Trident Trident Trident Warhead design Some facts about

Trident

Warhead design

Some facts about Trident • 16 Trident II (D 5) submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). (Lockheed-Martin in 1990) • Range- 7, 500 miles with accuracy of 90 metres. • Cost of each missile - £ 16. 8 m • Each missile can carry 12 x 100 kt warheads (UK designed but closely based on US W 88 design) • Each warhead is 7 -8 x the Hiroshima bomb (14 kt) • Probably only 12 missiles with 4 warheads on each missile; to be reduced to 8 missiles with 5 warheads in future • About 30, 000 jobs, directly or indirectly, involved • Possible deaths: 10 -50 million [ 1000 deaths/job]

More facts about Trident • Total number of UK warheads is about 225 but only 160 ‘operational’. These will be reduced to about 180 of which 120 will be operational • Each Vanguard sub can be at sea for 3 months • Always one on patrol at any time: called Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) • Iifetime will be extended to overlap with arrival of replacement in early 2030 s • Britain will contribute to costs of similar of US Trident extension • Similar contribution to design of new missile to replace Trident in 2040 s • UK helps pay US development costs AND then purchases the missiles from US

Trident’s ‘Successor’ Artists impression

Some facts about ‘Successor’ • 8 Trident missiles with 40 warheads in total (reduction from 48) • A 12 missile ‘Common missile compartment’ that can take the Trident replacement in 2040 s. • Possibly replaced by ‘Common Weapons Launcher’ ; cruise missiles, UAVs, UUVs. etc • New nuclear power plant [PWR 3] designed by Rolls Royce Derby but in close collaboration with US • Costs £ 30 Bn + but with £ 10 Bn ‘contingency’ • Costs £ 4 bn per annum to maintain over 30 year lifetime so a total of £ 120 bn in todays money’ • Design not yet agreed- expected that 70% of design finished by start of building say in 2018 - a source of potential increase in final costs • Total cost probably closer to £ 160 bn + more [both Tory MP, Crispin Blunt, and Reuters calculate costs as £ 167 bn]

Will Trident Still Work in the Future? “But the integrity of Trident depends critically upon the stealth of the submarines and the effectiveness of systems that protect them. If adversaries can confidently track them, submarines are a very poor platform to carry strategic weapons. ” “ Immobilising a submarine in the ocean does not carry the same strategic risk as attacking the UK itself, making it a far more attractive proposition for any aggressor seeking to neutralise the UK’s nuclear deterrent. ” British American Security Information Council [BASIC] report 22 January, 2016

Will trident work in the future? • Active sonar for detection of stealthy objects continues to rapidly develop. Acoustic technologies and lasers are fast developing as reliable methods of underwater communication over significant distances. [BASIC report] • Development of Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing (OAWRS) effect over thousands of miles –already in use for fish • Development in the field of autonomous and semiautonomous drones (unmanned underwater vehicles - UUVs), able to patrol a defined area looking for submarines; these have for some years been used in the commercial space. When communicating and operating in packs or swarms they could change outcomes considerably and mean high-confidence submarine detection and tracking across large areas of ocean. [BASIC report]

Will trident work in the future? “Submarines could be picked up and tracked soon after leaving port or when discovered in the open ocean. Underwater drones, far smaller than their prey, do not require the same levels of power as large manned submarines, and it cannot be long before they will be able to match the (walking to jogging) speed of the Vanguards on patrol for months on end, using solar or other rechargeable battery sources. ” “Technologies evolve and adapt, and the pace of this is speeding up. Submarines may well have been the ideal platform in the past, but they will not be in future. It is only a matter of when that future emerges, and the evidence suggests that it is closer than many would have us believe. ” [BASIC Report]

Will trident work in the future? There at least four possible technologies that can detect nuclear submarines: 1. Passive and Active sonar 2. Water disturbances detected by satellites 3. Magnetic fields – a large block of ferrous material like a submarine may produce measurable effects on the earths magnetic field. 4. Anti-neutrino emissions from the reactors due to beta decay of radioactive nucleotides produced by fission. It produces a particle called an electron antineutrino -about 1021 per second n 0 = p+ + e- + ν 0 [ 65 bn/sec pass though every sq. cm of your body, mainly from Sun but also from Earth’s core, Super Novae, Black Holes]

