Britains Nuclear weapons

ludaChris, that is NOT a valid argument! I owned a copy of his book and quite frankly, starting the Third World War with some tuppeny Black Horse Cavalry unit was a joke. Nowadays, I regard the opening chapter more as a commercial for Lloyds Bank!

The trouble with Shan is that whilst his message was clear and the danger was both real and present, the Russian Bogeyman together with the much heralded Millenium Bug failled to materialise when it was supposed to.

You were probably not around during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Suez or the early 70s ludaChris, but I can assure you the newsreel filmclips all about the Russians and the Warsaw Pact were very real.

One of the reasons why Shan wrote the book, was to draw attention to NATO's failling in commonality in weapons, equipment and ammunition - unlike the WP forces who could climb into any aircraft, tank or helicopter and know exactly what to do.

Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising came close to describing what it could have been like but even though it was a damned good read, it is just that - a book.

According to Shan Hackett, the Third World War would start somewhere near Turkey and would kick off around 1995/6 - obviously his crystal ball was a bit foggy- but again, a damned good read!

Nukes create moer trouble than they cause...anyone ever played Defcon? theres just no winning in a nuclear war. I'd much rather see that 20bil go into fusion reactors or the medical sector...

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
WTF is that? Why the hell would you want to attack the US with nuclear weapons? I am sure the missiles can be set to go wherever, but I for one wopuld be pissed to find out that the brits fired missiles at the US mainland.

I think you brits better figure out who the hell your enemies really are.

and you had better learn about targetting


you do of course know that there are programmes that can be loaded onto US missiles for hitting european cities don`t you.

and yes that includes London.

There seems to be a fair bit of confusion over the control the UK has over its own nuclear weapons. I found this document on the freedom of information website regarding someones enquiries to exactly the same questions. They went as follows:

2. Does the government of the United States of America have any involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government?
No. But in the event of the contemplated use of UK nuclear weapons for NATO purposes, procedures exist to allow all NATO Allies, including the US, to express views on what was being proposed. The final decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in such circumstances, and if so how, would, however, be made by the nuclear power concerned.

3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons?
No.

4. Does the British government have to tell the US government if it intends to use nuclear weapons?
No. But the US would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the answer to your second question.

6. Does the British government have any control, say, veto or advisory role in the rules under which the USA's nuclear arsenal is governed and operated?
No. But the UK would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the answer to your second question.

Source: Freedom of Information Link

Hope this proves to be helpful...

Originally posted by ludaChris

You dont think that if the UK were nuked the US and UK would not respond together? Have you ever read the book "The Third World War:August 1985" by General Sir John Hackett? Birmingham gets nuked in the end, and the US and UK respond in kind together obliterating Minsk. This isnt just some ordinary fiction book either, its a very realistic scenario written by a respected British General. I would suggest reading it, very educational if youre interested in that period in our history. Check his credentials, I think he was spot on after reading that book.

General Sir John Hackett

Recently declassified Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) documents have revealed that General Sir John Hackett's book, "The Third World War:August 1985" was very much a work of fiction - even verging on pro-nuclear propaganda.

While peddling his fiction there is no doubt that he was perfectly aware of the real effect on the UK of a real Third World War.

