark83 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It could, although I thought the politics of the replacement was not in keeping with the technical theme of Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom. There is potential for this to expand further with the parliamentary debate and so on in 2007. However, if people still think otherwise (eg expand the NWUK Parliament and civil society section to cover historical public opposition) then it doesn't matter either way. Clue 04:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly worth keeping the debate in a separate article, especially now that the White Paper has been published. === Vernon White (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
While "Trident" (even "Trident system") may be its popular name it's Trident D5 missiles based on Vanguard class SSBNs, would another name like the "4th generation British nuclear deterrent" be more appropriate? Pickle 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the title is misleading. Clue 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree also, particularly as the plans as I understand them will initially see a new submarine class carrying Trident missiles which have gone through the D5 Life Extension. i.e. they will still be "Trident subs" Not sure if I like the "4th generation" bit of the proposed title though. Mark83 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't pretned to be good at making up titles, so that was a bit of guess work based upon the generational phase as used by Andrew J Pierre in "Nuclear Politics", one of the key books on the history of the british nucelar weapons project when reffering to the V-bobmers as the first generation, and Polaris as the second and third as "ULMS" (obvisouly latter renamed to Tridents on Ohio boats). Pickle 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As it stands, the heading is a misnomer. If a more ideal one cannot be found, a possible solution would be to focus on the Commons vote and rename as such. Another would be to merge into the British Trident system. Clue 07:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
How about something along the lines of Technical refresh of the UK Nuclear Deterrent?ALR 09:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
As i udnerstand the current debate it will be new subs, and maybe rebuilt warheads (something is happening/going to at Aldermarston). The new subs are planned for the current Trident D5 missiles - is that a "Technical refresh" ... ??? Pickle
The capability is CASD, the method of providing that capability is currently the four V boats armed with the Trident delivery vehicle. The white paper recommends new boats to carry the delivery vehicles. In that sense it is a tech refresh of the capability.ALR 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to merge into the parent Trident article. The replacement was created as a standalone, which is now a fallacy given the redundancies between the two. Clue 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Involvement

Are Trident missiles sans warheads supplied by the US or did Thatcher effect a technology transfer in the 80s? (I thought we couldn't build our own rockets any more) It would be interesting to know how much of the projected budget will be spent in the UK and how much will have to go on importing material from the United States. What is the process by which this would occur? Has there been a sucessor to the Polaris agreement? --Mr impossible 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The UK paid 5% of the Trident R&D budget. I don't know if another payment was made per missile or whether the missiles contain any significant British content? The current submarines themselves are a significant part of the cost and they are largely British designed and built. The Polaris Sales Agreement article answers your question -- it was modified for Trident. Hence the "Polaris Sales Agreement" provides the framework for the supply of Trident missiles as it did for Polaris. There was never a "Trident Sales Agreement". Mark83 16:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The real quaetsion that IMHO everoyne missed (check the Ohio class talk page where i've our American cousins for their views) is why the Americans aren't really thinking about theirs yet - their (older) Ohio class boats will continue in service till the 2040s and so will the Trident D5 missiles (both with mid life upgrades). The eventual next generation SSBN isn't really being considered / though about. Pickle 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeframe for replacement

Initially, parts of the existing Trident system will be refitted to some extent to prolong their lives. However, the relatively short (five years) life extension potential of the Vanguard class means a new class of SSBNs will replace it in the early 2020s. There are suggestions that the SSBN fleet may be cut to three hulls if the design could maintain the Continuous at Sea Deterrence principle at that number. The first SSBN would probably take 17 years to be designed and built, making a five year life extension of the Vanguard class necessary. On this basis, a refitted Vanguard class could still shrink by at least one vessel for a period of time before the first replacement SSBN enters service.

The articles I've read have suggested a number of people, e.g. the Liberal Democrats believe the decision can and should be delayed until 2012 or 2015 later (the article only mentions someone saying 15 years longer and I haven't heard anything about that). The info on the article (17 years to design and build vs early 2020s for extended Vanguard life span) suggest this isn't possible since the replacament will only be ready by 2029 which isn't early 2020s. Either they think it's possible to build and design the replacemebt in a shorter timeframe or they claim it's possible to extend the life of the Vanguard further.

