Trident

[frankblack]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Land invasion from our superpower neighbour?

 

I didn't specify a land invasion.

 

Did we not have Russian fighter planes escorted from our airspace recently?

[Unknown user]

Just now, frankblack said:

 

I didn't specify a land invasion.

 

Did we not have Russian fighter planes escorted from our airspace recently?

 

You said to ask Ukraine.

 

Nothing would be different without trident right now, and Scotland is so strategically important to Europe and therefore the US, there's no way we'd be the pathetic, defenceless, shite little nation you guys imagine.

[Cruyff]

58 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

How would things be different if we didn't have trident?

What's your point Smithee? 

 

The West, Russia or China want to conquer the Earth, that has been the game for over 300 years. You have to pick a side.

 

Have you read or watched Philip K. Dick's - 'The Man in the high castle' ? Or 1984 by George Orwell?

 

Because that is what the world would be like if we didn’t have Trident or had not developed the Nuclear Bomb first. 

 

Do you want to be living under Autocratic regimes of Russia or China where you are fed their alternative reality, where they control all media, the internet, the press and crack down on dissent with lethal force? 

 

I like vodka and beef stroganoff, kung po chicken and chow mein but I wouldn't want it for my Dinner every night bud. 😄

 

Or do you quite enjoy your current freedoms?

 

Trident essentially allows you to smoke big fat doobies, openly discuss Independence and look at titties on the Internet. 

 

It's 125kt of freedom in a warhead.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

What's your point Smithee? 

 

 

Having Trident makes zero difference to our situation.

[Cruyff]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Having Trident makes zero difference to our situation.

How no? 🤔 

[frankblack]

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Having Trident makes zero difference to our situation.

 

That is complete bollocks.

[Gizmo]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

If we were also not part of Nato (which would be a consequence of not having trident) it would leave us open to attack.

 

Who would jump in to fight for a disarmed independent Scotland? We'd be the first country to go for as a soft touch.

From whom? Ireland seem OK and they are NOT a NATO member. How odd. 
 

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

England, Europe, US, basically NATO. You think they'd allow a hostile presence to establish a staging point in the north west corner of Europe? 

 

Zero chance

Exactly. It's the US nuclear arsenal that creates a detente scenario with Russia, not ours.   
 

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

As long as Scotland is part of NATO and meets the entry requirement its protected.

 

If it isn't then why should other nations pay to protect it?  You can't have it both ways.

These entry requirements that you and Britnat Jambo have concocted are a fantasy. WMDs are not a membership requirement for joining or remaining in NATO. Never have been, never will be. 

Irrespective, should we become independent those missiles won't be moving from Scotland anytime soon. So we would qualify under your mythical, made-up nonsense. And don't try playing the "not ours, just here" card because we lease the missiles from the US therefore the same applies to the UK, then. 
 

44 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

That is complete bollocks.

Yeah, England would just sit there and watch whilst Russia annexes Scotland. 🙄

What a preposterous debate. These are illegal, immoral weapons and we should be pursuing as much de-escalation as is possible whilst remaining safe and ensuring MAD. The minimum required should be enough - with an outright ban on orbital weapons and hypersonic missiles lest we see a scenario where either side reaches what they believe to be a survivable, first-strike capability. 

[frankblack]

Just now, Gizmo said:

From whom? Ireland seem OK and they are NOT a NATO member. How odd. 
 

 

The debate is around what Putin does after Ukraine, and where an independent Scotland would be in his targets.  Ireland is part of the EU so could call upon its partners there I guess.

 

Just now, Gizmo said:

 

Exactly. It's the US nuclear arsenal that creates a detente scenario with Russia, not ours.   
 

These entry requirements that you and Britnat Jambo have concocted are a fantasy. WMDs are not a membership requirement for joining or remaining in NATO. Never have been, never will be. 

 

 

Yet your pals think we can get rid of them without consequences.  Good luck with that.

 

Just now, Gizmo said:

Irrespective, should we become independent those missiles won't be moving from Scotland anytime soon. So we would qualify under your mythical, made-up nonsense. And don't try playing the "not ours, just here" card because we lease the missiles from the US therefore the same applies to the UK, then. 
 

 

Ok, your position is as clear as mud.

 

Just now, Gizmo said:

Yeah, England would just sit there and watch whilst Russia annexes Scotland. 🙄

What a preposterous debate. These are illegal, immoral weapons and we should be pursuing as much de-escalation as is possible whilst remaining safe and ensuring MAD. The minimum required should be enough - with an outright ban on orbital weapons and hypersonic missiles lest we see a scenario where either side reaches what they believe to be a survivable, first-strike capability. 

