Talk:Trident missile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trident missile article.
Article policies
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] Relevant information

Anti-war/anti-nuclear rhetoric does not belong on a page that discusses a missile such rhetoric belong in an anti-war/anti-nuclear rhetoric page. Especially information that is of a political nature. --aceslead 23:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

AMEN TO THAT! '

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Content should be encyclopaedic, verifiable, and cited to its source. Opinions always influence a contributors efforts, but contributors should always strive to be NPOV. Sadly, some try harder than others, and a small minority use these pages as a political pamphlet. The Trident missile page is limited to a brief description of the missile system, its origins and history. More general articles about military stragegy, nuclear weapons, the morality of nuclear weapons etc can be found elsewhere, including in Wikipedia.Brian.Burnell 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


The yield of missile is to be put in kg or tons, NOT megatons.

The range was stated as 12000 km, which is huge overestimation, the range is less than 8000 km, plese post real facts and not overestimations about the missile.

Ok, guys, here is the source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm

here is the quote: Greater than 4,000 nautical miles (4,600 statute miles, or 7,360 km)

So, I am adding this instead of the moronic 12000 km, which is overestimation. 99.231.46.37 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

[edit] CEP

Anyone have a CEP? Stargoat 20:37, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


According to http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-133.html the UGM-133 has a "90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)." I will update the page with this information. 24.19.98.210 1 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)


that is interesting quoting, the CEP of 90 meters is reached by using GPS. Here is full quote:

"The MK 6 stellar/inertial navigation system is able to receive GPS (Global Positioning System) updates, thereby increasing accuracy to that of a land-based ICBM, about 90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)."

In terms of nuclear war GPS guidance will NOT be avaliable, since satellites will be destroyed, so, either put it as 380 meters, which is REAL inertial guidance, or mention in teh chart that CEP is GPS guidance. I will correct teh article, since it is confusing for people.

[edit] Consistency Problems

The Trident missile is the only remaining US SLBM not listed by it's proper identification. The problem arises because there are two different 'Trident' missles, the Trident-I (C4) UGM-93A and the Trident-II (D5) UGM-133A. I've edited the page for a first cut at a cleaner presentation that better differentiates the two. (Note: I like the picture where it is, we should seek out a picture of the -II and put it in the same relative location.)Elde 22:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Correction to myself - the picture is actually a -II, the longer first stage and larger nose fairing, plainly visible in the enlarged view, is a dead giveaway. Elde 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aerospike

The link to the drag resistant aerospike at the front of the missile is a link to the aerospike engine so i'm taking it out. If someone could write a small piece about it would be great Cokehabit 16:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Such an article would get labeled a stub - even though it isn't. Elde 17:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Launching/missile water contact

Contrary to popular belief, the missile does get wet. What prevents the electronics inside the missile from water is pressurization of the missile (prelaunch) somewhat above sea pressure at the level of the tube muzzle. The bubbles you see around the missile in unerwater photographs of the launch is that excess pressure venting from inside the missile. In some high resolution photographs of the the missiles once the reach the surface, you can see plumes of spray at the base of the nose fairing - those plumes are water sheeting across the nose, and then being forced outward from the vents at the base of the nose. Elde 17:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This missile does not contact the water at any time while submerged to my knowledge, but it may well get the odd splash as it breaks the surgace tension. Although I doubt the odd splash of seawater is that much of a problem because the missile will likely get wet while it travels through the clouds and so will be a sealed, corrosion resistant unit. It was a major problem that the designers had to get around. The bubbles are nitrogen gas. The silo's on the submarine are filled with nitrogen gas, a very simple and inert substance (meaning it won't react with anything or damage the missile over time). When fired the nitrogen moves with the missile up and out of the water and just disperses into the atmosphere as the missiles first stage rocket motor fires. I believe it is the strong positive buoyancy which brings the nitrogen and missile up the surface. Rather like when you open a cola sized bottle of air underwater in the bath for example. Hope this helps. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Elde is right, it can clearly be seen in the image montage that the bubbles are issuing from the rocket itself, and that the nose is in direct contact with the water at launch. Even super-cavitating torpedoes touch the water at some points, and those are designed to have minimum possible contact with water as their only goal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.136.240 (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use

