Talk:Trident (UK nuclear programme)

Requested move 2 February 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Trident (UK nuclear programme). This article has been under several names, the first in 2007 was British Trident system. It seems there are so many possible ways to title this article. There is a fair consensus that we should rename this page, and there is a rough consensus to change the title to Trident (UK nuclear programme); however, that consensus is rough enough so that there is no prejudice toward editors continuing to discover the highest and best title for this article. In other words as per RM closing instructions, any editor may open a new Requested move debate at any time. Happy Hearts Day! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 02:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Trident nuclear programme → UK Trident programme – to clarify scope, reverting 2016 BOLD move. This article is about the procurement, operation and politics of the United Kingdom 's Trident programme, but the title does not reflect that scope. The UK has its own Vanguard-class submarines and its own warheads, and uses American made UGM-133 Trident II missiles, all of which are within the scope of this article. However, the United States Trident programme includes the Ohio-class submarines and the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia, plus the W88 and W76 warheads, all of which are outside the scope of this article. Note that the page was boldly moved → by with the rationale Per WP:COMMONNAME. No other country has a "Trident nuclear programme" (or deterrent). That rationale is simply wrong: the US has a Trident nuclear programme and a Trident nuclear deterrent. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See also related discussion re UK Polaris programme/Category:UK Polaris programme at Categories for discussion/Speedy (permalink) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments - No other country has a "Trident nuclear programme"; the United States has a "program". - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The hatnote is sufficient to identify the subject, along with the spelling of "programme". - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The previous title was both more concise and more precise. Why exactly do you object to greater concision and greater precision? Also, the distinction between "programme" and "program" does not identify the scope. A broad article on both the US+UK systems could reasonably be titled "Trident nuclear programme" or "Trident nuclear program", with the choice made WP:ENGVAR on the basis of what the first editor chose. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied that my comments are sufficient to make my point clear to whoever closes the discussion. - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no article on the United States Trident program as such.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The category was renamed to match per C2D request from   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose US has Trident nuclear submarines and Trident missiles, but those elements combined are not referred to by US government, books, and media as the Trident nuclear program / deterrent like they are in the UK. Firebrace (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of relying on our global readership to know in advance the terminology used in the USA, we can satisfy WP:NAMINGCRITERIA by using a title which does identify the topic unambiguously: more concise and more precise. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The only acceptable title would be "Trident (UK nuclear deterrent)", because in the UK it is commonly known as "Trident", and this title follows the convention for disambiguating articles ("UK" never comes first unless it is part of a proper noun). I am in favour of "deterrent" per the exception at WP:NPOVNAME as "nuclear programme" could refer to a civilian nuclear power programme, so "deterrent" is the right word to use if, as you say, we are aiming for precision. "Nuclear deterrent" is also more common in English reliable sources. Firebrace (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, . Bit offbeat on policy there.
 * As you should know, WP:NATURALDIS allows use of an "alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title". "UK Trident programme" is commonly used in English reliable sources: see Gbooks.
 * There is also no need to use the POV term "deterrent", because "UK Trident programme" is widely used and not ambiguous with any UK civilian nuclear programme. (note Gbooks gives massively more hits for "UK Trident programme" than "UK Trident deterrent").
 * I obviously don't know what your motivation is, but it seems very odd that you are advancing a succession of counter-factual and/or anti-policy reasons for opposing reversal of your undiscussed move on the basis of a bizarre claim that no other country has a Trident nuclear deterrent. Tell that to the personnel of Kings Bay and the crew of the Ohio-class submarines.
 * Would you like to explain what your real reason is? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we should rely on our readership to know in advance that "Trident nuclear programme" is a weapon system and is in no way related to nuclear power generation? (See what I did there?) I propose "Trident (UK nuclear weapon system)" as an alternative. Adhere to WP:AGF if you are interested in reaching a compromise. As a 12-year editor you should know that Wikipedia does not disambiguate by sticking names of countries at the front of titles. Titles are formatted like this when "UK" is part of a proper noun, e.g., UK Music Hall of Fame, UK City of Culture, UK Space Agency, UK Chamber of Shipping, and UK Film Council. For examples of parenthetical disambiguation, see Demos (UK think tank), Sikh Federation (UK) (not UK Sikh Federation), Holocaust Memorial Day (UK) (not UK Holocaust Memorial Day), Freeview (UK) (not UK Freeview), and Labour Party (UK) (not UK Labour Party). Firebrace (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, . Yet more counter-factuals, with added personal abuse just to emphasise your lack of substantive argument. I propose that the article revert to the title "UK Trident programme". Do I need to explain to you why that does not require a reader to know in advance is a weapon system?  And that adding the un-needed word weapon does require them to know that? That is why WP:PRECISION says "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". You propose un-needed precision, contrary to policy.
 * And as any 12yo reading this discussion could explain to you from evidence posted above, "UK Trident programme" is not a case of en.wp choosing to disambiguate by sticking names of countries at the front of titles. It is a commonly used term in reliable sources (see Gbooks), and as such is a form of WP:NATURALDIS.
 * It would be easier to assume your good faith if you stopped posting demonstrably false assertions, and showed some familiarity with the policy WP:AT, esp the links posted to assist you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that you just added to your earlier post a whole load of irrelevant examples of parenthetical disambiguation. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just reading WP:NATURALDIS. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is hard to believe your interpretation of WP:NATURALDIS when parenthetical disambiguation has always been the preferred option. As for my "whole load of irrelevant examples", there are plenty of verbatim Google results for "UK Holocaust Memorial Day", "UK Labour Party" and "UK Freeview". By your logic, these are natural forms of disambiguation that we should be using on Wikipedia, but since evidently we are not, I can only assume that your reading of Wikipedia title policy is wrong. As you clearly have no interest in compromise I am left with no choice but to continue opposing your proposal for "UK Trident programme". Firebrace (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – clearly UK should be included in the name. Eg "The Pentagon proposed the Conventional Trident Modification program" is in Trident (missile). Oculi (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is not about a modification program. Firebrace (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move to Trident (UK nuclear programme) per bd2412 below. Oculi (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as an American who reads the world news, I feel "Trident" as a weapons program unambiguously refers to the UK nuclear deterrent. The article lead makes clear this refers to the UK program; it is the American system that should be disambiguated when referenced.  (of course, some disambiguation is necessary to distinguish this from the weapon, the gum, etc.) power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If UGM-133 Trident II+Ohio-class submarines+Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay+W88+W76 are not a weapons program, what on earth are they? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, the US has lots of nuclear programs, very few of which are of general interest. The UK has Trident, and nothing else.  I consider Trident to refer metonymically to the UK nuclear deterrent.  I agree that the fact that the US also operates the Trident (missile) does introduce some confusion. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The first few sentences of UGM-133 Trident II clearly speak of the US-only phase as a "Trident program". Bolding added by me: The Trident II was designated to be the latest longer-range missile, performing greater than its predecessor (Trident C-4) in terms of range and payload capacity. In 1972, the US Navy projected an initial operating capability (IOC) date for the Trident II in 1984. The US Navy continued to advance the IOC date to 1982. On 18 October 1973, a Trident program review was administered. On 14 March 1974, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense disseminated two requirements for the Trident program. Simplest way to avoid the confusion which we agree exists: revert to the previous concise and unambiguous title: "UK Trident programme" -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move to Trident (UK nuclear programme), or (second choice) Trident (UK nuclear deterrent). There is sufficient ambiguity here to make a clear disambiguator worthwhile. bd2412  T 02:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move to Trident (UK nuclear programme) per bd2412. Other countries have used Trident. The UK one is the most prominent, but the question is if there is sufficient ambiguity to need disambiguation. I think BrownHairedGirl has demonstrated that there is. The question becomes if a natural or parenthetical disambiguator is preferred. Looking at the options, I think the least clunky in this case would be a parenthetical. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Actually, only the US and UK use Trident. This came about when I tried to harmonise the name of UK Polaris Programme with this article. The proposed moves will leave us where we started.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Uk and US are the only ones that have such a program. Since logically the US name could be moved to program, and UK stays with Programme, I see no need for change. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The choice of "Programme" or "Program" usually reflects the language preferences of the writer and/or intended audience rather than the topic. That's why Gbooks has plenty of hits for "uk trident program".
 * So the "Programme"/"Program" distinction doesn't disambiguate the the 2 topics. Why retain the longer title when the shorter previous name removes the ambiguity? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