Below is a transcription of the JIC documents

-----------------------------------------------------

HDO(MG)(72)4

LIST OF PROBABLE NUCLEAR TARGETS AS AT 30 MAY 1972

Saxavord, radar station
Thurso, US Navy communications centre
RAF Lossiemouth, bomber base
RAF Kinloss, bomber base
Buchan, radar station
RAF Leuchars, fighter base
Coulport, Polaris base
Faslane, Polaris base
Holy Loch, Polaris base
Pitreavie, HQ COMNORLANT
Rosyth, Polaris base
Edinburgh, major city
Glasgow, major city
RAF Macrihanish, bomber base
Londonderry, US Navy communications centre
Belfast, major city
Boulmer, radar station
Anthorn, NATO communications centre
Newcastle/Gateshead, major city
Teeside, major city
USAF Mildenhall, bomber base
Fylingdales, BMWES
Staxton Wold, radar station
Inskip, RN Communications centre
Leeds, major city
Hull, major city
Patrington, radar station
New Waltham, RN Communications centre
RAF Wyton, bomber base
RAF Binbrook, fighter base
RAF Finningley, bomber base
RAF Bawtry, HQ No1 (Bomber) Group, Strike Command
Sheffield, major city
Manchester, major city
Liverpool, major city
RAF Valley, bomber base
RAF Scampton, bomber base
RAF Waddington, bomber base
RAF Connigsby, bomber base
Stoke-on-Trent, major city
Nottingham, major city
Criggion, RN Communications centre
Leicester, major city
RAF Wittering, bomber base
RAF Brawdy, bomber base
RAF arham, bomber base
Neatishead, radar station
Feltwell, radar station
USAF Lakenheath, bomber base
RAF Honington, bomber base
USAF Alconbury, bomber base
RAF Bedford, bomber base
Wolverhampton, major city
Birmingham, major city
Coventry, major city
Rugby, RN Communications centre
RAF Coltishall, bomber base
USAF Upper Heyford, bomber base
Cheltenham, Central Government location
USAF Bentwaters, bomber base
Orford Ness, radar station
USAF Woodbridge, bomber base
Bawdsey, radar station
RAF Wattisham, fighter base
USAF Weatherfield, bomber base
Swansea, major city
Cardiff, major city
Bristol, major city
RAF High Wycombe, HQ Strike Command
RAF Yeovilton, bomber base
Northwood, HQ CINCHAN/CINCEASTLANT
Ruislip, HQ 3rd US Air Force
RAF West Drayton, Southern Joint Control Centre
Central London, Inner London
RAF Manston, bomber base
Southampton, major city
Fort Southwick, HQ C-in-C, UK Home Station
Portsmouth, RN Carrier base
RAF St Mawgan, bomber base
Plymouth, HQ COMCENTLANT
Devonport, RN carrier base
USAF Fairford, bomber base
USAF Boscombe Down, bomber base
USAF Greenham Common, bomber base
USAF Pershore, bomber base
Huddersfield, major city
Sunderland, major city
Gillingham, town
Rochester, city
Chatham, town
Maidstone, town


2. Thus the following are suggested categories of target and the possible weight of attack which might be planned against each category:

Target Category Possible Planned Strikes
a. London (for obvious reasons, 3x1-5 MT (airburst) against each of
a special target in its own right). at least 2 and possible 4 DGZs.
b. Other Large Cities (pop 3x1-5 MT (airburst) against each of
1 mill plus). 1 or 2 DGZs.
c. Medium Cities (pop ½-1 mill). 3x5 MT (airburst).
d. Small Cities (pop less than 3x1 MT (airburst).
½ mill).
e. Known or Suspected Military 3x1 MT (ground burst).
HQ (with underground COCs
HQSTC, Northwood etc).

i61.photobucket.com...

i61.photobucket.com...

i61.photobucket.com...

i61.photobucket.com...

i61.photobucket.com...

--------------------------------------------------------

Makes Hackett's nuclear strike on Birmingham seem a bit tame, doesn't it?

Bunker spotters amongst you will notice that even an eminent organisation such as the JIC were not permitted to reveal the real location of the Central Government wartime headquarters - then codenamed CHANTICLEER. The JIC lists the location of this facility as Cheltenham; whereas the real location was Underground Site No 3, at Corsham, near Bath.



zero lift

[edit on 16-3-2007 by zero lift]

In truth, we can only guess the military and political interaction with regard to the UK’s ability or independence to use the Trident system in anger. None of us have any insight into the process and milestones which would trigger a nuke to fly, but in this increasingly confused world I would rather retain the ability.

The replacement for Trident is I think appropriate. One of the drivers is to develop a new weapons system which is more flexible than what we have now, as well as the reduction of boats from four to three and warheads from 200 to 160.

I read somewhere that AWE (UK’s nuke bods) have started to develop a replacement warhead which would be flexible in that it will have a highly flexible yield. This means in simple terms its bang could flatten a city or used tactically to flatten a small area. This seems sensible to me and this the tactical option is more appropriate, if (god forbid) the button was ever pressed. We no longer face the USSR with the mutually assured destruction (MAD) running the development of the nuclear arsenals.