Have Trident missiles (of any model) been used in active conflict, and if so, which ones? I feel this could be useful information to include in the article. --Black Butterfly 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You might have heard if the US or UK had nuked another country lately! No, they haven't. And there are as yet no conventional Trident missiles. The UK has a declared policy of sub-strategic use, where they might retaliate against a country which used chemical weapons on its troops for example using a single missile with only one warhead. Mark83 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TridentSubLaunch.gif

This image is over six megabytes in size. That's an awful lot of bandwidth for something that may look interesting but doesn't nessecarily add much to the article. Sargant talk 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The image, TridentSubLaunch.gif was jerky and did not look good. I've removed it. - Crosbiesmith 19:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blair's preference

The BBC source quoted did not say what the article purported it said. Words are important, and it is important that they are quoted accurately. Otherwise the words can be twisted to mean something different to what the speaker intended. The actual quote was as follows:

  • "TB is thought to favour replacing Trident but has promised a full debate before a decision is made."

Note that Blair himself did not utter these words. They are the words of an un-named journalist, who is merely offering his opinion as to what Blair's thoughts were. It is important to get these things right, otherwise contributors are merely promoting a POV, and on hotly contested current affairs such as this one is, expressing a POV is tantamount to promoting a partisan political viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is an encyclopaedia. Brian.Burnell 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the context of the above comment, however did Gordon Brown not cause a stir about 6 months ago by saying Trident would be replaced? And he could be the PM making the decision. Mark83 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what the source is quoted as saying at [1]. The same source as quoted in the article. True, Gordon Brown was reported to have said something along those lines, and he might well be the next PM faced with the decision. I believe though, that such thoughts and utterances by a politician on the hustings for a new job, need to be taken with a large pinch of salt. We shall see if he becomes PM. Until then, perhaps the best place for his musings is the Gordon Brown biog page. Otherwise an article such as this one can be overwhelmed by the musings of all other contenders for the job. But that's very POV. My belief - without any hard evidence to support it yet, is that the MoD will want to remain in step with the US, for the same reasons as advanced in favour of adopting Trident D5 originally. Then, in a Cold War context, it could be summarised as this. "If the Soviets see a Trident missile rising from the Norwegian Sea they will have no way of knowing whether it is a British or American missile. And that uncertainty is also well understood in the US, who are thus bound into an alliance more securely, in the knowledge that a British strike could bring retaliation down on Washington and a hundred American cities." That was the argument made and lost by the Navy against Chevaline, but advanced again and won when Trident D5 was adopted. In today's changed world I fully expect the MoD to adopt a similar position, and opt for a Service Life Extension Program similar to the US D5LE program, because its possibly the cheapest option, but also because issues about binding the US into the NATO alliance are as fragile as ever they were during the Cold War, and US isolationism a growing force in the face of Old Europe's intransigence (as the Americans see it). And the growing wealth, self-confidence and self-assertion of the New Russia won't have escaped the notice of the MoD. Especially after the events of last week in London. But this is wandering a long way from an article on a missile system. Brian.Burnell 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of Trident

I've just added some information about the (il)legallity of Trident to the Trident Ploughshares article. I'd like to add a link to this information to this article, with wording along the lines of "Trident has been argued to be illegal under various points of international law, for more info see..." but thought I should air the idea here first. I know I should just Be Bold but there's not point in being bold and starting an edit war! --Jim (Talk) 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't write it as "for more info see.." It looks like endorsement. A better way is how its handled at British replacement of the Trident system, i.e. outlining the legality (or otherwise) of nuclear weapons and then providing a citation:
Greenpeace and other groups claim that new development of nuclear weapons would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically Article 6:[1]

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."[2]

