Nuclear subs - should they be moved to Wales?

Nunogilberto

I'd rather they weren't - it's bad enough having to look across the channel at Hinkley Point...

Chalky

ThorpyFX said:

Chalky said:

Evilmags said:

Garthy said:

Evilmags said:

They should be where the lowest population density is. 

Why? It's not like they are going to detonate them in the base...

Targets. If you hot a nuclear sub you make one fuck of a boom. 

Nuclear detonation even very near a nuclear weapon will almost certainly not cause the second weapon to detonate.  It doesn't work like high explosive.

Have a wisdom! The mechanics behind a nuclear fusion/fission reaction are so precise that sympathetic nuclear events are nigh on impossible. 

I also find it odd that people think a nuclear attack creates huge areas where nothing will live for thousands of years.  They seem to overlook that you can sit at ground zero in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in complete safety! 

strtdv

The building of the replacements will bring many billions of pounds into the economy of wherever builds and keeps them. The cynic in me says we should wait until after the next Scottish referendum and if they leave then move the whole submarine building business (and the type 45 destroyer production) out of Scotland. It would end shipbuilding on the Clyde

AliGorie

heard from a friend who live up near the firth of Clyde and sometimes walks his dog on an esplanade there. On the morning after the independence vote he was surprised to see there were 13 navy warships sitting out in the estuary just at the entrance to the trident base loch. He’d seen two or three max before ‘playing around’ as he put it, the ‘locals’ were quite surprised as well.
As he pointed out it would have taken a considerable about of planning and time to get that many ships there from around the uk. Absolutely nothing in the papers or TV or social media about it.
Coincidentally and timely, he’s just sent me these link's from one of their papers - why I’m responding to this post.
first line -
Successive Westminster governments have deceived the public by pretending that Trident is a British bomb when it’s actually American, according to a new expert report.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14624135.UK_governments____lied____on_Trident_independence/?ref=mr&lp=11

Chalky

So that's a totally unbiased report co-authored by CND and a nonsense graphic about a Trident accident?

hungrymark

The article talks about Trident missiles being dependent on US satellites for targeting, when they don't actually use GPS at all. 

Nitefly

Surely nobody thought Trident was a British system, did they?  

ToneControl

the graphic is ridiculous
There are nuclear facilities all over the UK. Anyone could draw up such diagrams to cover the entire Uk.
When has a nuclear bomb ever gone off accidentally?
If there were a full-on nuclear war, you can assume that cities and RAF bases would be targetted, and there would be no need to worry about triggering secondary explosions (even though they shouldn't happen anyway), the primary attack weapon would  be effective enough

While I'm at it, most of the opposition to nuclear in general, and in particular opposition to nuclear energy is childishly poorly thought out.  How many people have ever been killed by nuclear power accidents compared to coal, oil, even renewable? 
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source
There have been several times more deaths in windfarming  (133) than in nuclear power plants since windfarming started, even though windfarms produce less power overall. It's true that Uranium mining has killed a few hundred, but this is far far less than oil, gas  and coal production, and  can be improved upon.
 The Next Big Future estimates that there are 100-150 deaths in the solar roofing industry worldwide each year.

http://assets2.motherboard.tv/content-images/contentimage/no-slug/d75936b917b5dbe2376ac949a9a0acf9.jpg

ToneControl

hungrymark said:

The article talks about Trident missiles being dependent on US satellites for targeting, when they don't actually use GPS at all. 

it would indeed be dumb to rely on GPS
 
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

"The missile uses a kind of stellar sighting guidance system and inertial navigation to take a reading from the stars to work out the missile’s position and make any adjustments necessary. They do not require GPS."

"A Freedom of Information request proving that the United Kingdom has full operational control over its Trident missile system is displayed below. It can be downloaded here."

AliGorie

ok, ok just bad timing getting these emails / links as the RT guy says "It's all f**ked uo"

ToneControl said:

hungrymark said:

The article talks about Trident missiles being dependent on US satellites for targeting, when they don't actually use GPS at all. 

"The missile uses a kind of stellar sighting guidance system and inertial navigation to take a reading from the stars to work out the missile’s position and make any adjustments necessary. They do not require GPS."

I'm now staring outa the window thinking a laxer light show, at the wrong time and in the wrong place could end the world or have who ever 'owns' it shoot themselves in the foot.

Chalky

Can anyone explain how a Trident accident can kill everyone in that 150 mile wide circle?

ToneControl

Chalky said:

Can anyone explain how a Trident accident can kill everyone in that 150 mile wide circle?

no

ThorpyFX

Chalky said:

ThorpyFX said:

Chalky said:

Evilmags said:

Garthy said:

Evilmags said:

They should be where the lowest population density is. 

Why? It's not like they are going to detonate them in the base...

Targets. If you hot a nuclear sub you make one fuck of a boom. 

Nuclear detonation even very near a nuclear weapon will almost certainly not cause the second weapon to detonate.  It doesn't work like high explosive.

Have a wisdom! The mechanics behind a nuclear fusion/fission reaction are so precise that sympathetic nuclear events are nigh on impossible. 

I also find it odd that people think a nuclear attack creates huge areas where nothing will live for thousands of years.  They seem to overlook that you can sit at ground zero in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in complete safety! 

Well, nuclear attacks can be clean or dirty depending on the yield and mechanism of the reaction. I.e. If the reaction produces lots of high energy isotopes such as caesium then the area will be dangerous and extremely hostile to life.

ThorpyFX

Trident refers to the propulsion system. As per the nuclear non proliferation treaty countries are not allowed to share nuclear weapon designs. Therefore the warheads are entirely British in design, the rockets are USA designed. 

mike_l

octatonic said:

Emp_Fab said:

Fuck off !  Keep those temples to human stupidity away from me !

I propose that Emp becomes our new deterrent.

You sure that's wise? By the time he's got round to deterring anyone we'd have been invaded. Twice. 

Chalky

mike_l said:

octatonic said:

Emp_Fab said:

Fuck off !  Keep those temples to human stupidity away from me !

I propose that Emp becomes our new deterrent.

You sure that's wise? By the time he's got round to deterring anyone we'd have been invaded. Twice. 

Yes but think of the ear-bashing they'd get when he finally DID get round to it!

Antique_Guitars

Move them to Margate 

mike_l

Chalky said:

mike_l said:

octatonic said:

Emp_Fab said:

Fuck off !  Keep those temples to human stupidity away from me !

I propose that Emp becomes our new deterrent.

You sure that's wise? By the time he's got round to deterring anyone we'd have been invaded. Twice. 

Yes but think of the ear-bashing they'd get when he finally DID get round to it!

He'd be in an internment  camp....Or a psych ward....