In addition, new systems tend to be less maintenance heavy, the boats may be smaller and tasked to do other things in addition to their primary role.

Twenty Billion is small change over the life of the project in comparison to the UK’s defence spend and the UK’s GDP. Trident replacement represents the ultimate deterrent, keeps the UK at the top table and employs loads of Scots at Faslane and scientists at AWE.

Regards

zero lift, great target list and oh so out of date.

Even back in the 70s let alone the 80s, most of those 'bomber' locations had not seen flying for at least 10 years.

I laughed when I read the list of tgts. My God those Russian bogeymen were really scared of us Brits.

I mean, fancy targetting Saxa Vord as a bomber base. Even during WWII, it was only a radar and listening post.

I guess the KGB (OZNAZ) and GRU (SPETZNAZ) did not get out much in those days.

Perhaps they were too busy soaking up the Western joys of Soho and Belgravia parties.

Originally posted by fritz
zero lift, great target list and oh so out of date.

I mean, fancy targetting Saxa Vord as a bomber base. Even during WWII, it was only a radar and listening post.

er.....you better wipe the sleep from your eyes, fritz...the list does show Saxavord as a radar station, not a bomber base.

I guess the KGB (OZNAZ) and GRU (SPETZNAZ) did not get out much in those days.

Perhaps they were too busy soaking up the Western joys of Soho and Belgravia parties.

er....thats another thing; this isn't a Soviet list - its a British produced list which makes assumptions about likely UK targets for a Soviet nuclear strike.

The list itself was compiled and produced by the UK Joint Intelligence Committee in 1972 and formed the basis for UK Home Defence planning. Foremost amongst those planning for conflict were the Machinery of Government in War Sub-Committee.

The following is an excerpt from the recently declassified May 1972 Machinery of Government in War Sub-Committee note, entitled - Nuclear Targeting

WEAPON YIELD TO TARGET

A. ESTIMATED RUSSIAN WEAPON CAPABILITY

Any estimate of Russian weapon capability must take the following into account -

1. The Russians are estimated as having sufficient nuclear missiles available to cover targets of consequence throughout Europe. The policy on the allocation of warheads to targets will depend on their immediate aims and they are unlikely to be inhibited by the question of “overkill” except where they have an early use for the area in question.

2. The Russians would probably take advantage of the surprise which could be achieved by initiating an attack from submarines but at present there is no intelligence on which to base an estimate of the size of such an attack.

3. The Joint Intelligence Committee’s (JIC) latest assessment (JIC(A)71) 24 (Final) estimates that approximately 150 land based ballistic missiles might “impact” on the United Kingdom in an initial nuclear strike, although these figures take no account of loss through Allied action.

4. The list at Appendix I shows the Soviet nuclear delivery by type range, accuracy and yield. The yields shown are the theoretical maximum as it is not possible to estimate the actual yields which would be selected for operational purposes.

B. THEORECTICAL CHOICES OF WEAPON YIELD RELATED TO “TYPICAL” TARGETS

1. By applying the information contained in JIC(A)71) 24 (Final) to the list of potential targets at Annex A and using similar planning assumptions to those we ourselves might use, it is feasible to suggest a possible scale of Soviet strikes against particular categories of target. Thus it is likely that the enemy would aim to achieve a minimum of 50 per cent damage expectancy with a 90 per cent or more assurance factor. The former would be obtained from an appropriate yield warhead and fusing option (ground or airburst depending on the characteristics of the target) and, for large area targets, multiple Desired Ground Zeros (DGZs). The latter would depend on aircraft missile reliability and survivability, and would always require the planning of multiple strikes against each DGZ.