It would also be beneficial to cite the "various points" and not just leave it so vague. Mark83 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Cheers Mark. I guess if I follow what you said you wouldn't have any objections to my adding a small section on the legality of Trident under international law? I'm being deliberately careful here for reasons stated above. Does anyone else have any objections to my adding the section? --Jim (Talk) 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Go for it! --Guinnog 21:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
To second the point from Mark83, don't write 'Trident has been argued to be illegal', always write 'Trident has been argued to be illegal by particular group or person '. Otherwise it will be necessary to add the Template:Who tag - Crosbiesmith 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll refrain from adding any information for a little while longer, as I still feel that some might see the edit as controversial. For the record the "who" in this case is the World Court. --Jim (Talk) 12:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why you should wait - go for it. Anybody who has a problem with it will either contact you or make changes, that's how it works. Please note on Wikipedia World Court is a disambiguation page, I think the link you would need is International Court of Justice? Mark83 17:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a thought though. How is legality or illegality of nuclear weapons specific to this article in particular? It is discussed fully at International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. i.e. Trident missiles are a major component of the whole system, but it is pointless duplication to have the discussion at every relevant page, e.g. Ohio class submarine, Vanguard class submarine, Typhoon class submarine, Le Triomphant class submarine, AGM-129 ACM, Ground Launched Cruise Missile, R-36 etc. etc. Might I suggest the following section format:

[edit] Legality

Main article: International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
.

Summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary.

Because of Mark's point above, I thought it might be a good idea to have a template which contained a brief summary of the ICJ opinion which could be added to each article where it was thought appropriate. Then rather than subsequent edits to these articles producing various forks of the "Legality" section, all the edits could be done to the template. Also, this would allow for caveats relevant to only some nuclear weapons (e.g., Mark's point regarding proportionality and Trident) to the ICJ opinion to be added below the template's insertion in the respective article.
The template text looks like this:


Main article: International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
.

On 8 July 1996 the International Court of Justice, the highest court of the United Nations, issued an Advisory Opinion concerned with the "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons".[3] The Advisory Opinion states that the threat or use of any existing nuclear weapon is unlawful as it would be in violation of the following articles of international law:

  • The Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868, because the missiles would cause unnecessary suffering;
  • The Martens Clause, 1899, because the use of the missiles would cause humanity to not remain under the protection of international law;
  • The Hague Conventions, 1907, because the missiles would cause unnecessary suffering and the inviolability of neutral nations could not be guaranteed;
  • The UN Charter, 1945, because the use of nuclear weapons would not be proportionate;
  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, because long-lasting effects of radioactive contamination would interfere with the right to life and health;
  • The Geneva Conventions, 1949, because the wounded, sick, infirm, expectant mothers, civilian hospitals and medical staff could not be guaranteed protection;
  • The First and Second Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 (directly brought into United Kingdom Law through the 1995 Geneva Conventions (Amendments) Act), because the missiles would cause massive incidental losses of civilian lives and sever environmental damage.
And you can see it at work here: User:James Kemp/Trident missile
Does this seem like a good solution? --Jim (Talk) 22:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation of template

Having seen the template in use I've come to the following conclusion. I think a better discussion of illegality or otherwise would be good at nuclear weapon. My logic -- bare with me -- is that there are many articles on Wikipedia about cars. However only car describes the very general workings, practicalities and other issues in general. Whereas Ford Mondeo dispenses with generality and focuses on the specific workings, functions and attributes of that product. i.e. The sub-article does not discuss the general effect cars have had on society. Likewise I don't think every single nuclear weapon subarticle (of which there are many) should discuss the complex international legal arguments. Mark83 22:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The template is way over the top. I think this whole issue need only be raised if a particular notable person has prominently raised this issue with regards particularly to Trident. In this case, the required text would be something along the lines of 'Person X has, in an article for the Guardian [or whatever], first raised the point in 1987 [or whenever] that Trident is in violation of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. The British Government dispute this interpretation [presumably]. The current boilerplate, as I say, is way over the top. As Mark says, if we have it on this nuclear weapons article, we need have it on every nuclear weapons article. It would be like those warnings on cigarette packs: repetitive and annoying. - Crosbiesmith 22:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, nothing in this template is Trident-specific. Information on the legality of Trident should be Trident-specific. As I say above, a specific quote from a notable person should suffice. - Crosbiesmith 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the template with a brief mention of Trident Ploughshares. My change is my take on how any reference to legality should be handled. However, having made the change, it still looks wrong to me. As Mark83 says, there is no need to mention the social benefits and environmental drawbacks of the internal combustion engine in every single article about specific types of cars. Likewise, a section on 'the value of nuclear deterrence' would be tiresome, applied to every nuclear weapons article. My further proposal is to remove any reference to illegality or opposition altogether. Anyone sufficienly interested can read Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom or nuclear weapons to get this information. A British campaign against this predominantly American weapons system is of marginal relevance to this article. - Crosbiesmith 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

