Talk:UK Trident programme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

Contents 1 Purpose of article 2 Proposed move 3 Costs? 4 Speculative text 5 Motives of objectors to Trident replacement 6 Years people 7 Spelling 8 "Nuclear weapon", rather than "nuclear deterrent" 9 Missiles purchased or leased

[edit] Purpose of article

I started this article in response to a discussion at Talk:Trident_missile#Legality_2. I'm fed up with information pertaining to the legal status of nuclear weapons being added to articles which I expect to have a purely technical focus. On the other hand, Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom#Trident is clearly very disappointing for anyone who wants to know about the political controversies surrounding this expensive and highly potent weapons system - it is an almost entirely technical overview of the system. The 'main article' tag points to yet more highly technical articles on the Vanguard class submarine and the American Trident missile. So, while I fairly strenuously object to legal discussion in an article on rockets, I can see there is a dearth of information on the non-technical aspects of the British Trident program. Not only the controversial aspects, but also on the history and the individuals who created it. Having said that, I do hope this won't become a billboard for obscure campaigning groups. - Crosbiesmith 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I've expanded it a bit and rephrased chunks as well. There is now a politics section where i anticipate the legality debate can be sufficiently accommodated in a UK context.

Pickle 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - i've been bold and moved it - see talk over on Trident missile

Pickle 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I think this is probably the most suitable solution to the problem, in that it doesn't swamp the technical article with political information but at the same time doesn't ignore the context altogether. nice one! :)

Am going to get back on looking up sources soon. I'm sure I've seen something from the SNP - will check it out. --Black Butterfly 11:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

To... Trident missile system or Trident system. This is, famously, a joint UK and US venture. Yes, the deployments are different, but there could be two subsections of the article. Whatcha reckon? --Jim (Talk) 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While i can't think of a good name, the current "British Trident system" dosen't do what we want this article to do. What we're trying to explain is that the word "Trident" to the Britsh public means a Vanguard SSBN with Trident D5 SLBMs and ? warheads.

Pickle 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not ideal. I actually based it on the description 'UK Trident nuclear weapons system' used in the Trident Ploughshares site, but it's a working title. Whatever is decided, it should clearly refer to the British nuclear program and, ideally, it should be a term in popular usage. One possibility is that we simply call it 'Trident' with disambiguating brackets, such as Trident (UK weapons program). I think 'Trident' may be the common British usage, referring, as you say, to the combination of Vanguard + missile + warheads. - Crosbiesmith 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, 'British Trident program'? To emphasize that the article is not only about a weapons system, but also about its social and political context. - Crosbiesmith 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

'Trident program (UK)'? There are so many possibilities. - Crosbiesmith 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Trident referred to both the US and UK missile systems: although they are slightly different with different classes of sub used on different sides of the Atlantic, etc. So couldn't we go for Trident nuclear missile system and then have info on both the UK and US deployments? --Jim (Talk) 13:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My favourite is UK Trident program - Crosbiesmith 15:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I should probably be bold. Any objections to a rename to UK Trident program? - Crosbiesmith 16:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Costs?

The cost section is a bit convoluted.

- First sentence gives a cost then says this was less than expected. Seems like somebody's pushing a point of view here. Therefore I've taken the liberty of removing the second half of the sentence " ...which is over £3.6 billion lower in real terms than the original 1982 estimate". If people feel its important to stress the actual price vs planned cost maybe we need a section about planning and then a second section about final costings?

What does acquisition costs mean vs total costs? Initial purchase? R+D ?

--mgaved 12:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative text

The following was removed from the UK Nuclear Policy section by myself:

The British-manufactured warheads are thought to be selectable between 0.3 kt, 5-10 kt and 100 kt; the yields obtained using either the unboosted primary, the boosted primary, or the entire [[thermonuclear|thermonuclear warhead]]{{Fact|date=February 2007}} but there is no hard evidence from official sources to support this speculation.

Since the original statement was that it was rumor, and a request for a source was placed, it seemed appropriate to remove it until either a) an official answer is available, or b) a reputable source states research or interviews which indicate that it is likely. - Davandron | Talk 14:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Issue resolved by Rwendland finding a source. - Davandron | Talk 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motives of objectors to Trident replacement

I've taken the liberty of changing the wording here slightly - the previous content appeared to imply that the only possible reason for objecting to the Trident replacement was the opportunity for full disarmament. PateraIncus 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Years people

was initiated with the aim of blockading the base every day for one year

Since when was their one year in a day? The sentence structure donates that every day, they blockaded it for a year. I'm changing this embarassing english structure to "every year for a day". Tourskin 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

~~The two sentences have different meanings. I think the writer meant to say "every day for a year" i.e. every day for a whole year, rather than an annual one-day-long blockade. Which of the two the group intended I cannot speculate...

[edit] Spelling

Shouldn't it be programme instead of program, as this is after all a British thing :) Sean 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Chillysnow 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes--203.218.95.229 10:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been moved by me.--MacRusgail 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Nuclear weapon", rather than "nuclear deterrent"

Would anyone object if I changed all instances of the term "nuclear deterrent" to "nuclear weapon"? "Detterent" seems somewhat POV to me, whereas "weapon" seems a more neutral term. --Jim (Talk) 15:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim - you'll notice that I changed the introduction to read 'weapons programme' instead of 'deterrent' last weekend. I agree that describing Trident as a deterrent and not a weapon is somewhat P.O.V. and rather euphemistic. As far as I can see, the only objectionable use is the phrase 'sole nuclear deterrent', which appears twice, as I copied the phrase into the 'history' section as well. I think that should read 'sole nuclear weapons system'. The other mentions of deterrence are in the context of the stated purpose of the system, which I think are fair enough. I've changed those two occurrences. - Crosbiesmith 18:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that's exactly what I had in mind. --Jim (Talk) 10:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missiles purchased or leased

In the "Numbers" section it says that the missiles were purchased, but in the Sunday Times Magazine article of 20th January 2008, which I've referenced in the article, it says "Britain doesn't actually own the Trident missiles, they are leased from a pool shared with the US at Kings Bay, Georgia. Britain has title to 58 of these" I've changed purchased to leased. Richerman (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)