The thing that people don't seem to grasp here is that a single Trident missile is capable of carrying 10 warheads and is capable of striking 13,000 km away. This means that with a full compliment of missiles, a Vanguard submarine surfacing in Anchorage Alaska would be capable of striking any location in the US (and I believe possibly even Puerto Rico).
A false launch would essentially be capable of ending the world. It was estimated that a small-scale nuclear war of ~50 'Little Boy' air-bursts would have serious global complications. Being that a single warhead on the Trident can detonate at 500KT (25 times a 'little boy'), a single missile launch is equivalent to 5 megatons, all of which could be ground-burst and force more dust into the atmosphere. At 160 warheads and 80 megatons of destruction, the world is essentially over (as we know it) long before a retaliation has ever been launched.
People's response to this never grabs the situation. It always seems to be that people think a false launch could destroy a city like New York, when in reality a false launch from a ballistic missile submarine could easily end the world.
I realize the risks inherent in a lack of safeguards in the Trident program. However, being from the UK and knowing full well that in the event of a nuclear war, my entire homeland will be a nuclear wasteland (too many primary targets in a small area, I know for a fact I lived in between 3 primaries when I was growing up: major harbor, major RAF base, Army training base). So the UK has little chance to approve a nuclear launch after the attack, unless the authorization can be approved by a UK overseas base, fail-safes are just failures in the face of an attack. Fail-safes are intended to prevent unauthorized launches, however for the UK they're also going to prevent authorized launches.
I'm unsure what troubles me more, a poor ability to safeguard the system or the inability for justice if some psycho warlord decides to destroy my homeland.
The UK isn't in the US's situation where a nuclear launch can mean authorization can be granted by a chief of staff or high ranking general before everyone has been obliterated. The US would take potentially hours for a complete destruction, the UK on the other hand can easily be nuked into non-existence inside of a half-hour. A surprise attack doesn't leave much reaction time for the UK like it does the US.
It's not "trust us, we're scientists", it's "trust us, we've published extensive peer-reviewed evidence backing up what we're saying, so if you don't believe us you can pick an informed argument".
Nuclear winter is one of the more testable scenarios in global climate, since we have small-scale approximations whenever a big volcano erupts. There's been some good recent research at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235.shtml
I am not a climate scientist, but I've been driven crazy enough by people's vague arguments to track down foundational papers around some of these issues. Please, all I want is some decent research links for any skeptical stuff, no more cheap shots.
Please, don't let your right-wing politics cloud your otherwise unmatched intelligence. Suspicion of the "establishment" is necessary, but it has its limits, lest we enter the kook territory.
A false launch would essentially be capable of ending the world. It was estimated that a small-scale nuclear war of ~50 'Little Boy' air-bursts would have serious global complications. Being that a single warhead on the Trident can detonate at 500KT (25 times a 'little boy'), a single missile launch is equivalent to 5 megatons, all of which could be ground-burst and force more dust into the atmosphere. At 160 warheads and 80 megatons of destruction, the world is essentially over (as we know it) long before a retaliation has ever been launched.
People's response to this never grabs the situation. It always seems to be that people think a false launch could destroy a city like New York, when in reality a false launch from a ballistic missile submarine could easily end the world.
I realize the risks inherent in a lack of safeguards in the Trident program. However, being from the UK and knowing full well that in the event of a nuclear war, my entire homeland will be a nuclear wasteland (too many primary targets in a small area, I know for a fact I lived in between 3 primaries when I was growing up: major harbor, major RAF base, Army training base). So the UK has little chance to approve a nuclear launch after the attack, unless the authorization can be approved by a UK overseas base, fail-safes are just failures in the face of an attack. Fail-safes are intended to prevent unauthorized launches, however for the UK they're also going to prevent authorized launches.
I'm unsure what troubles me more, a poor ability to safeguard the system or the inability for justice if some psycho warlord decides to destroy my homeland.
The UK isn't in the US's situation where a nuclear launch can mean authorization can be granted by a chief of staff or high ranking general before everyone has been obliterated. The US would take potentially hours for a complete destruction, the UK on the other hand can easily be nuked into non-existence inside of a half-hour. A surprise attack doesn't leave much reaction time for the UK like it does the US.