UK nuclear weapons plan unveiled

[England]

The Government has decided to acquire a new generation of nuclear missile submarines, Tony Blair has announced.

But he told MPs Britain's stock of nuclear warheads would be cut by 20% from 200 to 160.

The Prime Minister said the risk of a "major nuclear threat" meant it was essential to replace the Royal Navy's ageing fleet of Vanguard class submarines.

The estimated cost of replacing the fleet, which carries the Trident nuclear missiles, is £20bn.

The Government's White Paper has also left open the option of reducing the submarine fleet from four to three.

The White Paper was approved by the Cabinet earlier in the day.

Ministers have promised a Commons vote on the issue early next year.

With the Conservatives expected to back the Government, there is little doubt about the outcome.

But many Labour MPs remain deeply unhappy about the decision.

A poll for The Independent suggests as many as one in four is against retaining Trident.

In a forward to the White Paper, Mr Blair said other countries having big nuclear arsenals meant Britain could not afford to give up its deterrent.

"We cannot be sure that a major nuclear threat to our vital interests will not emerge over the longer term," he said.

"I believe it is crucial that, for the foreseeable future, British Prime Ministers have the necessary assurance that no aggressor can escalate a crisis beyond UK control."

He went on: "These are not decisions a government takes lightly. The financial costs are substantial.

"We would not want to have the terrifying power of these weapons unless we believed that to be necessary to deter a future aggressor."



:: Each warhead is British designed and made, and has the explosive power of up to 100 kilotonnes.

:: Such a blast would have eight times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

:: Missiles are launched underwater and, within two minutes, are travelling faster than 12,000 mph.

:: According to the Ministry Of Defence, each Vanguard submarine has a maximum of 16 missiles and a total of 48 warheads.

:: At least one Vanguard-class nuclear submarine is on operational patrol at all times.

:: The vessels are 150 metres long - over twice the length of a Boeing 747 - but are among the quietest in the world.

:: Their nuclear reactors make enough power to supply a small town and the submarines produce their own oxygen and fresh water.

Could you post the source (link) of the story please? Ta.

-Muezzin

[Keltoi]

Interesting. You can't let the nuclear cat out of the bag now, so it shouldn't be a surprise that nations will continue to improve the effectiveness and mobility of their nuclear capablilty.

[Woodrow]

I recall back in either the late 1950s or early 1960s when the UK was protesting the US possession of nukes and would not allow any planes with nukes to land in the UK or for nuclear subs to dock at UK ports.



Times do change.

[England]

I recall back in either the late 1950s or early 1960s when the UK was protesting the US possession of nukes and would not allow any planes with nukes to land in the UK or for nuclear subs to dock at UK ports.



Times do change.

The government is doing this for precautionary measures. If we gave up nukes no country would follow suit which would leave Britain vulnerable and weak. I am for this. I'm sure Blair would rather ALL nuclear weapons worldwide to be scrapped, but it's not going to happen.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[afriend]

:uuh: Does this mean that the UK, as in the land itself will be home to nukes?

I'm very worried...I wnt be surprised if I grow an extra leg...or two.....

[FBI]

Whats the point they aint gonna use them, they're just for scare tactics, countries who own them won't risk the backlash off a revenge attack.

[Woodrow]

The government is doing this for precautionary measures. If we gave up nukes no country would follow suit which would leave Britain vulnerable and weak. I am for this. I'm sure Blair would rather ALL nuclear weapons worldwide to be scrapped, but it's not going to happen.

Sadly that is the understandable truth. I have no idea how the cycle can be broken. Unfortunatly nukes are a very expensive hobby and they become a very major portion of any countries defense budget. It would be nice if all that money world wide could be used for humanitarian projects and spread peace instead of mutual distrust.

[arabiyyah]

:uuh: Does this mean that the UK, as in the land itself will be home to nukes?

I'm very worried...I wnt be surprised if I grow an extra leg...or two.....

why would that happen? :heated: :uuh: :uuh:

[Trumble]

:uuh: Does this mean that the UK, as in the land itself will be home to nukes?

I'm very worried...I wnt be surprised if I grow an extra leg...or two.....

It already is, the warheads are manufactured and stored on the mainland. All this announcement means is that the Vanguard class ballistic missile subs will be replaced by new missile subs.

Personally I'd prefer they simply weren't replaced, of course, and Britain just gave up nuclear weapons. I'm not foolish enough to think that will actually set any sort of 'example' to anybody else though, it's far too late that for that. There was one real chance to disarm, and that was at the end of the Cold War. Had everybody agreed then to get rid of the things, not 'reduce' or 'limit' or other nonsense, it might just have worked. Now it's too late, and with each new state wanting to become part of the 'club' it will just get worse until, sooner or later, somebody actually uses them. imsad

[limitless]

:sl:

Sucks to be living UK (Muslims) now :rollseyes .