N.B., for handy reference, the template page is here: Template:NuclearLegality - Crosbiesmith 00:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Crosbiesmith: Mark and I had continued the debate about this at my Talk Page, where we've already covered some of the ground you mention here. Maybe you'd like to have a look at it? We've basically come to the conclusion that each nuclear weapon article should contain something which directs the reader to legal information as per the ICJ advisory opinion; I'm just working out how this should be included so it's not as imposing as the previous template.
We've also covered the problem you mention regarding the lack of Trident-specific legal issues, with the use of a special sectstub template. There has been quite a bit of legal debate in the UK about Trident, and I'm aiming to put a summary of this on the Trident article. I guess I should point out that renaming the section "UK opposition" kind of misses the point; there would be a need, I think, to include both an "opposition" section and a "legality" section, because the two are very seperate. Most oppositions to Trident are moral rather than legal; this is even the case for Trident Ploughshares, who merely use legal language to frame their moral argument. --Jim (Talk) 12:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Further to that though, I have raised a concern about duplication on every sub-article. I first mentioned this in my car/Ford Mondeo analogy. Is a "See also" solution available here? Mark83 22:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well no, given the focus on Trident in the UK, perhaps a dedicated section here and a "See also" section on the other nuclear weapons pages. Mark83 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legality 2