 

Completely naive position, and the hypothetical debate is all based around your position, which is not dissimilar to the one that worked so well for Neville Chamberlain.

 

I don't think independence has a hope in hell any time soon, so this hypothetical debate around Trident is all academic.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

The debate is around what Putin does after Ukraine, and where an independent Scotland would be in his targets.  

 

 

No it isn't, it's around

"Thank god for trident!"

"Why?"

 

 

[frankblack]

24 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

No it isn't, it's around

"Thank god for trident!"

"Why?"

 

 

 

Wrong.  We already know Trident is a deterrent or we would have had WW3 at some point between 1945 and now.

[kingantti1874]

1 hour ago, Gizmo said:

From whom? Ireland seem OK and they are NOT a NATO member. How odd. 
 

Exactly. It's the US nuclear arsenal that creates a detente scenario with Russia, not ours.   
 

These entry requirements that you and Britnat Jambo have concocted are a fantasy. WMDs are not a membership requirement for joining or remaining in NATO. Never have been, never will be. 

Irrespective, should we become independent those missiles won't be moving from Scotland anytime soon. So we would qualify under your mythical, made-up nonsense. And don't try playing the "not ours, just here" card because we lease the missiles from the US therefore the same applies to the UK, then. 
 

Yeah, England would just sit there and watch whilst Russia annexes Scotland. 🙄

What a preposterous debate. These are illegal, immoral weapons and we should be pursuing as much de-escalation as is possible whilst remaining safe and ensuring MAD. The minimum required should be enough - with an outright ban on orbital weapons and hypersonic missiles lest we see a scenario where either side reaches what they believe to be a survivable, first-strike capability. 

Yeah an outright ban just like the ban on chemical weapons.  I’m sure xi and Putin will adhere to your wishes.. 😂

 

ffs.  The leftie bullshit is beyond tedious.. you live in a fairly land that doesn’t exist..

 

It’s a shame it really is, but no sadly the cat cannot be put back in the bag.  And no sadly we shouldn’t leave our defence to “other” tax payers else where.

 

 

 

 

[kingantti1874]

3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Wrong.  We already know Trident is a deterrent or we would have had WW3 at some point between 1945 and now.

 

Correct. We’d already be speaking Russian.. 

 

These nationalist clowns give me the ****ing fear.

[kingantti1874]

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Having Trident makes zero difference to our situation.

I could say I value your opinion but I don’t.. it’s just plain wrong. 

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

I could say I value your opinion but I don’t.. it’s just plain wrong. 

 

Correct.  The denial is strong here.

[Unknown user]

15 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Wrong.  We already know Trident is a deterrent or we would have had WW3 at some point between 1945 and now.

That doesn't change what the conversation's about.

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

That doesn't change what the conversation's about.

 

It seems to be you that is struggling here with your deflection.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

Correct. We’d already be speaking Russian.. 

 

These nationalist clowns give me the ****ing fear.

Russia been knocking down the gates of Edinburgh Castle historically? 

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

Wrong.  We already know Trident is a deterrent or we would have had WW3 at some point between 1945 and now.

UK Trident missile stockpile = 225 warheads

Russian missile stockpile = between 4,500 - 6,000 warheads. 

 

There's a possibility of over-estimating the deterrent level of the UKs 4 submarines here given all 4 are rarely operational. 

 

[frankblack]

34 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Russia been knocking down the gates of Edinburgh Castle historically? 

 

The question is would they have post 1945 without the nuclear deterrent?

 

34 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

UK Trident missile stockpile = 225 warheads

Russian missile stockpile = between 4,500 - 6,000 warheads. 

 

You have missed the point.  The actual question is how many would be needed to take out key Russian targets?

 

34 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

There's a possibility of over-estimating the deterrent level of the UKs 4 submarines here given all 4 are rarely operational. 

 

 

They only launch from Submarines?

[Gulpener]

3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

They only launch from Submarines?

The UK's nuclear weapons? Then yes.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Gulpener
Spelling

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

They only launch from Submarines?

 

Trident refers to the missiles with nuclear warheads and their launch systems, they're designed to be launched from submarines.

We have 4 of these submarines, the US has 14. IIRC ours are under US operational control but I can't remember where I'm getting that from.

 

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

Correct. We’d already be speaking Russian.. 

 

These nationalist clowns give me the ****ing fear.

