Could Trident ever be used?

Also, a question to the OP - what's your source for all this very informative, somewhat technical information?

Damn, that's impressive. I must admit, I do find nukes in particular quite fascinating. Not even from an edgy "I love destruction" point of view, the engineering and physics involved is just impressive to me.

Ahaha, I'm currently at my parent's house for Eastertide and "childsafe" settings have blocked that PDF!

Let's see if I can download it on my phone...

Nuclear Operations and Targeting Centre

Planning for nuclear weapons is within the remit of the Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Policy)(ACDS (Pol)).266 The Director Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy (DCBRNPol), a Commodore, has specific responsibility. The UK Liaison Officer at Omaha and his deputyare also responsible to ACDS (Pol). A list of naval positions refers to the Officer in Charge of theNuclear Operations and Targeting Centre (NOTC), a Commander.267 There is also an OperationsOfficer at NOTC, a Lieutenant.268 The location of the NOTC is “MoD, London”.

NOTC houses a computer system that produces British nuclear target plans. Until the late 1990sthere will have been a system to prepare nuclear attacks from aircraft using WE-177 bombs andanother for Polaris. Since the early 1990s there has also been a special system for Trident.

Official statements in 1994 and 2004 refer to the software and hardware of “the UK shore-basedtarget planning system” for Trident, although they do not mention NOTC by name.269 In 1994 theMoD said the decision that Trident should take on a sub-strategic role would require “minorenhancements” to the hardware and software of this system. In June 2004, in response to aParliamentary question, the Armed Forces Minister said that the system had not changedsignificantly since 1993, but that modifications had been made “to update the hardware andoperating system in accordance with good industry practice”.270

In 1993 it was said that the hardware and software changes required for Sub-Strategic Tridentwould initially cost £1 million, followed by annual support costs of around £150,000 per year for 10years

Very interesting comment. My own view is that we could far more profitably spend money on reducing the W76 yield (maybe even down to 0.05 kilotons). Realistically, we know how to do that.

X

You do not need submarines, nor do you need nuclear warheads. All you need are long-range missiles with conventional explosive warheads.

Secondly, "It's impossible to say what kind of threats to the UK will emerge in the next 40 years" is not a particularly great argument because you could theoretically use that to justify anything.

The main reason is that nuclear weapons are a very real potential catastrophic risk for human civilization

My final, and main argument, is that the financial cost isn't even the most important reason why we need to get rid of nuclear weapons. The main reason is that nuclear weapons are a very real potential catastrophic risk for human civilization. Mutually assured destruction by itself actually works very well. The problem is that the risk doesn't come from the danger of an intentional all-out strike from Russia or China, the danger is from an error - either intentional or by accident - leading to nuclear escalation. This has already almost happened on several occasions and a lot of experts in the field of catastrophic risk analysis think that nuclear war triggered by an error or a third party/non-state actor is one of the greatest threats to humanity with the potential to destabilise civilization. In fact, possessing nuclear weapons makes us significantly more vulnerable to terrorism because it creates the potential for terrorists to trigger a nuclear strike between nuclear nations (the risk of terrorists themselves developing a nuclear weapon is incredibly low). This risk is substantially greater than any enhanced counter-terrorism potential we'd get from possessing nuclear weapons.

So no, I don't think this supports the existence of Trident in the slightest.

If Trident was never envisioned to have any kind of practical use the government wouldn't have bothered to introduce the sub-strategic variant. Trident's primary function is as a nuclear deterrent but the US, UK and France have never committed to a no-first use policy and there is no question that each would use the system if it involved a question of national survival.

Trident D5 with the Mk4a re-entry body is not a city-buster like Polaris, it was specifically designed to be an accurate, warfighting nuclear system not a second-strike capability to be used after we ride out a Russian first-strike. Trident is equipped to conduct accurate pre-emptive strikes.

