Talk:Trident (UK nuclear programme)/Archive 1

Purpose of article
I started this article in response to a discussion at Talk:Trident_missile. 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 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)

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)

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)

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 warhead 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)

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)

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...

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)


 * But, while a UK-located missiles programme, are not the spell-checker US-based?

"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)


 * What about terming them: 'Nuclear Weapons (of Mass Destruction)'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.131.0 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Would be too POV in the other direction (and a tad longwinded). The term "deterrent" should not be overused in the article though (Its ok when directly quoting articles or spokespersons). There is nothing inherent in the system which prevents its use as an offensive first strike weapon and its value (and necessity) as a "deterrent" (particularly in the post cold war world) is debatable. 94.0.99.117 (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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)


 * Numerous internet sources claim the missiles are leased, not owned, however I believe this is not correct.


 * John Reid parliamentry written statement "As stated in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, the UK purchased 58 Trident II (D5) missiles. Missiles are either deployed onboard UK submarines or held ashore at the Royal Naval Armament Depot Coulport, on a temporary basis, or in the United States at the Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic, as part of a shared pool of US/UK missiles. In line with the policy set out in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, the UK maintains a stockpile of fewer than 200 operationally available nuclear warheads, 48 of which are onboard the single submarine on deterrent patrol. The remaining warheads are held ashore in the UK; none is stored in the United States."


 * The relevant 1998 strategic defence review text is
 * we do not need any more than the 58 Trident missile bodies already purchased or ordered. The Royal Navy will not have the final seven missiles planned by the previous Government.UK1998SDR


 * Unless you can produce an official UK government document using the word "leased" and not "purchased" I suggest we revert the change.


 * --Spamvoid (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

History section
Hi, it would be good if the little numbers and letters were replaced by or expanded with words. ~ R.T.G 13:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Trident Replacement
If the UK would not renew trident, would the UK still have other deploy-able nuclear weapons? How many of which ones?

It is not clear from this page or the UK nuclear weapons page. Chendy (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe at present the article states that this is the UK's sole nuclear weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grametes (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-Entry Vehicle Image
The artist's impression of a re-entry vehicle is well drawn, but appears to be incorrect - REVs enter blunt-end first, not pointy-end first (technical terms!). Jellyfish dave (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

British nuclear weapons
"This article covers the entire British Trident nuclear weapons programme". Should this be changed to read: "US/British Trident nuclear weapons programme"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.59.86 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Legality
I have deleted the Legality section because:


 * The ICJ's advisory opinion from 20 years ago is legally non-binding and the agenda-pushing interpretation of it here is WP:SYNTH. "Illegal in most cases" could be written as "legal in some cases"; it depends on your point of view...
 * The 'Peacerights' website cannot be accessed to WP:VERIFY the quotes attributed to Rabinder Singh, a barrister who is apparently a friend of Cherie Blair, which, it seems, is the only reason why his opinion counts for anything, otherwise he's just a barrister with an opinion like all the others. It would therefore have to go under the policy of WP:UNDUE even if the quotes could be verified...
 * Former Defence Secretary, Des Browne's comment has been wedged in at the bottom to create a veneer of neutrality but his comments were about the morality, not the legality, of nuclear weapons, and as such have no relevance and provide no balance in a discussion about their legality.

Firebrace (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Successor-class submarine
Successor-class submarine is a ship class article, not a place for the debate on renewing Trident. That belongs here, on this article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the article on the submarine class should be reduced to talking about the class, and should match, in layout and content, that of the Vanguard-class submarine article. The question then becomes whether the extra material should be moved here or split off into an article of its own, which would parallel this article. I much prefer the latter, as it would allow this article to be fixed up and restricted to the original Trident programme. But I am open to argument. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an easier option would be to rename the Successor-class submarine article to something like Trident nuclear programme (renewal). Then create a new ship class article for Successor, without all the political commentary on alternatives, costs and morality. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could just enforce the ship class Manual of Style (WikiProject Ships/Guidelines) over at Successor-class submarine.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I definitely want that. Part of the problem is that "Trident" refers to the missile, but also to the whole system. And the missiles are not being changed.  Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing is being changed except for the submarines, hence "renewal" instead of "replacement". There were discussions about scrapping Trident and replacing it with air- or ground-launched missiles. That would have been a replacement. Firebrace (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But they are completely new, right? So a new ship-class article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, the Successor article should be a ship class article like Vanguard-class and Resolution-class submarine. The Trident "programme" (as it is sometimes referred to in aggregate) essentially continues, and the other aspects of the programme (missiles, shore facilities, warheads, command and control, test-firing, resupply from Kings Nay, etc) are not changing substantially at this time, as far as we know. Therefore the text concerning the strategic/political debate about renewing the Trident CASD programme should be moved into this article, freeing up the Successor article to cover details of the new submarine class. Thom2002 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * close No clear consensus to merge this. I'm going to remove the tags. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trident nuclear programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623085113/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2420 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2420
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121003637/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-053.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-053.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trident nuclear programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626202339/http://www.tridentploughshares.org/IMG/pdf/Nick_Ritchie_AWE_report_Final.pdf to http://www.tridentploughshares.org/IMG/pdf/Nick_Ritchie_AWE_report_Final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)