Now, I don't see USA, U.N and other nations attacking or doing crap to UK for nuclear. Iran an Islamic nation wanted peaceful nuclear technology the entire world hates Iran, all the "dirt" Iran. Also, Iraq was attacked for such a reason; "massive destructive weapons" .

Isn't it shameful for a Muslim to be living in a country such as UK, they have harassed Muslims, racism, discrimination, and now the nuclear, and feel patriotic about it?



:w:

[arabiyyah]

an Islamic nation wanted peaceful nuclear technology

they threatening a lot of countries, and they could threaten people including me! an iran with nukes can lead to a lot of muslim deaths! i think its better they dont have it. there leader is psyco.

[Woodrow]

they threatening a lot of countries, and they could threaten people including me! an iran with nukes can lead to a lot of muslim deaths! i think its better they dont have it. there leader is psyco.

The 200 plus nuke war heads that the UK admits to having were all built in the UK. They have had them ever since the first nuclear power plant was built there.
Another peacefull use for nuclear power plants.

In 2005 nuclear plants generated 20% of UK electricity (75 billion kWh), compared with 37% from gas and 34% from coal. There are 23 reactors totalling 11,852 MWe capacity.

Government policy

In 1953 the government approved construction of the first reactors at Calder Hall. In 1955 a white paper announced the first purely commercial program, building up to 2000 MWe of Magnox capacity and investigating the future use of fast breeder reactors. Then the 1956 Suez crisis accentuated concerns about shortage of coal and oil and the nuclear program was trebled.

Non-proliferation

The UK is a nuclear weapons state, party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which it ratified in 1968 and under which a safeguards agreement has been in force since 1972. The Additional Protocol in relation to this was signed in 1998. IAEA safeguards are applied on all civil nuclear activities. (The UK undertook 45 nuclear weapons tests over 1952-91 - most in the 1950s).

Source: http://www.uic.com.au/nip84.htm

[starfortress]

Sadly that is the understandable truth. I have no idea how the cycle can be broken. Unfortunatly nukes are a very expensive hobby and they become a very major portion of any countries defense budget. It would be nice if all that money world wide could be used for humanitarian projects and spread peace instead of mutual distrust.

Yes it is,but the worst part is the possessions towards Nuclear Weapons has became trendy and more attractive to other nations,and thats not a simple task to make them calm down since the U.S and the U.K has lost their credibility for the first time for their possessions over that kind of weapons.

[AHMED_GUREY]

wich non western country with a nuke would attack the UK?? when the US with it's 10 thousand + nukes would attack the aggressors 100% sure

the US is the core nation of the west, the protector, the big brother

we need a stable Islamic state like that.

there are over 30 thousand nukes on this planet (US-10k, Russia even more)

how many times do they want to wipe us out in a nuclear war,i think 4 or 5 would do the job no need to be cruel

[kraze]

as you all say, no one really will be using nuclear weapons, it would be catastrophic to say the least, firstly people would die, there would be collateral damage and the long term damage to the environment would be inquestionably high.

The reason why the UK has shown interest in upgrading its nuclear weapons programme? Well this is my view, may not be true but hey everyone has a voice. Firstly, if you see history the UK has played a major role, you just have to see the British empire to see how big we used to be, but recently it has lost some of this power directly, but indirectly the poer is there. The UK government uses SO much propaganda in its approach that it is unbelievable that people cant see past it. Anayway, neglecting that point as we are going off topic, firstly, the UK is a country who tries to "see" the future, we aint talking about Pakistani future of 2-3 years . . . this is like 30,60,100 years time and what they see the world to be like. Now after 9/11 the bush administration had the axis of evil, which included afghanistan, iraq, iran, syria and Pakistan to say the least. Not a war against islam? I dont think so. The west has in the past had a hold on the arab and east countries, mostly economic hold, but now our countries are becoming industrialised and trying to break free of any reliance on international loans etc so they are having money left over to invest. This money, which I believe that Iran will be working 24/7 really hard, will be used in order to make a nuclear bomb. Someone in the arab countries needs to have one. It will be a deterrent, a BIG deterrent and will allow us to have for once a position that will be heard. Saudia Arabia at the moment I dont think they will be making any ideas of gaining a nuclear bomb as the US will reel if they do as they think Jihadis will take control of the government and use this against Israel or other countries. The UK sees this as a threat, this is the type of thing they will be seeing and they know that it is time to make sure that they have a powerful deterrent, developing countries such as Pakistan, India and China are continously showing their defensive power, this is a symbol to the world to show that the UK is not someone to be, lets say, messed around with. No doubt the propaganda war will continue in the media, but hey Islamic Nations unite and wake up.