As opposed to English.

[The Mighty Thor]

7 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

The question is would they have post 1945 without the nuclear deterrent?

I'm not really sure where this is coming from. Russian expansionism has never threatened the UK in my 54 years and looking further back I see no evidence of it. Even back to the days where primary defensive weapons were bows and arrows. Its a ridiculous argument. 

The only country that's regularly threatened Scotland historically has been our neighbours down Berwick way. 

 

7 hours ago, frankblack said:

You have missed the point.  The actual question is how many would be needed to take out key Russian targets?

No the point you've been making is that without America's Trident missile system, we'd be speaking Russian.

The question you should be asking is whether the US would ever sanction the UKs unilateral use of these weapons. 

I can't ever forsee a situation where two countries get involved in a nuclear conflict whilst every other nuclear power sits back and watches. So our unilateral deterrent isn't really unilateral. 

 

Oh and BTW Trident is the UKs only nuclear weapon. Has been since the 1990s Arms treaties. 

[highlandjambo3]

7 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Trident refers to the missiles with nuclear warheads and their launch systems, they're designed to be launched from submarines.

We have 4 of these submarines, the US has 14. IIRC ours are under US operational control but I can't remember where I'm getting that from.

 

Their launch system is ballistic and, Absolutely no way on the planet do the US control our subs.

Edited March 14, 2022 by highlandjambo3

[frankblack]

58 minutes ago, highlandjambo3 said:

Their launch system is ballistic and, Absolutely no way on the planet do the US control our subs.

 

Exactly.  We pay exactly how much £££ to the U.S. for Trident but some think that doesn't give us operational control?

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I'm not really sure where this is coming from. Russian expansionism has never threatened the UK in my 54 years and looking further back I see no evidence of it. Even back to the days where primary defensive weapons were bows and arrows. Its a ridiculous argument. 

The only country that's regularly threatened Scotland historically has been our neighbours down Berwick way. 

 

No the point you've been making is that without America's Trident missile system, we'd be speaking Russian.

The question you should be asking is whether the US would ever sanction the UKs unilateral use of these weapons. 

I can't ever forsee a situation where two countries get involved in a nuclear conflict whilst every other nuclear power sits back and watches. So our unilateral deterrent isn't really unilateral. 

 

Oh and BTW Trident is the UKs only nuclear weapon. Has been since the 1990s Arms treaties. 

 

Russian expansionism could be argued was halted by the west having a deterrent.

 

North Korea has likewise  been stifled, but obviously their target is the south and its main protector.

 

The risk here is what does Putin do next after Ukraine?  Will he test the NATO resolve by going at the Baltic states and if that doesn't go well what will that lunatic do next?

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, highlandjambo3 said:

Their launch system is ballistic and, Absolutely no way on the planet do the US control our subs.

 

The launch system is ballistic but;

 

With the exception of the ones actually loaded on the subs, all our missiles are in the US stockpile in Georgia (the American state). 

 

Even if we had possession, we don't have the capability to launch them away from the subs.

 

I remember in the 2010s it came out that if Britain felt threatened enough to use them, the US would probably allow that.

[XB52]

Unionists really are getting desperate now. Russia is going to invade Scotland after we get rid of trident????? Batshit mental idea but I am pretty sure they don't actually believe that lunacy. There's quite a few other non-nuclear countries nearer to them they could invade before us to keep them busy. And the SG aren't going to dump the missiles in the sea or sink the subs; they'll just hand them to England for a small fee of course

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

Russian expansionism could be argued was halted by the west having a deterrent.

The UK or Scotland has never been a target of Russian expansionism in history. Ever. Not once. 

 

It's a bogus argument.

 

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

The risk here is what does Putin do next after Ukraine?  Will he test the NATO resolve by going at the Baltic states and if that doesn't go well what will that lunatic do next?

 

To expand your argument, Putin went barreling into Ukraine whilst the UK has Trident. That would indicate to me that he's not particularly threatened by the UK's deterrent. 

 

Where does he go next? No idea. He doesn't have control of Ukraine and his country is being strangled by economic sanctions to the point he's out with the begging bowl to the Chinese apparently.

 

I suspect we'll see a negotiated solution before we see Putin trying to take his army, which is failing badly against a far inferior force, into a theatre where they'd be up against a properly equipped conventional military. 

[highlandjambo3]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

The launch system is ballistic but;

 

With the exception of the ones actually loaded on the subs, all our missiles are in the US stockpile in Georgia (the American state). 