Also, the article in general doesn't mention the politics much like the large number of rebel Labour members Nil Einne 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the Liberal Democrat timetable for the SSBN class is largely unchanged; they are just arguing for a debate closer to the order of the submarines in 2014. It now seems they are going to get it. Clue 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

There is no part of this article that shows support for the Nuclear detterent. The latter part of the article clearly shows the side of the anit-nuclear camp, but there is NO part of this article that shows or expresses in anyway the view of the pro-nuclear camp. Why? Surely this is contradictory to Wikipedia's point of view standards. (Though the more time I read Wikipedia articles, the more liberal I find them to be). 81.77.154.76 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK so this article is NPOV, how do suggest we improve it? I'm not known for being anti nuclear either, and am about to embark upon my dissertation on the subject so ... Pickle 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There is an issue with POV, mainly because representation rather simplifies quite a lot of the complexities to make it digestible for the uninformed reader. Although I'd disagree with the view that objecting to the tech refresh is an inherently liberal perspective (probably a US reader using their definition of liberal).
The difficulty as I see it is that the published material on the debate is predominantly anti-tech refresh, or predicated around the barking idea that a decision can be deferred. None of the real substance around the benefits of renewal are released as yet, most of the OA done in MOD getting to this stage will be classified.
ALR 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Beyond the anti nuclear fringe there has been some minor coment about why now, eg an opionon peice in yesterday's telegraph "Have we the skills to replace Trident?" by Lord Chalfont (ex BAE and a foregin office minister )http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/03/14/do1402.xml - note the line "In fact, there is no reason why the Vanguard submarine should not have a life expectancy of 45 years". The Guardian also ran a story (no link to hand, but BBC also ran it - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6454273.stm), citing the visit by US Prof Richard Garvin, "decision to replace the Trident subs is 'highly premature'".
What i think is that the subs could be made to last longer (like Ohio's) but to keep the UK in the submarine business we need to do this now. ie keep BAE in Cumbria busy after Astute or we lose the ability to build submarines full stop. Pickle 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that the maintenance of an effective industrial base is, and should be, a factor in defence acquisition decisions. I'm not convinced that much beyond the 5 year extension to boat life, already proposed, is viable. I'd note that US environmental regulations are somewhat weaker than in the UK, which does influence the life extension issue, do we really want to be sending people to sea in vessels which don't meet the legislation?
But I think the issue here is, it's all very well to have an informed discussion it here on the talk page, but there is a dearth of reliable sources to support the discussion in the article. Almost everything to do with the kettle is classified, and that's really the key element of any life extension. The combat system is intimately tied to the vehicle launch aspect, and any sensors can be upgraded outwith a hull life extension project, although much of the material about the CS and associated sensors is also going to be classified.
ALR 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ALR that there is a content problem when writing about silent agreement with existing policy. Clue 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You've hit the nail on the head. The key details will be classified for decades and all we have to work with is commentators on either side, yet the issue is vital about key expenditure, etc. Quite what the answer is, is the real challenge. Pickle 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Why is the word 'British' at the front? Is it not redundant? Dmn € Դմն 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No. As yet (to my knowledge) the US has yet to announce its intention for a sub-based deterrent post-Trident. Come to think of it so has the UK! Am I wrong? The vote yesterday was about new subs and in the longer term possibly new warheads? The new subs will still carry Trident for a time. So yes, given that I'm pretty sure I read that the "Polaris Sales Agreement (as modified for Trident)" says that the UK will automatically have access to Trident's successor this should be a page regarding the UK AND US intentions post Trident. Mark83 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't a better title be Replacement of the British Trident system then? It's just irking me having British next to replacement as if the act of replacement itself is somehow British. Dmn € Դմն 07:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
a) the Americans aren't even contemplating replacing their sub based nuclear deterrent (Trident D5 missiles, Ohio SSBNs, and W76 and W88 warheads). i asked over the Ohio talk page what the US is thinking, and they aren't really, so it's fundamental that we keep the two separate or explain the differences between the UK and US stances
b) the reason partly behind this article is that the editors at the time wanted to spit i) the missile info (which is how Americans perceive it ii) from the submarine based nuclear deterrent (which is how we in the UK call it - ie trident is more than "just" missiles to us). So it all depends on what the phrase "trident" means to you, hence the "trident system"
c) as to the placement of Britain in the title, IMHO its Britain who is doing the replacing rather than the system being British as such, but I'm not overtly upset if someone wants to hold a move vote to establish consensus.
Pickle 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive redundancy

We now have

am I alone in thinking this is ludicrous? Especially given the massive redundancy in several articles. I propose the following:

