Downing Street confirms PM knew about Trident missile test but malfunction claims still dismissed

Vanguard class

A Downing Street spokesperson speaking on behalf of Prime Minister Theresa May has confirmed that she was made aware of a Trident II D5 missile test carried out in June 2016 before she petitioned ministers to vote to renew the nuclear deterrent. The Prime Minister had side-stepped questions put to her by the BBC following claims in The Sunday Times that she deliberately withheld knowledge of the test because the missile malfunctioned.

When questioned on whether the missile did indeed malfunction however the spokesperson was less clear;

We have been clear that the submarine and the crew were successfully tested and certified. That was the purpose of the operation. What is also clear is that the capability and effectiveness of the Trident missile is unquestionable.

Loosely translated, the spokesperson is stating that the operation was a success because it was designed to test the submarine – namely HMS Vengeance – and not the missile. However, adding that the effectiveness of the Trident missile was “unquestionable” implies that either there was no malfunction during the test or that any malfunction that did occur has now been addressed and the government and MoD is confident that it won’t happen again.

In the last few hours, US news juggernaut CNN reported that an American official had said to them that the British missile was diverted into the ocean. This occurred automatically when the electronics onboard detected an anomaly within the missile’s systems but Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, when quizzed about this today refused to confirm a malfunction took place citing issues of secrecy and security regarding the nuclear deterrent.

Either way the Prime Minister and her government’s handling of the situation has only fuelled the anti-nuclear campaign in the UK with the secretive nature of the Prime Minister’s response on Sunday leading to speculation of a cover-up.

Advertisements

Successor-class becomes Dreadnought-class

Building to start on new nuclear submarines as government announces £1.3 billion investment

Composite rendering of how the new class will look (Crown)

The Royal Navy is to see the return of one of its most famous ship names. It has been confirmed that the new fleet of Trident D5-armed ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) previously known as the Successor-class will now become the Dreadnought-class. Construction of first-of-class HMS Dreadnought began last month and along with her three sister ships will carry the UK’s nuclear deterrence in to the 2050s.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon made the announcement  during Trafalgar Day celebrations on Friday;

Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved that Dreadnought, one of the most famous names in the Royal Navy, will become the lead boat and class name for the Royal Navy’s new successor submarines.

HMS DreadnoughtThe name Dreadnought has now been carried by 12 Royal Navy vessels including those operated by the English Navy before the 1707 Acts of Union with Scotland with the first being a 40-gun man-of-war built in 1553. A dreadnought was present at both the battle against the Spanish Armada and in the Battle of Trafalgar but it is perhaps the revolutionary 1906 vessel that has become most synonymous with the name. That Dreadnought was so revolutionary that not only did it render all other warships obsolete but it gave birth to a whole new type of warship known as the Dreadnoughts.

The name transferred from surface warships to submarines with the launch of another Dreadnought in 1960. HMS Dreadnought S101 was Britain’s first nuclear powered submarine and as such was as revolutionary in the Royal Navy as her predecessor was. The new Dreadnought will continue the tradition of representing technical achievement and innovation being one of the most advanced and stealthy ballistic missile submarines in the world.

Brexit & Trident – What do you think?

Vanguard-class nuclear submarine trident

There’s no escaping the fact that replacing Britain’s nuclear deterrent is an awesomely expensive undertaking. Figures released in the past put it in excess of a staggering £100bn!

So with that in mind; would a Brexit from Europe endanger the program since some politicians would want that money to be spent on instead beefing up an economy independent from Europe?

What do you think?

  • Maybe you think the money should be spent on the economy?
  • Maybe you think a Brexit would guarantee the project for economic and security reasons?

There is no wrong answer and I look forward to reading your opinions in the comments below.

Royal Marines guarding Trident replace SA80 rifles with C8 Colt Carbine

C8 Carbine Royal Marines FaslaneThe Royal Marines of 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group based at HMNB Clyde, Faslane in Scotland have started to receive the Canadian-manufactured rifle to replace the long standing but troubled SA80. Variants of the C8 Carbine have been used by British special forces units in the past but 43 Commando will be among the first British regular units to adopt the weapon.