 

Even if we had possession, we don't have the capability to launch them away from the subs.

 

I remember in the 2010s it came out that if Britain felt threatened enough to use them, the US would probably allow that.

Not sure about that and it doesn’t make sense, this doesn’t seem like a very quick way of replenishing our fleet if needed in a hurry.  Anyway, each sub had about 40 nuclear warheads on board……..more than enough to blast us all into atoms.

 

Our subs (which we control) have a stealth capability to hit any corner of the planet…..we don’t need any other launch capability.

 

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, highlandjambo3 said:

Not sure about that and it doesn’t make sense, this doesn’t seem like a very quick way of replenishing our fleet if needed in a hurry.  Anyway, each sub had about 40 nuclear warheads on board……..more than enough to blast us all into atoms.

 

Our subs (which we control) have a stealth capability to hit any corner of the planet…..we don’t need any other launch capability.

 

I am sure about it, it's a fact. They're maintained and stored by the US, the active ones rotated.

 

The only reason anyone's talking about launch capability is that Frank asked mate, you'd need to ask him why he felt it was important.

 

As for operations wise, our 4 subs are part of a team. The US have the other 14, they operate in a coordinated fashion. I'm sure it's possible that the UK decide where the team are deployed to best cover the globe but does it sound at all likely?

[Gizmo]

17 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

Correct. We’d already be speaking Russian.. 

 

These nationalist clowns give me the ****ing fear.

FFS, the level of discourse of Brit Nats is worse than I could have predicted. 

You have a right brass neck calling people clowns when you have such a tenuous grasp on reality. Get help. 🤡

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

FFS, the level of discourse of Brit Nats is worse than I could have predicted. 

You have a right brass neck calling people clowns when you have such a tenuous grasp on reality. Get help. 🤡

 

[i8hibsh]

We, and indeed the entire 'West' really need to toughen the **** up ................ and fast.  

 

[highlandjambo3]

50 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

We, and indeed the entire 'West' really need to toughen the **** up ................ and fast.  

 

Wont happen……we’ve been soft as sh**e for decades……..I spent a long time in the army with loads of soft as sh**e soldiers (not all mind you)

[i8hibsh]

1 minute ago, highlandjambo3 said:

Wont happen……we’ve been soft as sh**e for decades……..I spent a long time in the army with loads of soft as sh**e soldiers (not all mind you)

 

Nowadays the female soldiers would be tougher than the males and the only masculine clothes you will see nowadays in high street shops are in the women's section.

 

Men are generally made of soy now.

 

Long gone are the days of Popeye and Spinach.

 

We are sitting ducks to the world.

 

There are serious dangers in the world and our government are more concerned about the misgendering of 5 your old school kids.

[John Findlay]

22 minutes ago, highlandjambo3 said:

Wont happen……we’ve been soft as sh**e for decades……..I spent a long time in the army with loads of soft as sh**e soldiers (not all mind you)

There was a time they wouldn't have got past the recruiting office, but all three services are short of manpower, that they are all continually lowering their standards, and that totally diminishes the professionalism and therefore the capability as a fighting force. Successive UK governments are partially to blame, but the top brass of all three armed services have to take larger blame imho, for not having the balls to stand upto the politicians.

[Don Dan]

THE UK TRIDENT MISSILE SYSTEM FACTSHEET
The UK Trident Missile Operational System uses four Vanguard-class submarines. Three separate components make up the Trident system; thermonuclear weapon warheads, missiles and submarines.
At any one time, three of the submarines are armed with Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles able to deliver thermonuclear warheads from multiple re-entry vehicles. Operated by the Royal Navy and based at Clyde Naval base on Scotland's west coast, at least one submarine is always on patrol to provide a continuous at-sea deterrent. Under the terms of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (1), in the near future the three-armed submarines will each carry a maximum of 8 missiles and 40 warheads. The fourth submarine and its ordinance are kept in the UK where it receives the necessary servicing and maintenance needed to sustain operational efficiency.
The Warheads
The British government states that the warheads used in the UK Trident system were designed and manufactured in the UK at the Atomic Weapons establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston. The government has admitted that three components of the warhead (the neutron generator, gas transfer system and arming fusing and firing systems) are purchased from the United States (2). The fourth component, the thermonuclear bomb, is manufactured at the AWE facilities near Aldermaston and Burghfield on a design modified from an American-based original. The completed warheads are assembled at AWE and transported to storage facilities in Scotland by heavily guarded overland convoys (3). The number of nuclear weapons in the overall stockpile is anticipated to fall to less than 180 in the 2020s(1).
Trident II D-5 Missiles (UGM-133)
The Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles are submarine-launched and built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems, California. They are deployed by the US Navy and the Royal Navy (4): those deployed by the RN are leased from America. Each missile has a range of 11,300 kilometres (7000 miles): they use inertial and stellar guidance systems and are not dependent on GPS. They require gravity and weather data from the US for some elements of their guidance systems. After reaching their apogee, most of the missiles will release multiple independently targeted warheads, so that one missile can achieve a greater amount of destruction than if it had only one warhead. However one missile may be armed with only one warhead.
Submarines
All four UK submarines were built to an American design at Barrow-in Furness, and are designated ‘Vanguard Class’. Each submarine was originally built with 16 missile silos but