Its a fair comment. However ;
Trident missile is for both sides of the pond, and to the the Americans "trident" doesn't mean to them what it does to us.
Yes "British replacement of the Trident system" should really be "XXXX class submarine" (ie the Vanguard replacement), but a) to Joe public over here they want to see trident and b) it hasn't got a name yet!
IMHO the "British Trident system" provides the overview (bear in mind we have no page on the UK warheads) of the current system, and thus "British replacement of the Trident system" is a logical consequence (if the page "British Trident system" is long enough). Pickle 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll confess to being confused by what you have said, sorry. I agree Trident missile is for both sides of the pond, that's why I said "keep as is". Do you disagree then that Vanguard class submarine and British Trident system should be merged? I don't see why they shouldn't. I know some have said "Trident" in the UK refers to whole system, but there is no reason that that page cannot describe the submarines, missile (UK specific info) and warheads. At present there is so much duplication. And by the way I think too much is being made of 'Trident means something different over here' - I think that's wrong. (Not being American I'm not sure) but I think they use the word in the same sense as us, i.e. "a Trident submarine" to refer to the Ohios as an entire system. Mark83 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article even titled this way? "British replacement of the Trident system" is plain wrong. As envisaged the UK will buy new submarines to carry Trident missiles. The title suggests Trident is on its way out with the Vanguards, which is wrong. Mark83 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I do disagree that Vanguard class submarine and British Trident system shouldn't be merged. Vanguard is just the sub, "British Trident system" gives the overview.
The US has Ohio's that are now cruise missile sub SSGNs, and their trident were of two versions (C4s and D5s). The reason we went away from Trident was the US editors found we were cluttering up the article with unnecessary fluff (eg the very large tract on the legality of UK nuclear weapons, etc). Thus we Brits can edit away with out troubling our transatlantic colleagues.
Pickle 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about moving anything to Trident missile as I have made clear in my comments. My point is what reason is there that British Trident system cannot redirect to Vanguard class submarine and discuss the whole system there? With a properly written info there is zero chance of confusion. I stress my point here is the massive redundancy of three pages containing much of the same informtion.
I don't follow your logic about the Ohio SSGN conversion and the C4/D5 having anything to do with the titles of the British pages. The SSGN conversion is well covered at Ohio class submarine and the C4/D5 is covered at Trident missile. They could have had four or five different Trident versions and another variant of the sub and that still has no bearing on the British pages. Mark83 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
They should be kept seperate as this is a very "political" topic. I have observed that the "military" editors often object when "military" articles are overwhelmed by the politics of the procurement decision, so the article is no longer a concise description of the system; and the polical editors don't care for detail of the sub like "single shaft pump jet propulsor" or "two periscopes". They are best kept seperate. Rwendland 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Rwendland has been more elequant that i have. The problem before was poltics was making the trident page to big, and US military editors wanted consitency across all rocket pages, and copius note aboutt he legality of trident were giving them "issues", so "British Trident system" allows us silly Brits to argue about it, and keep the Americans happy! Pickle 22:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Since two people now seem to be misunderstanding me I'm beginning to think it's me who is not expressing himself very well. So let me be as clear as I can. (I thought) I had made it very clear that I don't want to touch Trident missile as evidenced by my 16:41 contribtion, "keep as is". My point is the British articles, British replacement of the Trident system, British Trident system, Vanguard class submarine. My thinking is
  1. British replacement of the Trident system is wholly wrong as a title - we aren't seeking to replace Trident, we are seeking to procure new submarines to carry Trident missiles and possibly what comes after Trident. Hence this article should largely be about the submarine class which follows the Vanguard class.
  2. I don't care what title is used, but British Trident system and Vanguard class submarine should be merged due to the fact that they are analogous. While I accept that "Trident" is used to refer to the subs and the system as a whole, an article could easily incorporate both. Mark83 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a merge between British replacement of the Trident system and British Trident system would be the best, because as you've said the former is slightly wrong - when I was looking through sources to suggest this for ITN there were something like four or five articles to update with pretty much the same information. RHB Talk - Edits 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure the former is wrong; if it is we are in the fine company of the House of Commons Library whose research paper[1] on this topic states "A replacement would, therefore, need to enter service in the mid-2020s" (summary page), and notes the Minister of Defence wrote of "a decision taken to acquire a successor system" (page 32). The Foreign Secretary in the recent debate said "further decisions will in any case be needed ... on whether to renew or replace the warhead, and on whether to participate in any American programme to develop a successor to the D5 missile".[2] In 2005 the Defence Secretary announced "Decisions on any replacement of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent are likely to be necessary in the lifetime of the current Parliament".[3] "Trident replacement" is the common parlance for this whole updating process, though maybe "Trident D5 replacement" is more precise. Rwendland 03:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If we go down that road as such then we are actually just talking about Vanguard replacement ie just the SSBN component of our "trident system", rather than replacement of the whole system, as the other two components are staying the same. Pickle 14:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Rwendland your references are authoritative, however they explain the timetable for potential replacement of the whole system. As currently envisaged the UK is only procuring new submarines. Am I alone in being frustrated in the redundancy in the articles I have highlighted? Mark83 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could remove the duplicated info if we got one of those fancy side tables to guide users through "UK and nuclear weapons" ??? But fundamentally i don't see how we can eliminate any of the pages. Pickle 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We're going to have to agree to disagree then, and given that I won't be merging any of the pages in question. I may try to make the articles more role specific and less repition of the general history and policy. However as ever I'm happy to discuss changes. Mark83 16:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of that ;) Pickle 16:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

