# Talk:Trident (UK nuclear programme)

Hans M. Kristensen from the Nuclear Information Project argues that the warheads might share US-made components.
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2006/12/britains_next_nuclear_era/
Thanks
Sammartinlai (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure of it. The article already says: Some non-nuclear components for the British nuclear warhead are procured from the US for reasons of cost effectiveness.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Hawkeye7 Sammartinlai (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trident (UK nuclear programme)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A few points from me:

the lead could do with expansion of content to summarise the full article, particularly the negotiations and UK nuclear policy
Y I've expanded the lead.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
SSBN isn't really explained, it is just added to ballistic missile submarine (at second mention), but why we use that initialisation isn't clear, also I think the fact that the boats are nuclear-powered is not mentioned specifically
Each type of warship has a code, sometime with suffixes. Submarines are SS; the suffix for ballistic missiles is B, and for nuclear powered is N. So  ballistic nuclear submarines are SSBN. This derives from the US Navy, but is widely and sporadically used by others as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Y Tweaked the text so this is the first mention.
there are quite a few duplicate links
Y Hunted them down.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
"to serve aboard UK-built submarines" jars a bit. Perhaps "to be deployed aboard" or "to arm"?
Y Re-worded.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
"improved front-end" seems colloquial
It isn't; it is highly specific technical jargon.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
suggest "Callaghan approached the United States President"
Y Re-worded.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
MISC 7?
The UK cabinet forms ad hoc committees. Each ad hoc committee is given a unique prefix, either MISC (miscellaneous) or GEN (general) and a number. The Committee on Subversive Activities, for example, was known as GEN 183. I tried to link to United Kingdom cabinet committee, but it doesn't explain this.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Y Added this is a footnote. And a bit to United Kingdom cabinet committee.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
In the history of British nuclear weapons, all the key decisions have been taken by Cabinet subcommittees. Debate by the full cabinet has been rare, and debates in the House of Commons are rarer still.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
"pressed for an undertaking that the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible" do what? Be retained in service?
Y Added.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
"Trident II D-5 research and development" could probably be R&D as it has already been introduced
Y Done.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
"The warheads are not aimed at specific targets but await coordinates that can be programmed into their computers and fired with several days' notice" seems incongruous. How is this a deterrent, and how does the captain decide what targets to hit if he is at sea and has no communication with higher HQ? And several days' notice seems a strange timeframe?
The article notes that the captains have sealed instructions for this eventuality. The deterrent effect comes from it being a second strike weapon.    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
"The British government contributed five per cent of its development costs" same observation re: R&D
Y Done.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
"Circular error probable" should probably drop the initial cap
Y De-capped.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
It should probably be noted that "Astute-class nuclear-powered submarines" are attack subs, and they should be linked
Y Done.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
the senior RAF officers making comment on the (Navy-only) SDR gives rise to questions about RAF (which used to part of the deterrent) jostling for position/influence. Is there anything that can be added here?
More like jostling for scarce defence funds.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the SGP, SSP or Solidarity could be rated as a major party. SNP definitely, but the rest, I don't think so. Minor parties at best.
Y I'll take your word for it. I know nothing about British politics. Deleted "all major"   Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
there is a citation needed tag in the Controversy section
Y Grrr. The gnomes normally remove uncited text. Added a reference.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
CASD is introduced without spelling out (this happens in the next section). Perhaps CASD should be introduced earlier in the article?
Y It's defined under "Patrols"  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The RUSI and Trident Alternatives Review sections beg the questions of what other options were considered viable
Four alternatives were considered:
Trident submarines on continuous patrol;
Trident submarines not on patrol continuously;
Attack submarines armed with nuclear cruise missiles; and
Land-based nuclear weapons
I didn't feel that the review was important enough to go into a lot of detail about it.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Y Added this. Note how it doesn't really examine many alternatives.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
BASIC is introduced then introduced again
Y Adjusted.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
it is hard to see how the Trident Commission's focus on disarmament impacted on the decision to retain essentially the same deterrent
Officially, Trident is the UK's contribution to nuclear disarmament.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
what does "out-turn price" mean?
The out-turn cost of a project is its actual construction cost. Generally this refers to the actual, total construction cost calculated at the end of the project, but it may also refer to the cost of a specific contract, or to costs incurred over a defined period.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Y Deleted this.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
"Initial Gate" and 'Main Gate' are introduced without explanation
The business case presented at Initial Gate includes the programme plan and costing for the procurement. The Main Gate business case is a key deliverable, along with the SRD, from the Assessment Stage. The process and products are similar to those used at Initial Gate but with a higher degree of maturity expected at this stage. Specifically, the SRD, ITEAP and refined TLMP feed into this business case, along with the system design synthesis, to inform the decision on whether to proceed.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Y Added this is a footnote.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Successor submarine/Successor-class is introduced without explanation, perhaps it should be clear that this is the Dreadnought-class?
Y Added.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be noted that Blunt's assessment of cost (2016) is actually more than the cost noted by Reuters in 2015?
The two are in the same paragraph.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
images look ok.
Whew.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
That's me done. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: That's me done too. I think everything has been resolved.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 all looks good, just needs some additional info in the lead, per the first comment. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