Hi again guys: I've been doing a bit of work on this again, and I've come up with some information which I think is both a suitable and necessary addition to the article. It seems that a couple of lawyers at Cherie Blair's lawfirm applied the 1996 ICJ Opinion directly to Trident, and found that its use would breach customary international law. Since this is completely specific to Trident, does anyone have any problems with me adding it? --Jim (Talk) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've left this a few days and noone's commented, so I'm going to go ahead and add it. Let me know what you think --Jim (Talk) 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I still think these these comments are non-notable and have been given exaggerated prominence. Also, you linked the wrong Rabinder Singh. - Crosbiesmith 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realised it was the wrong Singh pretty quickly, and changed it: in response to your edit summary, Singh's biog can be found at [2]. For the record (and in case anyone wants to sort out those red links), Christine Chinkin's biog is at [3].
But more to the point, I would be very interested to hear why you think the Legality section is non-notable. Positioning it in the article was tricky, so you might be able to improve that to make it less prominent: I didn't want to put it at the bottom, after the "conventional trident" section, as "conventional trident" would not be illegal. --Jim (Talk) 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to knock the work you've done on the legality (or not) of nuclear weapons, but is it the best thing to have taking up a large section of an article on a very particular system (eg you don't have this on say the Dongfeng missile article). Maybe legality is best tackled from the entrance point of nuclear weapons or the WMD infoboxes. Your delving really deep into law, from what can be perceived as a POV, on an article about a rocket (admittedly its the name we over here use to refer to our whole deterrent). I'm really tempted to delete the lot from the trident page. As Jim says, a conventional trident isn't a problem, its the warhead your talking about (ie W86, W88, UK equivalent, etc)
IMHO the judgement, if enforceable or relevant (most IR people look at the NPT as the green light to the P5 - depending on how high you place/value international law - its very contentious, divisive and POV and to some IR people just plain irrelevant), i referring to mutual assured destruction, massive retaliation and maybe minimal retaliation. its very useless for statecraft, it doesn't say if the whole Warsaw pact invades Germany NATO couldn't 1st strike back, it doesn't say what is to far. is escalation to a Soviet assault via tac nukes, building up to an ICBM/SLBM intercity exchange OK, but nuking Moscow straight out illegal ???
sorry to go on, it's my area of IR --Pickle 02:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As I have tried to point out using my Ford Mondeo analogy (under the heading "Implementation of template" above) I agree that every single nuclear weapon article shouldn't have a large discussion about legality/illegality. Put perhaps we could turn the discussion as to where it should be. I suggested in nuclear weapon as you did Pickle. Any other thoughts? Mark83 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
And I agree that it's odd that legality is being discussed on the articles about the nuclear weapons of stable, democratic states but not on those of authoritarian, communist states. Mark83 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I completely take your point that the legality of nuclear weapons should not per se be discussed only on certain nuclear weapons. But, when legal opinions exist which relate specifically to certain nuclear weapons - and when these legal opinions are handed down by lawyers, and not just interpretations advocated by activists - I do think that they have a place in the specific article. If I had the time I would add sections to all nuclear weapon articles, but I don't; international law is a big old subject and I can only do what I can. Since there are two legal opinions relating to Trident (that I've managed to find) I think a specific note of the system's legality is very notable and should be included. With regards to the comment that "this article is about a missile system and it's the warhead that's illegal", it seems to me that this misses the point: Trident has only ever been armed with nuclear warheads, and the W86/88 are (as far as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong) only ever fitted to Trident. This is valid information, notable, and specific only to Trident. Where else should I put it? I've added it the article on the ICJ opinion only because I thought a section on "international reaction" was important.
Pickle: re: your comments on what international law says a state may or may not do, it's pretty cut and dry: the Lotus principle states that a state can do what it wants, as long as its not explicitly prohibited.
And, finally, in reference to the nature of international law: it lacks a police force, and therefore an incentive for world leaders to comply with it. However, it does remain binding on the international community (note that the ICJ opinion was just that, only an opinion; the law was extant before 1996 and all the ICJ are saying is "this is what the law will say if you launch a nuclear weapon". International law would be enforced once the weapons were used, with a trial of the appropriate war criminals at the International Criminal Court. --Jim (Talk) 09:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
firstly and foremost trident is missile, while in popular context, particularly in the UK, it refers to the whole nuclear deterrent system it is actually *just* a missile. while yes, there is no "conventional" trident, in the context of all other ICBM/SLBM articles this section is plain irrelevant. perhaps there needs to be an intro sating how "trident" to the UK reader, refers to the current UK nuclear deterrent of warhead, plus missile, plus vanguard class SSBN, etc. The international law section really should be moved to legality section of Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom. Of the top of my head i can't think of the name for the current UK warhead for the D5 missile, but thats where *maybe* legality could also be discussed.
What I'm also getting at is that the whole idea/concept of International Law is very controversial, Int Law is very different form domestic law, as there lacks any overarching International authority to enforce it, by highlighting the judgement you are perhaps conferring a lot of authority/credence upon a very controversial/irrelevant decision that could arguable betray POV. Even if something is explicitly prohibited eg invading Iraq, its up to someone else/the system to enforce any action (which hasn't happened). Int Law is very tenuous at best and i'ld be very cautious citing / jumping up and down say Int Law says nukes are illegal.
The deeper point i was getting at was, that the judgement is to me at least, unclear as to when using them is illegal. Western defence for the last 50 years has been based upon massive retaliation to Soviet invasion - is this thus illegal? The judgement makes the vital caveat that if the existence of the state is threatened then is OK, thus is the typical example of a soviet invasion of western Europe OK, to resist with nuclear weapons??? Is responding to an initial nuclear assault with nuclear weapons OK ??? The NPT by acknowledging the 5 NWS, thus infers the NWS can have nuclear weapons.....
Look the area is so vague and contentious, riddled with POV that it realy should be abandoned from this article.
Pickle 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You make some interesting points, although I think they are themselves contentious. I will reply fully tomorrow evening (Wednesday evening GMT). --Jim (Talk) 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Quickly - i don't want to knock in anyway you're diligent work on this. IMHO the article on the judgement is very thorough, and anyone interested in the legality of anyone nuclear weapons will find their way their. What I'm against is including this in *every* article anything to do with nukes, particularly this one. As above, its better tackled / angled from elsewhere - that's not to say a single sentence or a listing in the the "see also" would be OK. It's just in its current form legality occupies a significant proportion of the article. Pickle 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