There are certainly scenarios where the UK may need to use the accuracy, swiftness and striking power of Trident to hit an adversary before they hit us. We cannot predict what kind of government will exist in Iran, for example, thirty years from now and what their nuclear status would be. If we detected preparations for an attack on us Trident is equipped to conduct a pre-emptive first strike and has the capability to do so against hardened targets like missile silos and command bunkers. That's not a capability I would wish us to give up, and the sorts of upgrades that have been applied to the Mk4a AF&F (Arming, Fuzing & Firing) system would indicate the UK and US governments see it the same way.

There has been no war between great powers since 1945; any serious observer of history would struggle to argue that nuclear weapons haven't played the major role in that. You propose to get rid of nuclear weapons, thus lowering the threshold for war between great powers. That's not compassionate, it's idiotic

This is where an understanding of the technical characteristics of delivery systems helps. A "long-range missile" (by which you presumably mean a cruise missile, because an ICBM/SLBM with a conventional warhead is a laughable prospect) would take up to 10 hours to reach a target in a remote area of Central Africa or the Middle East. That's assuming we already had an SSN on station to launch a TLAM-type missile. Thus your proposal fails to provide a prompt strike capability that could replace sub-strategic yield uses of Trident.

That we can't predict what threats will emerge in the next 40 years and that we are in a period of transition certainly can't be seriously used to argue against retaining a stabilising major capability like Trident, given that once we give it up we won't be getting it back again

How many people have died from nuclear weapons in the 20th century? About 150,000. How many died in World War 2? About 60 million. I'd rather keep nuclear weapons given their obvious role in deterring major conventional wars between great powers

The problem with your argument is that it does not follow we would be safer if there was some sort of mass global disarmament. In fact I think such a situation would be more likely to create a nuclear conflict for two reasons. Firstly you have the threat of a conventional war breaking out between major powers. The possibility of a US or Russian miscalculation in Eastern Europe or the Middle East is going to be much higher, either nation would be emboldened by the disappearance of a nuclear threat. You also have the South China Sea and the possibility of conflict between China and the host of powers it is currently antagonizing, that situation would worsen in the event a substantial portion of the US security umbrella disappeared. You remove nuclear weapons from the equation and I have no doubt the possibility of a conventional war would spike. The only difference would be the destruction of the planet moves into taking weeks, not minutes.Next you have the other major problem with removing nuclear weapons, the science is relatively simple, what is to stop another nation simply rebuilding a nuclear weapons program? Barring some sort of global, one nation planet, or massive spirit of cooperation to wipe out nuclear weapons and destroy any attempt to rebuild them someone would hide a weapon or build their own, the advantage is simply too great. In that situation it becomes a question of how soon before someone gets nuked?Global disarmament (not that you've proposed it but I assume this is where you line of thinking is going) seems to flag up as many problems as the status quo

the enemy has to believe it will be used. there are some in the military who dont believe it would be. I think and hope it would be. In any event the amount of nuclear explosions is most likely to cause a nuclear winter as well as mass radiation which will kill everyone except the cockroaches.

Yes, but the political ramifications are numerous.

Isn't any use - no matter what size of yield - of a nuclear weapon regarded as the use of a weapon of mass destruction and therefore classified as a war crime? How could you get around that without opening Pandora's box?

From a military point of view it makes reasonable sense (though it should be noted there are many other area denial weapons out there which could do the same job, the US' MOAB comes to mind).

The funny thing with nuclear weapons is that even according to the UN their use is not illegal, however nor is it legal, as any laws referred to are for conventional weapons, further, they state that the use of nuclear weapons is likely acceptable if it prevents the destruction of the state using them, or at least in the event that not using them would certainly lead to the destruction of the state.

Even on the WMD level there's nothing? I find that odd.

Could Trident ever be used?

It's made in Britain, so probably not.

Even on the WMD level there's nothing? I find that odd.

A deterrent is not a deterrent if it cannot or will not be used. If we faced sufficient aggression, it absolutely would be used and would send a clear message to the world that nuclear war is undesirable. Though I think Trident is excessively expensive, unnecessarily so.

I don't think we would even use it. I think that if the UK was wiped of the map, but the MP's survived, they still would not use them, as is their weakness as people.

I don't think we would even use it. I think that if the UK was wiped of the map, but the MP's survived, they still would not use them, as is their weakness as people.