The way I understand it the controversy began and got it's early funding and organizational assistance from Soviet spies. This doesn't change the reality or the validity of the controversy, but it should be mentioned. Djfeldman 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No evidence is given as to how the last editor acquired this understanding so it "Moscow Gold" allegations should not be included. == Vernon White (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I know it was rumoured, but without reliable sources its best not mentioned Pickle 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deterrence

There have recently been some changes and reversions concerning the use of "Nuclear Deterrent" and "Nuclear Weapon" in this article. In view of the reasonable and unanswered criticism of Deterrence theory, I hope we shall stick with "Nuclear Weapon". Vernon White . . . Talk 00:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree. The policy is deterrence, the military task is Continuous At Sea Deterrence, the system is referred to as the deterrent etc, etc...
The fact that we can never know if it is successful or not is neither here nor there on this page. The cold war finished, the existence of the deterrent may have contributed to that.
If the discussion related to tactical nuclear devices then the position would be different, but the strategic system is solely based around the deterrence concept.
ALR (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Government References to the nuclear weapons themselves, weapon systems and their active deployment in a condition ready for use,may use deterrent as an official euphemism for these things. wikipedia should not endorse this kind of political language but should refer to the actualities as plainly as is tasteful. Any debate about deterrence as a policy or moral issue is really a different subject from whether nuclear weapons should be referred to as such, or in terms of the justification that is attempted for their possession and use.Benny the wayfarer (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. 'Nuclear weapon' is unambiguous. 'Nuclear weapons of mass destruction' is also unnecessary. The effect of nuclear weapons is discussed elsewhere. In the text I have replace 'arsenal of nuclear weapons of mass destruction ' with 'number of warheads' which is more specific and shorter. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Replacing neutral, if diplomatic, terminology with emotive language does nothing to aid the debate. Given that the capability and the objectives of the deployment is much more than just the devices themselves it's more accurate to use the correct terminology.
ALR (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
in what way is calling a nuclear weapon a nuclear weapon emotive language please. do not insult my intelligence!Benny the wayfarer (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Fearsome arsenal of nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons of mass destruction?? Both of those are pretty emotive. In any case the deterrent is much more than just the devices, it's the boats, the targeting cycle and system, the nuclear firing chain etc. Dumbing down the terminology is deceptive.
ALR (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with ALR here, Nuclear Deterrent is a pretty common name for the entire system which, as ALR says, includes more than just multiple warhead nuclear missiles. Narson (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could review my original point: "Deterrence theory" is a propagandistic term, an unproven hypothesis and, now, severely criticised as an interpretation of world events and the psychology of fear. Use of the term "Nuclear Deterrent" euphemises what may be properly described as "Nuclear weapon delivery systems" or, "Nuclear weapons", for short. Vernon White . . . Talk 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Your view is certainly not neutral, and is itself disputed by many observers of human nature. As the term "deterrence" is used frequently in the source materials, changing it to your "neutral" terms misrepresents what the original sources are saying, and in some cases completely changes the meaning of the quotes or summaries of the reports, thus falsifying the content reported here. This article is not the place to argue "deterrence theory", or to push your own POV. A link to the Deterrence theory article should suffice to provied context on the term, perhaps with a footnote in this article noting the term is not accepted by everyone. - BillCJ (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have already linked the Section to the Deterrence theory article. Don't you think insistence on using a euphemism is a POV? A spade is a spade. A Nuclear Weapons System is not a discredited Cold War strategy. Vernon White . . . Talk 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't accept it as a euphimism, which is my point here. Calling it a "discredited Cold War strategy", and then attempting to belittle me reveals your own biases for all to see. Neutrality in WP recognizes that people, and governments, have the right to their beliefs, and presents them in a balanced manner, without giving undue weight to competing theories. Obviously your own biases are so strong that no compromise is possible here. I'll just wait till someone with some extra time takes to issue to RFC or Arbcom, and comment then. - BillCJ (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that calling the system what HMG calls it is entirely reasonable, and not to do so is unreasonably biased in it's own right. If you feel that the use of the term is sufficiently disputed to create a credible section in the article then feel free to do so. I'd suggest that it's more intellectually robust to identify that you, personally, dispute the usage of the term across a host of documents in HMG.
ALR (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sure that HM Opposition would not agree with you that HMG is entirely unbiased. "Nuclear weapon delivery systems" or, "Nuclear weapons", are neutral terms, although they do not express support for re-tooling HM Navy and enriching the directors shareholders of BAE Systems. Vernon White . . . Talk 22:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
HMG on HMGs policy is about the only authoritative source, whether they are biased or not is immaterial.
Nuclear weapons etc may, in your opinion, be neutral, however in the context of HMGs Foreign Policy and the Military Tasks of the RN oversimplify the issue.
The position of the opposition is also largely immaterial in the context of this article, unless of course you can find something published by them that dumbs down the description to the extent you wish. As I recall neither of the two main opposition parties objected to the requirement to tech refresh, merely the timing.
ALR (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is more than just the missiles. It is about the submarines, continuing the policy of being able to 'strike from beyond the grave'....more than just the puny warheads. Felt this needed restating as Vernon appears to have forgotten. Narson (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me that we haven't updated the Astute class submarine article to include the promise of seven new subs (Hansard Commons 3 Mar 2008 : Column 1452 Bob Ainsworth, responding to Dr. Julian Lewis. And also of the cheering novel and film: On the beach. Vernon White . . . Talk 23:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That article already mentions the 7 planned Astute class subs, as well as the possibility of a new design of a stretched Astute designed to replace the SSBNs. Narson (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Howsoever the government of the UK may refer to its nuclear weapons is immaterial for the purposes of deciding what language a wikipedia article should use. Neither does it seem to be self-evidently true that the only reliable sources are neccessarily published by governments. The argument that governments are not political organizatiohs and therefore their choice of terms is neutral beggars belief.Words of this article which name nuclear weaponry should do so in plain English. Referring to the systems of nuclear weaponry as "the deterrent" is plainly evasive and euphemistic and should not continue on this site.Benny the wayfarer (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