In response to Pickle: If you want me to answer your points above (as promised) I will, but I feel the debate has moved on a bit and so I'd rather spend my time replying to your second set of points. I agree that a summary on the ICJ opinion would look a bit out of place if included ad hoc in every article on a specific nuclear weapon. I do think that such a summary should be included, but concede that this should only be done when the ICJ decision has been applied specifically to the nuclear weapon under consideration. This is the case with Trident: two separate legal opinions have stated that Trident/the Trident replacement would be illegal, and breach the NNPT. This is not just a matter of a lawyer writing on a piece of paper "well, the ICJ said all nukes are illegal so therefore Trident is illegal"; it's a long-winded process, as can be seen from the actual legal opinions. Also, see below. --Jim (Talk) 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't just another missile system that happens to share the legal problems of other nuclear weapons, tho. Trident's legality has been a major issue in the UK - googling faslane (site of the Trident system) gives six of the top ten matches as relating to protest against it, opposition to it, etc. Not putting this in the article is a mistake, IMO. I would therefore suggest the creation of a "controversy" section covering both opposition (domestic and international?) and legal issues. I do agree however that this shouldn't use too much space - maybe a couple of paragraphs for each, with "see also"-s and suchlike.
As this seems to be a contentious issue I will refrain from putting this in for the moment; if nobody blocks it by tomorrow 5pm GMT I will edit it as described above. --Black Butterfly 14:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The question of legality pertains to the British nuclear deterrent as whole. This article is about the submarine launched missile which is a component of that system. Discussions of legality belong at Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom.
Perhaps there is a need for a new article 'Trident (UK nuclear program)'. This would cover the history of the program, opposition, legal issues, cost, and possible replacement.
For the time being, people who wish to read about the wider context of the British Trident program can do so at 'Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom'. If there is pertinent information about legality it should go there. If the information is there, it does not need to go here. I don't believe people with an interest in the opinions of Rabinder Singh QC wish to wade through the technical specs of a submarine launched missile. There is a sufficient material for an article on the purely technical and historical aspects of this missile. This is that article. Likewise, there is sufficent material for an article on the social, moral and legal aspects of the British Trident program. This is not that article. - Crosbiesmith 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To respond more specifically to Black Butterfly's proposal, I reject the idea of a 'Controversy' section. There is no controversy. No one here is disputing Rabinder Singh's opinions. The only dispute is with regards to the article itself, namely, is this material relevant to this particular article. Absolutely no-one so far has claimed that the Trident weapons program is legal under international law. A controversy would imply there are two opposing sides to the debate. Judging by the discussion here, there are people here who believe the weapons are illegal, and people who simply don't care. - Crosbiesmith 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I created British Trident system. Everyone, do your best! - Crosbiesmith 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Crosbiesmith: I refer you to Black Butterfly's statement, something along the lines of it being necessary for Trident to be considered in its social/legal/political contexts. FTR, the question of legality refers to all Trident nuclear weapons. The ICJ opinion, and the two subsequent opinions specific to Trident, are based on international law and refer to the US and the UK Trident systems. The stuff on the Trident replacement and the NPT explicitly refers to only the UK upgrade, but as the US is upgrading too it's not difficult to apply it to the US. Your point about a new article on Trident as a UK missile system is a little obtuse: people who want information about Trident will come here. We could start a new article about the missile system (which is not just a UK operation), which could contain all the information on this page, but that kind of misses the point. Two final points: firstly, there is a controversy here, if only because the US and UK governments are flouting international law and are refusing to respond to their citizens when those citizens demand an explanation. Secondly, it seems to me that your argument above is incredibly POV, and you don't make much of an effort to back up the points you make; it just seems to be a list of opinions. --Jim (Talk) 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with see also/main links etc. to the relevant articles, with a summary in this article. Mark83 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to leave it to Black Butterfly to make the edits, as I think it is better for more than one person to edit article. Based on what has been said, I think the following should be mentioned: (1) Opposition from various activist groups on moral and legal grounds; (2 - perhaps) Opposition from the same, and from other groups (e.g., doctors) under medical grounds; (3) One or two line summary of the ICJ opinion; (4) One line on each of the two legal opinions that specifically addressed Trident. --Jim (Talk) 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legality section removed.

