Talk:Trident (missile)

message: The the fact that Trident is contraversial and details of the contraversy definately deserves a mention as it does in 1000s of other wikipedia pages. Wikipidea is not a sopbox - but it is not stalins russia either.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Content should be encyclopaedic, verifiable, and cited to its source. Opinions always influence a contributors efforts, but contributors should always strive to be NPOV. Sadly, some try harder than others, and a small minority use these pages as a political pamphlet. The Trident missile page is limited to a brief description of the missile system, its origins and history. More general articles about military stragegy, nuclear weapons, the morality of nuclear weapons etc can be found elsewhere, including in Wikipedia.Brian.Burnell 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the risk of an article on Weapons of Mass Distruction being overloaded by the  history of mass bombing, might not a little background on the results of nuclear weapons be useful? 95.147.153.125 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant information 

message: Anyone have a CEP? Stargoat 20:37, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CEP 

message: The Trident missile is the only remaining US SLBM not listed by it's proper identification.  The problem arises because there are two different 'Trident' missles, the Trident-I (C4) UGM-93A and the Trident-II (D5) UGM-133A.  I've edited the page for a first cut at a cleaner presentation that better differentiates the two.  (Note:  I like the picture where it is, we should seek out a picture of the -II and put it in the same relative location.)Elde 22:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency Problems 

message: The link to the drag resistant aerospike at the front of the missile is a link to the aerospike engine so i'm taking it out. If someone could write a small piece about it would be great Cokehabit 16:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aerospike

message: Contrary to popular belief, the missile does get wet.  What prevents the electronics inside the missile from water is pressurization of the missile (prelaunch) somewhat above sea pressure at the level of the tube  muzzle.  The bubbles you see around the missile in unerwater photographs of the launch is that excess pressure venting from inside the missile.  In some high resolution photographs of the the missiles once the reach the surface, you can see plumes of spray at the base of the nose fairing - those plumes are water sheeting across the nose, and then being forced outward from the vents at the base of the nose. Elde 17:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This missile does not contact the water at any time while submerged to my knowledge, but it may well get the odd splash as it breaks the surgace tension. Although I doubt the odd splash of seawater is that much of a problem because the missile will likely get wet while it travels through the clouds and so will be a sealed, corrosion resistant unit. It was a major problem that the designers  had to get around. The bubbles are nitrogen gas. The silo's on the submarine are filled with nitrogen gas, a very simple and inert substance (meaning it won't react with anything or damage the missile over time). When fired the nitrogen moves with the missile up and out of the water and just disperses into the atmosphere as the missiles first stage rocket motor fires. I believe it is the strong positive buoyancy which brings the nitrogen and missile up the surface. Rather like when you open a cola sized bottle of air underwater in the bath for example. Hope this helps. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Elde is right, it can clearly be seen in the image montage that the bubbles are issuing from the rocket itself, and that the nose is in direct contact with the water at launch. Even super-cavitating torpedoes touch the water at some points, and those are designed to have minimum possible contact with water as their only goal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.136.240 (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launching/missile water contact 

message: Have Trident missiles (of any model) been used in active conflict, and if so, which ones? I feel this could be useful information to include in the article. --Black Butterfly 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have heard if the US or UK had nuked another country lately! No, they haven't. And there are as yet no conventional Trident missiles. The UK has a declared policy of sub-strategic use, where they might retaliate against a country which used chemical weapons on its troops for example using a single missile with only one warhead. Mark83 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use 

message: This image is over six megabytes in size.  That's an awful lot of bandwidth for something that may look interesting but doesn't nessecarily add much to the article. Sargant talk  17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The image, TridentSubLaunch.gif was jerky and did not look good.  I've removed it.  -  Crosbiesmith 19:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TridentSubLaunch.gif 