British soldier army 2013 defence imagesLike the SA80 the C8 is chambered to fire the standard NATO 5.56mm round but is configured in a more traditional fashion rather than the the bullpup configuration of the SA80 (magazine positioned behind the trigger which made the SA80 a more compact weapon than previous generations of rifle such as the SLR). Despite this the C8 Carbine is still a relatively compact and ergonomic design with a reported high level of reliability.

The acquisition of the weapon for 43 Commando has been defended as reflecting the unit’s unique operating role which covers guarding Britain’s nuclear ballistic missile submarines in Faslane from terrorist and foreign intelligence operatives. The unit’s role has been made even more difficult with increasing protests against the nuclear deterrent from anti-nuclear activists and Scottish nationalists demanding the submarines’ removal from Scottish waters.

However, sources close to the Royal Marines have been quoted in The Independent as saying that the Royal Marines have been increasingly dissatisfied with the SA80; a claim not unique to the Royal Marines it must be noted. The SA80, which has become synonymous with the British armed forces in the past 25 years, has been marred by issues over reliability with it being described as a very high maintenance weapon. The SA80 has also received criticism for lacking range and stopping power especially when faced with insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq armed with the ubiquitous 7.62mm AK-47. The source quoted in The Independent states that the C8 addresses all of these issues but the Royal Navy has hit back stating that the SA80 remains the weapon of choice for the infantry soldier across the British armed forces.

Labour and nationalist party leaders front anti-Trident march

Jeremy Corbyn Campaign Nuclear Disarmament Trident

An estimated 60,000 people from across the political and social spectrum of Britain marched on London today to protest against the renewal of Britain’s fleet of Trident nuclear missile-armed submarines (SSBNs). Among the most prominent members of the march was Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn who must have felt he was on familiar ground having been quite a prolific anti-nuclear campaigner in the 1980s. He was joined by Scottish First Minister and leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, and Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood.

At the climax of the march, Corbyn made an impassioned speech to the crowd saying;

You don’t achieve peace by planning for war. We live in a world where so many things are possible. Where peace is possible in so many places. You don’t achieve peace by planning for war, grabbing resources and not respecting each other’s human rights. Today’s demonstration is an expression of many people’s opinions and views. I’m here because I believe in a nuclear-free Britain and a nuclear-free future.

 

Is the British nuclear deterrent relevant in the 21st century?

 

They sail beneath the waves almost totally unseen carrying more firepower than was unleashed in World War Two. The nuclear ballistic missile submarine or SSBN is the ultimate safeguard from direct attack by a foreign power. Not knowing where one of these Trident nuclear missile armed behemoths is at any one time means that an enemy country cannot launch an attack without sustaining unthinkable losses to their own people and national infrastructure – a concept known quite aptly in military circles as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Vanguard-class nuclear submarine trident

It is truly stomach wrenching to contemplate just how devastating these vessels potentially are to humanity itself and it is that fact above all others that has spurred the campaign for nuclear disarmament. In Britain, the country that played a big role in developing America’s atomic bomb and the third independent nuclear power to rise, the lobby for nuclear disarmament has seen a powerful ally take prominence in British politics in the form of the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn has been a prolific anti-nuclear campaigner for many years and when he was elected to leader of the Labour Party he made it abundantly clear that if elected he planned to take the first steps to the nuclear disarmament of the Royal Navy. Corbyn even went as far as to remove his shadow defence secretary, Maria Eagle, in a cabinet reshuffle because supposedly she was not against the nuclear deterrent unlike her replacement, Emily Thornbury, who is much more vocally opposed to Britain’s nuclear submarines.

In an, a post on his website entitled Nuclear Madness he says;

“Nobody is made more secure by this insane waste of resources on destruction.”

Vanguard-class nuclear submarine trident2Corbyn’s Labour Party is not alone in British politics with their anti-nuclear stance. The Scottish National Party, Liberal Democrats and the Green Party are also firmly against a nuclear armed Britain. However, David Cameron’s ruling Conservative Party disagrees and have begun the process of replacing the Trident nuclear missile-armed Vanguard-class submarines with a fleet of three new Successor-class vessels believing the nuclear deterrence is key to Britain’s security.