Will trident work in the future? Anti-neutrinos (a-n): They are very difficult to detect due to fact they have no charge and interact with matter only through the weak force and gravity: They are very light-about a millionth of mass of electron which is itself about 2 thousandth the mass of a proton. Their detection used to require 1000 s tonnes of water + scintillators using inverse beta decay. Recent detectors only use a tonne of water It is expected that detectors using another effect will be a tenth of a tonne or less. This means that they could be put into space to scan the earth for concentrated a-n sources, such a reactors. There anti-neutrinos emitted from radioactive processes deep within the earth and from fixed site reactors: A global map has been produced by the US ‘National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’ (heard of them? ) linked to NSA and CIA. The aim is to detect ‘rogue’ states producing plutonium for bombs, etc.

Will trident work in the future? Two detectors were used—one in Italy and one in Japan. Human-built reactors provided 1% of anti-neutrinos Notice: no sign of reactors under the sea!

Trident and Successor The possibility of detection leads to increased instability As submarines become detectable and therefore vulnerable to attack from both state and non-state actors, either via military intervention or through cyber interference, their payload becomes increasingly susceptible to launch. A sub-sea platform is therefore increasingly likely to destabilise any perceived deterrence balance. It will encourage the return of “use it or lose it” from the cold war

Trident and Successor The dangers of cyber attacks: One retired former head of Strategic Command, General James Cartright thinks this danger is such that all nuclear weapons should be ‘de-alerted’ because a cyber attack might: • Spoof early warning systems of an imminent nuclear attack • Hack into communications and issue order for attack • Hack directly into actual missile control systems He suggest extending alert time from 3 -5 mins to 24 -72 hours.

Trident and Successor ICAN 6 Myths about Nuclear Weapons

Trident and Successor Myth 1 “Nuclear weapons are essential for security” • They breed fear and distrust • Ultimate weapons of terror and mass destruction • Useless against real security threats: Climate change; terrorism; resource depletion; poverty and disease • Nuclear ‘deterrence theory’ makes assumptions about adversary that are unstable, unprovable, unreliable • Most countries reject the idea that nuclear weapons make them safer

Trident and Successor Myth 2 “Nuclear Weapons have kept the peace for 70 years” • There have been hundreds of conflicts, some major such as Korea and Vietnam; at least 10 m deaths • A shocking number of close shaves • For nuclear deterrence to be ‘successful’ it has to work FOR EVER not just 70 years • No longer ideological blocks –a much more unpredictable world

Trident and Successor Myth 3 “Its okay for some countries to have nuclear weapons” • Any country could use the same argument so it undermines the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). • South African Delegate to NPT 2015: “Possession of nuclear weapons privileges the security interests of a few states at the expense of the rest of humanity” • If used then all countries will be affected

Trident and Successor Myth 4 • • “A Ban Treaty is unnecessary” 40, 000 nuclear weapons dismantled since peak of cold war but 16, 000 remain All nuclear armed states are investing heavily in modernization of their arsenals with apparent intention of keeping them for decades More countries have joined the nuclear club: Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea Nuclear Weapons are the only WMD not yet prohibited by international treaty

Trident and Successor Myth 5 “A ban is useless unless all countries sign at once” • Past experience shows that treaties effect the behaviour of countries that do not sign them e. g. US no longer produces or uses landmines although it has not signed the treaty banning landmines • Recently it was easier to persuade Syria to give up its chemical weapons because of a treaty banning chemical weapons • Nations can join ban if they agree to eliminate stockpiles within a specified time

Trident and Successor Myth 6 “Banning nuclear weapons won’t eliminate them” • Banning or prohibition usually precedes elimination • A ban would make maintenance and development more difficult • A ban treaty would provide a strong framework in which detailed elimination measures can be negotiated • It will bring legal clarity and moral authority sending a clear signal that all nuclear weapons are unacceptable

Trident and Successor • Biological weapons - banned 1972 • Chemical weapons – banned 1993 • Landmines – banned 1997 • Cluster bombs – banned 2008 • NUCLEAR WEAPONS – banned ? ? ?