message: The BBC source quoted did not say what the article purported it said. Words are important, and it is important that they are quoted accurately. Otherwise the words can be twisted to mean something different to what the speaker intended. The actual quote was as follows:
*"TB is  thought  to favour replacing Trident but has promised a full debate before a decision is made."
Note that Blair himself did not utter these words. They are the words of an un-named journalist, who is merely offering his opinion as to what Blair's thoughts were. It is important to get these things right, otherwise contributors are merely promoting a POV, and on hotly contested current affairs such as this one is, expressing a POV is tantamount to promoting a partisan political viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is an encyclopaedia. Brian.Burnell 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of the context of the above comment, however did Gordon Brown not cause a stir about 6 months ago by saying Trident would be replaced? And he could be the PM making the decision. Mark83 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the source is quoted as saying at . The same source as quoted in the article. True, Gordon Brown was reported to have said something along those lines, and he might well be the next PM faced with the decision. I believe though, that such thoughts and utterances by a politician on the hustings for a new job, need to be taken with a large pinch of salt. We shall see if he becomes PM. Until then, perhaps the best place for his musings is the Gordon Brown biog page. Otherwise an article such as this one can be overwhelmed by the musings of all other contenders for the job. But that's very POV. My belief - without any hard evidence to support it yet, is that the MoD will want to remain in step with the US, for the same reasons as advanced in favour of adopting Trident D5 originally. Then, in a Cold War context, it could be summarised as this. "If the Soviets see a Trident missile rising from the Norwegian Sea they will have no way of knowing whether it is a British or American missile. And that uncertainty is also well understood in the US, who are thus bound into an alliance more securely, in the knowledge that a British strike could bring retaliation down on Washington and a hundred American cities." That was the argument made and lost by the Navy against Chevaline, but advanced again and won when Trident D5 was adopted. In today's changed world I fully expect the MoD to adopt a similar position, and opt for a Service Life Extension Program similar to the US D5LE program, because its possibly the cheapest option, but also because issues about binding the US into the NATO alliance are as fragile as ever they were during the Cold War, and US isolationism a growing force in the face of Old Europe's intransigence (as the Americans see it). And the growing wealth, self-confidence and self-assertion of the New Russia won't have escaped the notice of the MoD. Especially after the events of last week in London. But this is wandering a long way from an article on a missile system. Brian.Burnell 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blair's preference

message: .
Summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary.
:Because of Mark's point above, I thought it might be a good idea to have a template which contained a brief summary of the ICJ opinion which could be added to each article where it was thought appropriate. Then rather than subsequent edits to these articles producing various forks of the "Legality" section, all the edits could be done to the template. Also, this would allow for caveats relevant to only some nuclear weapons (e.g., Mark's point regarding proportionality and Trident) to the ICJ opinion to be added below the template's insertion in the respective article.
:The template text looks like this:
:And you can see it at work here: User:James Kemp/Trident missile
:Does this seem like a good solution? --Jim (Talk) 22:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality 

message: 1) OK I've been bold and moved the huge chunk that is causing all the fuss over to the new British Trident system. 
IMHO its best that we explain the problems, legality, etc et all over on that page. legality of the US deterrent which doesn't seam to be as big an issue should occur at "us and nuclear weapons" page 
2) back to the debate - IMHO on legality, the NPT, by being ratified by every state on the planet confers a) that the NNWS accept the NWS's nuclear status (ie they have the bombs, bomb are bad, but they have them) b) the other NWS accept the other NWS's possession, c) thus you leave Israel, India and Pakistan (and now DPRK) who everyone accept have nukes after the 1967 cutoff and haven't got a clue how to deal with this fact. I'm not disputing that various legal bods have made numerous legal opinions and judgements, but the weight of the NPT to me, and presumably the states involved seams to practically dismiss/ignore this judgement (my humble opinion only, i respect your right to disagree). 
3) FFS 68.45.104.69 sign in so one or the other we can all agree/disagree with you in a civilised manner ;) 
:: I've signed in now- TwinTurboZ 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: move

message: Pardon my possible ignorance, but why is this article called Trident (missile) and not Trident missile? The whole article appears to refer to the trident missile and doesn't refer to it simply as "Trident". GDallimore (Talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Round 2 for why, but don't expect  clear reasoning there! Basically, it is because the missile's name is "Trident", not "Trident missile". I'd prefer to see at at some kind of name with "program" or the like in the title, as this page is more about the program itself, while there are separate pages on the missiles. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/vanguard/vanguard6.html
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Could someone add something about this topic?
Notreallydavid (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear warheads - US and British 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Trident (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227182711/http://www.lockheedmartin.com:80/news/press_releases/2002/NavyAwardsLockheedMartin248MillionC.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2002/NavyAwardsLockheedMartin248MillionC.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One of the most significant issues with the war economy is cost. These missile programs have diverted trillions of dollars away from health care, education, and peace making. Why are we not listing the cost of all these missiles?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article is to be more than a dodgy document, aimed at sexing up the case for 'British' WMDs, should it not include the full cost of Trident? 95.147.153.125 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of cost? 

message: https://www.draper.com/explore-solutions/trident-ii-mark-6-mod-1-guidance-system
Hcobb (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Draper notable?