I removed the section about the illegality of the system, since it was completely irrelevant to the topic and was quite obviously political advocacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.104.69 (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Not irrelevant and please don't make improper suggestions about other editor's motives. Thanks Mark83 10:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Removing Trident from its social/political/legal context serves no real purpose. --Black Butterfly 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not relevant specifically to the Trident missile. If you want to discuss the legality of using nuclear weapons in war, this entry should be put under the main page for nuclear weapons and NOT specific underlying pages such as this page that's specifically for the Trident missile. Also, the wording of that section instantly tipped me off that it was put there by a leftist activist. Only after you brought up the part about the author's motives did I look at who the author is. After reading up on it, I can say with 100% certainty that he's a leftist activist. The section will be removed again. Wikipedia is a place to get factual information; it's not there for political activists to advocate their views. The user who put that entry there, Jim, is admittedly a left-leaning anti-war activist. He even has the WikiProject Anti-war page listed as a bookmark, but ironically, if you go to that page, it says, "We do not support, and actively condemn, the promotion of an anti-war POV (or any other POV) in Wikipedia articles." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.104.69 (talk • contribs)
When you have groups such as "Trident Ploughshares" it's a little difficult to say it's not relevant specifically to the Trident missile. Now you could say that group is anti-nuclear and at this moment in time are just anti-whatever particular nuclear system the UK has at the time. But still - I find it hard to support the statement "it's not relevant specifically to the Trident missile."
I haven't browsed enough of Jim's contributions to speak authoritatively, however from what I have seen the edits have been more fact than POV (if any) and he has also sought discussion and consensus on this talk page. In my experience not the characteristics of someone who is POV-pushing. Regards Mark83 10:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I am anti-Trident and, more broadly speaking, anti-war. However, I would argue that since many people have strong views on these subjects there would be very few people editing the articles if a supposed "conflict of interests" were cited as a reason for these people (of which I am one) not to edit war or nuclear-weapon articles. Moreover, it is my anti-Trident feelings that have lead me to research the legal aspect so thoroughly. I guess I should add that I am not affiliated to any anti-nuclear or anti-war group such as CND or Trident Ploughshares, I just agree with many things they say. --Jim (Talk) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that your anti-Trident feelings have lead you to research the legal aspect, but that doesn't mean that a section devoted to it belongs in the article. The fact that some people have strong anti-ware feelings doesn't change that fact. I'm not opposed to you writing or editing articles about weapons, but when you begin to inject your personal beliefs into the article by devoting sections of those articles to anti-war causes, you've crossed the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.104.69 (talk • contribs)
No sorry, exactly what is crossing the line? As I have explained earlier on this talk page and to Jim on his talk page I am pro-nuclear. However as yet I have not seen him "cross the line" regarding legality. Given the unjustified attacks (as I see it) on Jim, I think he has more authority to speak than those who both attack his edits and revert them without looking for consensus or explaining their edits. Mark83 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the first issue here is whether an article on a specifically nuclear weapon should include information on that weapon's social (i.e., economic, political, or in this case legal) context. I think that it should. A nuclear weapon (or any weapon) is not just a collection of metal, warheads, detonators, rocket fuel etc.; it is an object which has a profound impact on people's lives and therefore deserves to be considered in the context of those lives. I agree that a general discussion of the social context of nuclear weapons should not be included in every article about a specific nuclear weapon. If you go back through the history of the article you will see that I did include a general summary of the ICJ opinion in December, and it was deleted after some debate. However, what I have included here is very specific to Trident, so I think it should stand.
The second issue would then be what form this information should take. Is the way it is currently written too ostentatious? Perhaps the use of the cquotes makes it stand out too much? I have discussed this earlier on this talk page, and have said I won't edit it to make it less ostentatious, essentially because I feel the section would be better if it were edited by more than one person. I think the social context does deserve its own section, essentially to mark it off from the technical information in the rest of the article. Maybe that section should also contain some history of the Trident missile, both because its notable information and also (as a side-effect) because this would ensure the points on legality don't stand out so much? --Jim (Talk) 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Controversy section added