Clearly these are fundamentally opposite opinions and this has reignited the debate with more passion than ever before. So the question becomes; is the nuclear deterrence relevant in the 21st century especially in light of the threat from the Islamic State terror group which the average person on the street views as the most immediate threat to their way of life?

To begin to answer this question one must first look at the history of the nuclear deterrence itself which can be traced back to work carried out in British laboratories before the Second World War. Like America and Germany, Britain was carrying out the ground work that would ultimately lead to nuclear weapons which Britain viewed as a way of safeguarding her empire against the ever increasing threat from Germany, Japan, Italy and the Soviet Union all of whom were expanding at the time. Winston Churchill wrote of the potential of nuclear weapons as a deterrence in the 1930s even though they were still a fantasy at that time. When war broke out in 1939 Britain lacked the resources to continue the work on her own but when America joined the fray in 1941 the scientists involved were transferred to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project which would lead to the world’s first atomic bombs which ended World War II when they were used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which resulted in almost 200,000 deaths.

After the war, Britain expected to be repaid for its part in developing its ally’s superweapon with atomic weapons for their own forces built with US support. However, the United States refused and pulled all support for Britain’s nuclear weapons program wanting to establish a nuclear monopoly. The British scientists returned to Britain and were instructed to work on the first British atomic bomb using the experience they had gained in the United States.

vickers valiant nuclear testBritain detonated its first atomic weapon on October 3rd 1952 and were soon fielding a fleet of bombers for the Royal Air Force to deliver them on to a target should World War III break out. Realising they had lost their monopoly by the 1950s the US relaxed its policy and began supplying British forces with their more advanced nuclear weapons with which to square off with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. By the late 1950s, Britain and the US developed a joint operational plan for the use of nuclear weapons against a Soviet invasion of Western Europe but the bombers that carried them were becoming increasingly vulnerable to advanced Soviet fighters and surface-to-air weapons. Therefore, the two countries began developing the Skybolt missile which was a very long range nuclear-armed weapon which could be fired by the bombers far from the target. However, when President John F. Kennedy arrived at the White House he pulled the plug on the project which left Britain’s nuclear bombers on the verge of becoming obsolete.

In order to keep Britain in the nuclear game with the United States which was (and remains) important both strategically and politically to Washington, Kennedy offered to sell Polaris submarine-launched nuclear missiles for Britain to put in its own force of ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Thus the Royal Navy took over the nuclear deterrence role from the Royal Air Force in the late 1960s. By the 1980s the Polaris-armed submarines were in need of replacement and this led to Britain purchasing the UGM-133 Trident II submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) for use in four new Vanguard-class submarines.

HMS Vnegeance Royal Navy

Despite the end of the Cold War the submarines continued to carry Britain’s nuclear deterrent through the nineties and the first decade of the 21st century but are now fast approaching the end of their useful lives and need replacing themselves which has led to the current debate in London. Aside from their moral implications, the cost of replacing these three vessels is one of the biggest sources for opposition with varying figures being thrown around by those for and against David Cameron’s plans. Any figures for the Successor-class at the moment are speculative but in 2014 the independent Trident Commission estimated the lifetime cost (building and operation) of a Trident replacement as being at least £100 billion. With Britain still recovering from the economic recession that blighted Europe and North America almost eight years ago it is easy to see why even leaders of the British armed forces are starting to voice their opposition with Britain’s conventional forces looking increasingly stretched having to tackle Islamic State in Iraq, Syria and Libya as well as maintain garrisons on the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. To put this figure in to perspective it is the equivalent sum to how much it would cost to build approximately 95 Type 45 destroyers or 16 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

That is a staggering realization so just why does David Cameron and his Conservative Party feel that the need to spend that much on a weapon system that in theory will never be used? Just what is the threat to Britain in 2016 that justifies such an expense?

The first answer that springs to mind is of course, Russia. After the initial honeymoon period of the post-Cold War years, the rise of Vladimir Putin in Moscow and the explosion of Russian nationalism has seen Russia projecting its influence beyond its borders once more to such an extent that it would not be inaccurate to say that we are truly in the grip of “Cold War II”. Russian successes in Georgia and the Crimea have only encouraged Putin further leading to his boldest step yet; putting Russian forces in to Syria to support President Assad whom the west wants removed. This has had consequences beyond Syria’s borders with British aircraft (below) and warships playing cat-and-mouse with their Russian counterparts in the Baltic and North Atlantic while the war of words becomes more bitter.

