It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Prime Minister Tony Blair is prepared to concede on cuts to Britain's nuclear deterrent when his government publishes plans on the ageing missile system's future, the Financial Times said Saturday.
But he will say that the number of Royal Navy Vanguard-class submarines that carry the missiles could be reduced from the current four to three and that Britain will cut the 200 nuclear warheads stockpiled.
Link
Originally posted by st3ve_o
isn't the new 'atsute' class subs going to be nuclear?
and from everything i've read, they say if we go ahead and upgrade our nuclear deterrent a new generation of subs will be built.
but i'm not sure how reliable that website is and how good it is for using it for a genuine source.
Originally posted by stumasonThere is a difference between a nuclear sub and a sub armed with nuclear missiles.
But yes, the Astute will be nuclear. It is an Attack sub though, not an SSBN.
Originally posted by Retseh
Originally posted by stumasonThere is a difference between a nuclear sub and a sub armed with nuclear missiles.
But yes, the Astute will be nuclear. It is an Attack sub though, not an SSBN.
And there is a difference between nuclear missiles and ballistic missiles.
The Astute can carry and launch nuclear armed Tomahawk missiles.
Originally posted by morgansolutions
I was under the impression a few years ago that the UK had disarmed ALL nuclear weapons (it was quoted before the Iraq invasion).
In fact, I distinctly remember most of media using it as an excuse for the UK to assist with the invasion on the grounds that the UK haven't got any so Iraq shouldn't be allowed any....
Originally posted by xpert11
The war with China will be fought in economic terms and possible on battlefield. The only way to prevent a war with China is deterrent. Unless the Nuclear weapons are replaced with a weapon system that would prove more effective against the Chinese military then getting rid of them isn't a very smart idea.
IMO a blow torch needs to be placed under the NZ government and a sufficient military build needs to place in the Pacific and other regions to deter Chinese aggression. Bear in mind that even if nukes aren't used by the allies a war they may deter the enemy from using them.
Originally posted by morgansolutions
I was under the impression a few years ago that the UK had disarmed ALL nuclear weapons (it was quoted before the Iraq invasion).
In fact, I distinctly remember most of media using it as an excuse for the UK to assist with the invasion on the grounds that the UK haven't got any so Iraq shouldn't be allowed any....
Originally posted by st3ve_o
Originally posted by morgansolutions
I was under the impression a few years ago that the UK had disarmed ALL nuclear weapons (it was quoted before the Iraq invasion).
In fact, I distinctly remember most of media using it as an excuse for the UK to assist with the invasion on the grounds that the UK haven't got any so Iraq shouldn't be allowed any....
i know we dismantled a lot in 1998, we dismantled from 700 to 200 (still present number) after the threat of the cold war passed.
[edit on 4-12-2006 by st3ve_o]
'What is the difference between our deterrent and weapons of mass destruction?
Originally posted by waynos
As has been said, Trident is the only nuclear weapon in the UK armoury. As to Westy's fear about the reduction, 160 warheads should be enough to deter anybody. If it isn't then it doesn't matter how many you've got, does it?
Originally posted by fritz
Apparently, one of the options the government is looking at, is a submarine launched missile weapon whose range is approximately 15,000 kilometers or 8,500 miles - about the given range of the next generation cruise missiles.