As discussed above, I have added a section on controversy related to Trident. most of the information there relates specifically to Trident's state in the British political scene rather than to nuclear weapons more generally, which is why I felt it would be useful to have in the article. More general views on nuclear weapons, legally, morally and politically, is dealt with in other articles. I have tried to keep POV to a minimum but I'm only human, any help would be good. However, I would ask that the section not be removed. As stated above, the information given here is Trident-specific rather than being related to nuclear weapons more generally, and as such, it belongs here. The section on its role in Scottish politics is essentially a stub and could use expansion (unless information is such as it requires its own article; not likely for the time being). --Black Butterfly 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job! I feel that this really adds to the article, and provides a better context for my international law additions. I think it might upset a few people though!!
A couple of points - I will add these myself as soon as a few other people have seen the section as it now stands - (1) I really don't like "Controversy" as a header. It seems to be used in a lot of WP articles and really makes my skin crawl. Maybe "Opposition" would be better? Or there's certainly something even better still. (2) I think the section would be improved by including the reasons why people object to Trident: legal, moral, on health grounds, expense, etc. If these reasons were outlined quickly and referenced then people might be a bit less likely to remove the section in one fell swoop. --Jim (Talk) 16:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree on the name of the section - will change it to Opposition. And cheers for expanding on the reasons for objection from Scottish groups. Will add a quote from the faslane 365 group also. --Black Butterfly 16:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move

1) OK I've been bold and moved the huge chunk that is causing all the fuss over to the new British Trident system.

IMHO its best that we explain the problems, legality, etc et all over on that page. legality of the US deterrent which doesn't seam to be as big an issue should occur at "us and nuclear weapons" page

2) back to the debate - IMHO on legality, the NPT, by being ratified by every state on the planet confers a) that the NNWS accept the NWS's nuclear status (ie they have the bombs, bomb are bad, but they have them) b) the other NWS accept the other NWS's possession, c) thus you leave Israel, India and Pakistan (and now DPRK) who everyone accept have nukes after the 1967 cutoff and haven't got a clue how to deal with this fact. I'm not disputing that various legal bods have made numerous legal opinions and judgements, but the weight of the NPT to me, and presumably the states involved seams to practically dismiss/ignore this judgement (my humble opinion only, i respect your right to disagree).

3) FFS 68.45.104.69 sign in so one or the other we can all agree/disagree with you in a civilised manner ;)

I've signed in now- TwinTurboZ 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pickle 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pickle 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Who stated the range at 12000 km, this is terribly false, the range is less than 8000 km, please do not spoin wikipedia with such corrections.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm

Also, where is info on that 29000 km/h speed of warheads? at what stage?

Seems VERY doubtful that the speed is indeed 29000 km/h, it is more likely to be 15-19000 km/h.

[edit] Senate Gives Conventional Trident the Ax...

Just read that the US Senate cut funding for conventionally-tipped Trident missiles, fearing that the launching of one would be mistakenly identified as a genuine nuclear strike, and thus prompting a nuclear response. This should be added to the article. Here is the source-article Senate Panel Eliminates Trident Conversion Funding. -Geoffrey C Vargo 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)