HMG has also favoured the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction", but has not applied it to its own baroque arsenal. Perhaps out of evenhandedness, we might alternate the euphemistic and the dysphemistic terms. Vernon White . . . Talk 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought HMG preferred "Weapons of Mass Effect", which actually is a better description of chemical and biological weapons.
Nevertheless, deterrence theory, along with more specialized concepts such as compellence theory, is a well-recognized part of the academic and military literature on strategic weapons. I do not use strategic weapon as a euphemism for nuclear weapon, as an appropriate SAS operation, an airstrike with PGMs, etc., are all "strategic" in that a specific operation may have an independent major impact on a conflict.
Now, I would like to see a clearer statement, not necessarily in this article but at least linked to it, of what HMG sees as the threat to be deterred. No Guards Tank Armies are likely to pour through the Fulda Gap. Given a general threat definition, there could be some exposition of how a survivable and accurate nuclear delivery system could, or could not, deter it. For example, is a nuclear attack by transnational terrorists one of the things to be deterred? If so, how many target Designated Ground Zeroes are there likely to be? Is a MIRV needed? Might 22nd Regiment be another form of deterrence? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Howard. Yes, the section on Strategic_value is way out-of-date. I recall seeing the former Minister, Lord Drayson responding to questions of the Defence Select Committee, about the Astute programme,along the lines that anything that is good for BAE SYSTEMs is good for Britain (or somesuch . . , probably in Autumn 2007). I wonder what the present Minister, Ann Taylor thinks about the strategic value of nukes and their delivery systems. Vernon White . . . Talk 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
US Minuteman III ICBMs, under arms control agreements, are being taken to single warhead rather than 3-warhead MIRV. Trident II D5 are capable of carrying 12 warheads, although arms control takes them to 8 or 5; I believe there is no restriction on putting penetration aids in the bus positions not used for warheads. If the doctrine is sub-strategic, does that imply that Britain wants single-warhead missiles? I'm not saying that a Trident-equivalent with 1 warhead and 11 decoys might not be cheaper than an entirely new SLBM, but it does seem that the sub-strategic policy does not immediately reconcile with a MIRVed SLBM. Has there been any discussion of the relationships here? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)