May have useful information for the SSBN part.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/The-Defence-Nuclear-Enterprise-a-landscape-review.pdf
Sammartinlai (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that!  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This is cute, but it seems to be a media invention. See [4]. And Submarine_Command_System#SMCS-NG_as_first_deployment_of_"Windows_for_Warships". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is more on this discussion at WP:ERRORS.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Which are archived in seconds :) Here's the discussion before it was blanked: [5] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not cute or a media invention. See for example https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/submarine-command-system-next-generation Sammartinlai (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/767326/2018_Nuclear_Deterrent_Update_to_Parliament.pdf
If useful.
BlueD954 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/will-america-help-britain-build-a-new-nuclear-warhead/
BlueD954 (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed some text from the Warhead section.
The citation given says the opposite of the claim that most of the costs were incurred in the US while the other citation does not cite the claim instead making some dubious logic to claim much of the nuclear material is US in origin. NAO report says warheads cost was 269m pounds in US and 625m pounds in UK so easily falsifiable. If you want you could include other non-warhead costs, but this is the warhead section, so we should stick to warhead cost.
The other source doesn't demonstrate SNM was purchased from the US, it just says some was purchased from British Nuclear Fuels and then goes therefore the rest must come from the US which is nonsense logic. BNF make enriched uranium and are likely the origin of secondary components while the UK already had Pu239 for the primary stage. The UK has a stockpile of several tonnes and needs less than 5kg per weapon, they did not need to purchase it from anyone. 
Also I see someone made a mess of the warhead section after I cleaned it up. Thank you to the people who fixed it up afterwards! Kylesenior (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This article also mentions other UK submarines "delousing" the path ahead of Trident submarines, and US substitutes, which seems important to have a section on as part of program's technical operation and theme of operational struggles. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/us-sub-escorts-uk-trident-patrol-due-to-royal-navy-shortage/
The lead image should in my opinion be a multiple image template with three vertical images, the submarine, the missile (maybe test firing), and the warhead. However, I'm not sure if the latter two are or can be on Wikimedia or English Wikipedia. Images showing the US equivalent should be considered, especially for the missile and to some extent for the warhead.
The lead also directly quotes the Ministry of Defence in the second line. I don't really like this and it probably violates wiki neutrality. It also gives the wrong impression as the article later mentions "vital interest" can include possibly any NATO country. Doeze (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I have never heard of "delousing" before. Will investigate.
We have images of the submarines and one of a Trident being fired from HMS Vanguard, but no images of the British warhead, although it has to look the same as the US W76.
The quote was added in 2016 replacing a similar one inserted in 2012. In my country, "vital interests" can mean almost anything. I am not sure that "extreme threats" is any more precise. I dislike quotes that appear only in the lead, but I left it in as I thought the lead should say what they are for. But if you have a better wording, go ahead and change it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
[6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)