2. Thus, the following are suggested categories of target and the possible weight of attack which might be planned against each category:

Target Category Possible Planned Strikes
a. London (for obvious reasons, 3x1-5 MT (airburst) against each of
A special target in its own right). at least 2 and possible 4 DGZs.
b. Other Large Cities (pop 3x1-5 MT (airburst) against each of
1 mill plus). 1 or 2 DGZs.
c. Medium Cities (pop ½-1 mill). 3x5 MT (airburst).
d. Small Cities (pop less than 3x1 MT (airburst).
½ mill).
e. Known or Suspected Military 3x1 MT (ground burst).
HQ (with underground COCs
HQSTC, Northwood etc).
f. Special (Soft) Military 3x1 MT (airburst).*
Installations (Fylingdales,
West Drayton, Naval Dockyards,
etc).
g. Airfields with known Nuclear 3x1 MT (ground burst).*
Capability (Scampton, Waddington
etc).
h. Other Airfields 3x1 MT (airburst).*

3. The actual number of nuclear bursts on a particular target will of course vary depending on the effective reliability of the missiles and the tactics adopted by manned aircraft to counter the air defences. Thus, it could be expected that all targets in the Soviet strike plan would receive at least one strike and some 2 or 3 strikes.

4. In a separate category, is the possibility that the enemy may precede the execution of any strike plan with a very high altitude (exo-atmospheric) high yield airburst to disrupt communications and electronic equipment at a crucial stage. The enemy is certainly capable of delivering this type of strike and it would be prudent to assume that his knowledge of electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) effects is at least equal to our own. Typical peak intensities of the order of 50 kv/metre could be expected over a range of 50 kilometres with an intensity decreasing to 10kv/m at ranges of about 1000 kilometres.

5. The enemy would probably plan for a number of options with a target priority list for each option - the priorities being dictated by the political/military aims to be achieved. Thus, in a strictly military plan, our nuclear strike airfields and associated installations would have the highest priority as since they offer the greatest threat. Headquarters and other military control centres would also be included but (perhaps with the exception of Inner London) few, if any cities would be included.
On the other hand, a politically motivated plan might give a higher priority to some cities than military targets which have no connection with our nuclear capability

i61.photobucket.com...
i61.photobucket.com...
i61.photobucket.com...
i61.photobucket.com...
i61.photobucket.com...

zero lift

[edit on 17-3-2007 by zero lift]

Originally posted by fritz
It certainly appears, to me at least, that this Labour government intends to buy American and protect American industry, create American jobs, support the American economy - or more realistically pump Billions in to the Haliburton Group.

The British nuclear deterrent should be a wholly British affair.

I thought the same about the JSF F-35. It should have been a "wholly" American affair. But we decided to make it an international one even though we were the ones paying for the meal. We pumped in billions into the british economy by providing plenty of jobs thus helping your industrys. I guess is what im saying is, if we scratch your back you better damn well return the favor.

With regards to Trident, there are some points worth keeping in mind:

1) The submarines and warheads are all designed, produced and maintained in the UK. No other country is involved in this process.

2) The UK has bought fifty eight Trident missiles (the delivery system) from the United States - these are owned by the UK, the US has no veto over their use. They are periodically returned to Virginia to be refitted and maintained - this is part of the agreement under which Trident (and its predecessor, Polaris) was obtained. Three or four of these missiles have been used for test firings, the last one being the launching of an unarmed Trident missile in October 2005 from HMS Vanguard after a two-year refit. You can find the recording here.

3) I'm not sure whether legality is an issue. Those who claim that this action is illegal seem to use selective statistics - the fact is that only the launch platform is being renewed at this stage. The delivery system (the Trident missile) and their warheads do not change, though of course the warheads are regularly checked and replaced as necessary. Neither the launch platform nor the delivery system is mentioned in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In addition, it would appear that the UK is complying with the treaty as it has reduced its stockpile of operational warheads to 160 from 200. The NPT has no deadline for disarmament - only that stockpiles should be decreased as opposed to increased.