British or US made warheads
Hans M. Kristensen from the Nuclear Information Project argues that the warheads might share US-made components.

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2006/12/britains_next_nuclear_era/

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sure of it. The article already says: Some non-nuclear components for the British nuclear warhead are procured from the US for reasons of cost effectiveness.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hawkeye7 Sammartinlai (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

NAO's latest report
May have useful information for the SSBN part.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/The-Defence-Nuclear-Enterprise-a-landscape-review.pdf

Sammartinlai (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that!  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Windows for Submarines?
This is cute, but it seems to be a media invention. See. And Submarine_Command_System. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is more on this discussion at WP:ERRORS. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which are archived in seconds :) Here's the discussion before it was blanked: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not cute or a media invention. See for example https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/submarine-command-system-next-generation Sammartinlai (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 update to parliament
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/767326/2018_Nuclear_Deterrent_Update_to_Parliament.pdf

If useful.

BlueD954 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Relevant article
https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/will-america-help-britain-build-a-new-nuclear-warhead/

BlueD954 (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear material origin and US costs
I removed some text from the Warhead section.

The citation given says the opposite of the claim that most of the costs were incurred in the US while the other citation does not cite the claim instead making some dubious logic to claim much of the nuclear material is US in origin. NAO report says warheads cost was 269m pounds in US and 625m pounds in UK so easily falsifiable. If you want you could include other non-warhead costs, but this is the warhead section, so we should stick to warhead cost.

The other source doesn't demonstrate SNM was purchased from the US, it just says some was purchased from British Nuclear Fuels and then goes therefore the rest must come from the US which is nonsense logic. BNF make enriched uranium and are likely the origin of secondary components while the UK already had Pu239 for the primary stage. The UK has a stockpile of several tonnes and needs less than 5kg per weapon, they did not need to purchase it from anyone.

Also I see someone made a mess of the warhead section after I cleaned it up. Thank you to the people who fixed it up afterwards! Kylesenior (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)