RAF Typhoon Tu-160 BlackjackBut just how far is Putin willing to push things with the west to achieve his aims? Excluding the incident earlier this year in which a Turkish fighter shot down a Russian Su-24 strike aircraft near the Turkey-Syria border Putin has been very careful to avoid a direct confrontation with the western powers regarding Syria. If one looks at the situation with Russia regarding Syria in a Cold War context, then both sides know the possible consequences of escalating the situation in Syria. While it is not openly admitted, the fact that the United States, Britain, France and Russia all have nuclear weapons and all have interests in Syria is what has kept these powers from reacting to one another militarily. If we take the Su-24 shootdown but without the risk of nuclear weapons, then it is likely that Russia would have responded to Turkey with military force plunging Europe in to another massive conventional war. If proof was ever needed that this could happen, you need only remember that World War I began with one man armed only with a handgun and a strong sense of nationalism.

But just as nuclear weapons have prevented open conflict with Russia thus far they have also created the problem of just what the west can do about Putin’s actions in Syria. No one wants the situation to escalate to the point of direct confrontation but with Russian forces firmly embedded in the country to meet Putin’s aims then the west is clearly in a weak position. Only time will tell how this chapter of history will ultimately play out.

Kim Jong Un nuclear missileBeyond Russia other potential nuclear threats to Britain come from China despite the recent economic progress made between London and Beijing. China is increasingly locking horns with its old enemies of Taiwan and Japan both of whom are supported by the United States and therefore by association, Britain. To the south of China, the “hermit kingdom” of North Korea continues to develop its nuclear weapons and missile programs (right) while India and Pakistan still stare at one another across the border with their nuclear weapons sitting ready for the final confrontation. Then of course there is the situation with Iran’s nuclear weapons program which despite having calmed down somewhat remains a source for possible conflict in the future should relations with the west worsen again. If any of these countries utilise nuclear weapons against their neighbours, then things could start happening very quickly that could see the world’s other nuclear powers dragged in leading to the potential for an apocalypse however it is this fact that has largely kept these countries in line with their weapons.

The cynic would perhaps argue that Britain and America’s nuclear weapons have not done anything to curb these developments and may even be responsible for encouraging them. The fact of the matter is however that despite efforts to stop it, nuclear proliferation is increasing around the world. When it boils down to it nuclear weapons are simply a matter of physics rather than some state secret and theoretically, any country or even a well-organized terrorist group anywhere in the world can build them if they pour enough resources and research in to making them.

So to reference Jeremy Corbyn’s statement about how safer the world would be without British nuclear weapons we have to remember that the threat remains to us from across the globe regardless. Removing the nuclear weapons capability from the British arsenal will not change that fact but retaining those weapons will mean that Britain will be able to exert its influence on the world stage when it comes to dealing with other nuclear armed countries as opposed to surrendering it to a nuclear armed ally who may not have our best interests at heart. This, coupled with the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), means that far from being a weapon system that may never be used the nuclear deterrence is in fact in constant use by its very existence.

Vanguard class

Does that justify a £100bn price tag?

That’s a question we each have to ask ourselves regarding our view of the world since as tax-payers we are funding the weapons. The debate will never go away even if Corbyn gets his wish and the weapons are dismantled; the debate will then become about resurrecting the deterrence amid a loss of political influence and/or a direct threat to national security. Whatever your views on their use in the 21st century just remember this one undeniable fact; the threat of nuclear weapons did prevent World War III throughout the years of the Cold War and if we are truly in Cold War II then surely we should retain that asset to continue to do the same.

 

HMS Victorious 1996 BBC Documentary

An excellent documentary produced in 1996 chronicling Britain’s nuclear deterrent in the post-Cold War world. Skip forward 20 years later and the need to replace Victorious and her sisters has never before been such a contentious political issue.

Please note: this site is not affiliated with this documentary series.