4) The US doesn't have a veto over the use of the UK's nuclear weapons. This, again, is part of the agreement upon Britain acquiring the Trident missiles. Though of course they could be used as part of a NATO retaliatory strike in conjunction with US nuclear weapons, in which case it's likely that both Britain and America would coordinate their attacks and agree on their own targets. I'm not even sure the guidance satellite system is provided by the US - Trident uses a pretty simple GPS system as far as I know (although it's more sophisticated than what you'd use in your car, obviously ) and the UK already has satellites which can provide this. All the codes, launch mechanisms and so forth are in the UK and come from the UK only. I suspect there's some sort of emergency backup guidance system within the missiles themselves (with reduced accuracy) to prevent the destruction of the satellites making the deterrent inoperable. Remember, the Trident missiles the UK uses are exactly the same as the ones the US uses (since they come from a shared pool of missiles... there's no 'US Section' and 'UK Section' as far as I know) so whatever capability the US has, the UK has too.

Originally posted by semperfoo
I guess is what im saying is, if we scratch your back you better damn well return the favor.

The US does get its fair share from the UK - it is a two-way relationship. Britain participated in the research for the Manhattan Project, the Trident D5, the armour currently used on American tanks is a British invention, a lot of British technology went into making STOL and VTOL aircraft (which will be incorporated into the F-35's design), the US is allowed to stage bomber forces on UK soil (air attacks against Libya and Iraq were launched from UK soil), US radar stations are also situated in Britain, its ships and submarines occasionally stop off for resupply and refuelling in the UK, the US uses British bases across the world (Diego Garcia is a British base which houses American B-2 Bombers, and US citizens were evacuated to the British airbases in Cyprus during the conflict in Lebanon last summer... indeed, sometimes aboard Royal Navy vessels) and British investment into the US - according to the US State Department - comes at $283.3 billion - $27.9billion more than the US invested into the UK. This also sustains over a million American jobs.

Source

You don't get a bad deal, you know

[edit on 17/3/07 by Ste2652]

Originally posted by semperfoo
I thought the same about the JSF F-35. It should have been a "wholly" American affair. But we decided to make it an international one even though we were the ones paying for the meal. We pumped in billions into the british economy by providing plenty of jobs thus helping your industrys. I guess is what im saying is, if we scratch your back you better damn well return the favor.

ape just pee off, i'm onto you man - why don't you just pick one account that your going to use and stick to it?

if you keep it up man in EVERY british or european thread and i'm going to pm a moderator to do an IP check on your account.

(edit) just for other peoples reference so you know what i'm talking about, i worked it out that this person as 2 accounts in another thread.

www.abovepolitics.com...
www.abovepolitics.com...

and ive noticed it in another threads too that this person is brainless in their views and semperfoo/ape often post in the same threads within a short space of time as each other to make it look like ones backing the other up saddd.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
And btw, do you really think if a Major City in the UK was nuked that, T.Blair or any future PM, will wait for approval of the President of the USA before retaliating?

I'm not saying that the Brits would wait, I'm simply saying that the US would probably hit them as well. Just to keep them from getting the opportunity to hit the US, I'd say that would fall under a justified pre-emptive strike if the beligerent party nuked an ally of the US. Thats all I'm saying.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
ape just pee off, i'm onto you man - why don't you just pick one account that your going to use and stick to it?

if you keep it up man in EVERY british or european thread and i'm going to pm a moderator to do an IP check on your account.

Fritz is that you fritz?...
LOL your kidding right? Go ahead and make my day. check my IP. Do it.. See if I give a #

(edit) just for other peoples reference so you know what i'm talking about, i worked it out that this person as 2 accounts in another thread.

www.abovepolitics.com...
www.abovepolitics.com...

and ive noticed it in another threads too that this person is brainless in their views and semperfoo/ape often post in the same threads within a short space of time as each other to make it look like ones backing the other up saddd.

Not nearly as sad as your paranoia. You have officially lost it..

My advice to you would be to cut the # before all your lil cyber friends think your nuts. wait...to late

I dont have that sorta time on my hands anyways. However if you would like to look at my IP address I have no problem with that.

I guess I also u2u myself? Me and ape share similar views. That is all. But by all means check my IP if nothing more then to help you get a good nights sleep.

Get a flippin life..

[edit on 053131p://3903pm by semperfoo]



[edit on 29-3-2007 by sanctum]

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by semperfoo
I guess is what im saying is, if we scratch your back you better damn well return the favor.