according to the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security review, the number of operational silos will fall to eight.
Operation of the UK Trident System
The UK Trident System is made up of 58 leased Trident II D-5 missiles, 4 native Vanguard- class ballistic missile submarines and approximately 160 operational thermonuclear warheads, together with command and control and other supporting infrastructure. The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security review stated that in future each armed submarine would carry a maximum of 40 warheads distributed unevenly among its eight missiles (1). Most of the warheads have a yield of 80-100 kilotons-equivalent of TNT; but a small number have lower yields (5). (The bomb on Hiroshima had a yield of 16 kilotons)
Patrols
The principle of operation is known as continuous-at-sea-deterrence (CASD) in which at least one submarine is always on active patrol. Two are in port at Faslane or on training exercises while the fourth submarine is generally undergoing a long refit in Devonport Naval Base. During a patrol, a submarine is required to remain silent for 3 months. A 1000 metre aerial trails on the surface behind the submarine to pick up incoming messages. Intelligence is constantly relayed to the vessel.
Basing
Trident is based at HMNB Clyde in western Scotland. This comprises 2 facilities, a submarine base at Faslane on Loch Long and an ordnance depot at RNAD Coulport. Coulport is used to store warheads and provides loading and unloading facilities. Repair, refuelling and refit of the Vanguard class submarines is carried out at Devonport.
Command and Control
The prime minister or a designated survivor can authorise the Chief of Defence Staff to order the missiles to be fired. The message is sent by CTF 345 (6) operations room at Northwood, which communicates with the Vanguard commander on patrol. Two personnel are required to authenticate each stage of the process before launching, with the submarine commander only able to activate the firing trigger after two safes have been opened with keys held by the ship’s executive and weapons engineering officers. If the command and control system in the UK has been destroyed in a nuclear attack, the submarine commander opens a sealed letter from the prime minister that contains instructions on what he should do. (7)

References
1) Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty. the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010
2) The UK has purchased three W76 components- the Arming , Fuzing and Firing System, Gas Transfer System and Neutron Generator - US Hansard 4 December 2009
3) Edward Robert Nov 12 2005 New Scientist. If a Nuclear Convoy Should Crash .
4) Lockheed Martin Trident Missile D5 Missile Archives 130th consecutive successful flight. Lockheed December 28 2001
5) White Paper on Trident Replacement in December 2006 referred to " The continuing availability of a lower yield from our war head" The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent, December 2006, Cm 6994 para 4-9
6) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2202784/Britains-secret-nuclear- bunker-Buried-100ft-inside-control-room-order-launch-strike-given.html
7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/programmes_chain_of _command/html/1.stm
    

[Tazio]