Trident and Successor A country that unilaterally gives up its nuclear weapons will have the moral authority to lead an campaign for an international treaty banning all nuclear weapons. The UK has a unique opportunity to play such a role

International Law The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocol form the core of intentional humanitarian law and have been ratified by the UK. The UK has repeatedly stated that it would only consider use of nuclear weapons in “extreme circumstances of self-defence”. Use of nuclear weapons would therefore only be legal if their use: • constituted a proportionate response to aggressive actions, • was a necessary response to an attack, • discriminated between combatants and noncombatants • did not cause unnecessary suffering.

Trident and Successor International Law: The International Court of Justice concluded that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law” But it could not “conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of selfdefence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake”. The British government accepted this Opinion and does not dispute that international humanitarian law applies to nuclear weapons.

Trident and Successor Some questions: Is Britain’s deterrent independent? • It is allocated to NATO – which is an arm of US • Missiles are made in US and spare ones are kept and maintained there • It is thought that the guidance and targeting software for missiles is under point US-UK control • This means only if US agrees can UK launch • The US may also be able to select targets • The US, through NATO, could order UK to use its missiles even when it might otherwise not want to.

Trident and Successor Is the UK Government serious about Multilateral Disarmament? Almost certainly NOT because: • They, with 4 other main nuclear powers, are boycotting the meeting in Geneva of the 'Open Ended Working Group’ (OEWG) whose tasks are to develop “ “legal measures, legal provisions and norms” for achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world. This a UN body supported by 138 nations • UK et al say: “An instrument such as a ban” would “undermine the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] regime” but do not explain why.

Trident and Successor Could it be used against a ‘rogue’ state which has a fanatical (religiously? ) inspired government which is threatening the UK? Such government would not be easily reasoned with and may even welcome a nuclear attack on itself as a quick way to paradise or Armageddon If such a government had nuclear weapons themselves they might see a nuclear attack by itself as a way of eliminating a large number of unbelievers thus welcoming nuclear war as a winwin situation.

Some more questions Could it be used to deter ‘non-state actors’ who are threatening the UK with terrorism? Obviously NOT since their locations are dispersed or not known with certainty. They also might welcome an attempted nuclear attack on themselves Could it be used to threaten a poor country who was refusing to allow UK access to its resources? NO(officially) – this is against Humanitarian law

Some more questions Could it be used to deter a more powerful state which has only conventional weapons? Possibly for a short while- but the temporally deterred state need only get its forces close enough to the UK so that an attack on them would cause fall-out on UK. This is an extremely unlikely scenario anyway

Some more questions Would it be better to risk having to fight a conventional war against an invader than be obliterated in a nuclear war? The answer must surely be ‘yes’ - this has to be fundamental to the unilateralist position If we disarmed unilaterally would we have to leave US -NATO alliance? Almost definitely-we could not accept the nuclear ‘umbrella’ provided by US- NATO. We would have to accept the ‘risks’ that unilateral disarmament entails and especially if we want to take a moral lead to create a International Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty

Some more questions Would we more secure if we used most of the £ 150 bn+ saved to help finance the development of the rest of the world- say, by creating and giving solar-powered development technology to the developing world? Absolutely YES! We would make many millions of friends who would strongly oppose an attack on the UK since we would be helping their development, without having an hidden agenda of exploitation.

Suggestion The North West of England grew into the first industrialised region in the world on the backs of African slaves using the products of their labour: Cotton, Sugar, Tobacco, etc. We could invert this historical process by contributing to a development plan for Africa drawn up jointly with African communities, their scientists and engineers. This should offer alternative path to sustainable development based on solar energy. The North West becomes a power house for solar-based technologies for sustainable development funded by the cancellation of Trident and funds for mitigating climate change.

Solar-based technology for sustainable development An example is shown below of a product of imaginative thinking by a R&D institute in Germany [ILK Dresden]. It is the solar-powered shipping container shown below: • Water pumping from depth for irrigation and drinking • Medical cool-room for storing medicines and carrying out medical procedures • School-room linked to the Internet • Agro-ecology laboratory