The US does get its fair share from the UK - it is a two-way relationship. Britain participated in the research for the Manhattan Project, the Trident D5, the armour currently used on American tanks is a British invention, a lot of British technology went into making STOL and VTOL aircraft (which will be incorporated into the F-35's design), the US is allowed to stage bomber forces on UK soil (air attacks against Libya and Iraq were launched from UK soil), US radar stations are also situated in Britain, its ships and submarines occasionally stop off for resupply and refuelling in the UK, the US uses British bases across the world (Diego Garcia is a British base which houses American B-2 Bombers, and US citizens were evacuated to the British airbases in Cyprus during the conflict in Lebanon last summer... indeed, sometimes aboard Royal Navy vessels) and British investment into the US - according to the US State Department - comes at $283.3 billion - $27.9billion more than the US invested into the UK. This also sustains over a million American jobs.

Source

You don't get a bad deal, you know

[edit on 17/3/07 by Ste2652]

No I wasnt bitching about it. I was just pointing out a somewhat hypocritical view.

I have no problem with it. Its a mutual relationship. I was a bit peeved off that the US just laid down and gave you peeps the source codes to the JSF.. But # happens..

Why on earth are you saying sorry?

We are a sovereign nation and are not able to predict the future. ANY nation on the face of the earth could be an enemy of any other at some point.

Remember, it was only a couple of hundred years ago we were at war with America. In the history of the earth or humanity, thats an insignificant timescale.

There is no suggestion there is or would ever be a reason to attack the US but an Independent system would let the rules of that state decide who to attack, not the vendors of the hardware.

As it so happens, the Trident system is pretty much all from the US and our minimal input is to pay for them and launch them from our subs.

I do not know for certain but don't think we would ever have the opportunity to fire them at the US. Therefore, they aren't truly independent.

p.

Originally posted by fritz
ludaChris, I somehow doubt that very much. 'Friends' we might be, but I cannot see the US responding in kind, unless there was a direct attack on the US continent.

Its a very one sided relationship imho.

Of course the US wouldn't respond with Nuclear weapons if only we were attacked.

At a high level that would make them more likely to be attacked setting in place the beginning of the end of humanity.

History is a very good judge of policy for these types of things... remind me, what happened 1939 - 1941?

No, whilst i'm not anti American Its fair to say we're probably relying on them way more than is good for us at the moment.

We were actually further ahead in our Nuclear programme until Klaus Fuchs provided our expertise to the Americans. We can and have built or own weapons.

Quite frankly, if we are to go ahead with renewing our capability, its only worth doing if it is totally independent.

Someone suggested building up our Navy, its purposefully been allowed to shrink as we don't need it as much in the 21st Century. Whilst we do need to retain some conventional forces, the deterrent effect of a nuclear weapon has done more to keep the peace in Western Europe than anything else in history.

p.

Yet again, many thanks!

You forget phoenix103, that the US also stayed away from 1914 until, reluctantly, they won the whole First World War all by themselves, in 1917.

The Americans are, without a shaddow of a doubt, for the moment at least, the strongest kid on the block. As such, they behave like a schoolground bully, throwing their weight around and expecting others to help them pick up the pieces.

Now I have nothing against Yanks. I even had the privilege of serving with some very fine US infantry in Germany and massively enjouyed their hospitality at RAF Greenham Common during the 70s.

However, regarding our so called independent deterrent, we must design, build and deploy our own system for it to be fully and wholly independent of the Americans.

I urge all Brits who contribute to these hallowed pages, to lobby their MPs to this effect.

Oh yeah. And if those canny Scots don't want our subs at Faslane or Holy Loch, well fine. We'll just close Gaerlochhead and sack everybody - thus creating more jobs in England.

'Bout time we supported the English anyway!

zero lift - I stand corrected.

Let it be known that Fritz has admitted: 'I made a mistake!'

So all you doubters out there - and you know who you are, please stop U2Uing me!

Unlike you, I DO admit my mistakes.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by fritz]

If we did go it alone with the next gen of nukes in the uk. Where might we build them?