Hutton queries Trident reduction

HAVE YOUR SAY

"4 'VANGUARD SUBMARINE REPLACEMENTS' WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO 3 OF TODAY'S VANGUARDS IN TERMS OF TOTAL NUMBERS OF MISSILE TUBES!!"

Running the UK's main pillar of national defence and international power (and status) projection on an 'absolute minimum' standard- as represented by a 3-boat Trident system- would prompt questions among potential adversaries and existing/potential trading partners as to 'why is the UK doing this- and asking for catastrophe- when, considering the relatively puny numbers of nuclear warheads possessed by the UK compared to the world's total- about 1 and a 1/4 percent of world's total in 2009- the potential effects on the rest of the world would be negligible...

Considering that each of the Royal Navy's 4 Vanguard nuclear missile (Trident) submarines has 16 missile tubes, equaling 64 missile tubes in total, and recognizing that Premier Brown has recently 'decreed' that the submarines which are built to replace Vanguards will only have 12 missile tubes- even if 4 Vanguard replacements are built (rather than 3) their total number of missile tubes will be only 48 (4 X 12) which equals the total number of missile tubes of 3 of today's Vanguards: 3 X 16= 48...

So, what is the point??

Achieving the PM's alleged 'reduction in the UK's nuclear missile launch capabilities' objectives doesn't require building only 3 new subs to replace today's 4 Vanguards since the new subs- at least today- are intended to each have 25% less missile carrying capacity than Vanguards (12 versus 16)...

4 of the new subs will have (only), in total, the same number of missile tubes as 3 of today's Vanguards (48)....

Better for the UK to formally work with the United States in their nascent project to replace the US Navy's existing Ohio class nuclear missile submarines, and build at least 4 Vanguard-replacements for the Royal Navy- each one with capacities for 24 missile tube slots (similar to today's Ohio's capacities), and if- for periods during the lifespan of the new subs- it was adjudged that all 24 missile tubes on each new sub were not needed, then not-required missile tubes could be used for something else:

- swapped out for conventional warhead cruise missiles;

- unmanned underwater vehichles;

- special forces' deplyment pods;

and the like...

It's a widely accepted human behaviour precept that a persons- or country's- 'stature', 'profile' and 'posture' can do far more to disincentiveize potential adversaries from attempting mischief or aggression than verbal discourse logic or diplomacy...

All major UK political parties ought to be energetically strategizing how, over the coming decades, the UK's 'stature', 'profile' and 'posture' world-wide* can be maintained and enhanced- not grievously and unessesarily diminished- as would be the result of further reducing the Royal Navy's capabilities and the country's nuclear deterrent

(* militarily, politically, economically & through news, information and entertainment types of media)
Roderick V. Louis, - Vancouver, BC, Canada

Keep the deterrance, but replace Vanguard submarines with 8 additional Astute submarines.
Replace Trident with nuclear tipped Cruise missiles.
Probable saving would be around £15 billion, enough to finance more helicopters for the Army, new OPVH and Escort Fleet for the Navy, as well as replacements for the HMS Ocean.
No brainer really, we keep our seat at the big table, keep a weapon of last resort, and if at a later date we negotiate away these dreadful weapons, the submarines could be easily converted for conventional use to further strengthen our depleted naval forces.
Andy Bruguier - Dartford