5 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

THE UK TRIDENT MISSILE SYSTEM FACTSHEET
The UK Trident Missile Operational System uses four Vanguard-class submarines. Three separate components make up the Trident system; thermonuclear weapon warheads, missiles and submarines.
At any one time, three of the submarines are armed with Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles able to deliver thermonuclear warheads from multiple re-entry vehicles. Operated by the Royal Navy and based at Clyde Naval base on Scotland's west coast, at least one submarine is always on patrol to provide a continuous at-sea deterrent. Under the terms of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (1), in the near future the three-armed submarines will each carry a maximum of 8 missiles and 40 warheads. The fourth submarine and its ordinance are kept in the UK where it receives the necessary servicing and maintenance needed to sustain operational efficiency.
The Warheads
The British government states that the warheads used in the UK Trident system were designed and manufactured in the UK at the Atomic Weapons establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston. The government has admitted that three components of the warhead (the neutron generator, gas transfer system and arming fusing and firing systems) are purchased from the United States (2). The fourth component, the thermonuclear bomb, is manufactured at the AWE facilities near Aldermaston and Burghfield on a design modified from an American-based original. The completed warheads are assembled at AWE and transported to storage facilities in Scotland by heavily guarded overland convoys (3). The number of nuclear weapons in the overall stockpile is anticipated to fall to less than 180 in the 2020s(1).
Trident II D-5 Missiles (UGM-133)
The Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles are submarine-launched and built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems, California. They are deployed by the US Navy and the Royal Navy (4): those deployed by the RN are leased from America. Each missile has a range of 11,300 kilometres (7000 miles): they use inertial and stellar guidance systems and are not dependent on GPS. They require gravity and weather data from the US for some elements of their guidance systems. After reaching their apogee, most of the missiles will release multiple independently targeted warheads, so that one missile can achieve a greater amount of destruction than if it had only one warhead. However one missile may be armed with only one warhead.
Submarines
All four UK submarines were built to an American design at Barrow-in Furness, and are designated ‘Vanguard Class’. Each submarine was originally built with 16 missile silos but

according to the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security review, the number of operational silos will fall to eight.
Operation of the UK Trident System
The UK Trident System is made up of 58 leased Trident II D-5 missiles, 4 native Vanguard- class ballistic missile submarines and approximately 160 operational thermonuclear warheads, together with command and control and other supporting infrastructure. The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security review stated that in future each armed submarine would carry a maximum of 40 warheads distributed unevenly among its eight missiles (1). Most of the warheads have a yield of 80-100 kilotons-equivalent of TNT; but a small number have lower yields (5). (The bomb on Hiroshima had a yield of 16 kilotons)
Patrols
The principle of operation is known as continuous-at-sea-deterrence (CASD) in which at least one submarine is always on active patrol. Two are in port at Faslane or on training exercises while the fourth submarine is generally undergoing a long refit in Devonport Naval Base. During a patrol, a submarine is required to remain silent for 3 months. A 1000 metre aerial trails on the surface behind the submarine to pick up incoming messages. Intelligence is constantly relayed to the vessel.
Basing
Trident is based at HMNB Clyde in western Scotland. This comprises 2 facilities, a submarine base at Faslane on Loch Long and an ordnance depot at RNAD Coulport. Coulport is used to store warheads and provides loading and unloading facilities. Repair, refuelling and refit of the Vanguard class submarines is carried out at Devonport.
Command and Control
The prime minister or a designated survivor can authorise the Chief of Defence Staff to order the missiles to be fired. The message is sent by CTF 345 (6) operations room at Northwood, which communicates with the Vanguard commander on patrol. Two personnel are required to authenticate each stage of the process before launching, with the submarine commander only able to activate the firing trigger after two safes have been opened with keys held by the ship’s executive and weapons engineering officers. If the command and control system in the UK has been destroyed in a nuclear attack, the submarine commander opens a sealed letter from the prime minister that contains instructions on what he should do. (7)

References
1) Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty. the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010
2) The UK has purchased three W76 components- the Arming , Fuzing and Firing System, Gas Transfer System and Neutron Generator - US Hansard 4 December 2009
3) Edward Robert Nov 12 2005 New Scientist. If a Nuclear Convoy Should Crash .
4) Lockheed Martin Trident Missile D5 Missile Archives 130th consecutive successful flight. Lockheed December 28 2001
5) White Paper on Trident Replacement in December 2006 referred to " The continuing availability of a lower yield from our war head" The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent, December 2006, Cm 6994 para 4-9
6) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2202784/Britains-secret-nuclear- bunker-Buried-100ft-inside-control-room-order-launch-strike-given.html
7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/programmes_chain_of _command/html/1.stm
    

Each submarine has in it’s safe a “letter of last resort” handwritten and signed by the serving prime minister. It pretty much says what to do if the UK government has been struck by a nuclear attack and the commander has freedom to make the choice to retaliate or sail to a safe country among other options or combinations of. The letters are one of the first things a PM does when they take power and the ones from the previous PM are destroyed unread. 

[davemclaren]

2 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

 

Nowadays the female soldiers would be tougher than the males and the only masculine clothes you will see nowadays in high street shops are in the women's section.

 

Men are generally made of soy now.

 

Long gone are the days of Popeye and Spinach.

 

We are sitting ducks to the world.

 

There are serious dangers in the world and our government are more concerned about the misgendering of 5 your old school kids.

[Japan Jambo]

.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Japan Jambo
no point!