Talk:Trident (UK nuclear programme)

Requested move 2 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Trident (UK nuclear programme). This article has been under several names, the first in 2007 was British Trident system. It seems there are so many possible ways to title this article. There is a fair consensus that we should rename this page, and there is a rough consensus to change the title to Trident (UK nuclear programme); however, that consensus is rough enough so that there is no prejudice toward editors continuing to discover the highest and best title for this article. In other words as per RM closing instructions, any editor may open a new Requested move debate at any time. ♥Happy ♥Hearts ♥Day! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Trident nuclear programme → UK Trident programme – to clarify scope, reverting 2016 BOLD move[1]. This article is about the procurement, operation and politics of the United Kingdom's Trident programme, but the title does not reflect that scope.
The UK has its own Vanguard-class submarines and its own warheads, and uses American made UGM-133 Trident II missiles, all of which are within the scope of this article. However, the United States Trident programme includes the Ohio-class submarines and the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia, plus the W88 and W76 warheads, all of which are outside the scope of this article.
Note that the page was boldly moved[2] UK Trident programme →Trident nuclear programme by @Firebrace with the rationale Per WP:COMMONNAME. No other country has a "Trident nuclear programme" (or deterrent). That rationale is simply wrong: the US has a Trident nuclear programme and a Trident nuclear deterrent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• See also related discussion re UK Polaris programme/Category:UK Polaris programme at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Opposed_nominations (permalink) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comments - No other country has a "Trident nuclear programme"; the United States has a "program". - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The hatnote is sufficient to identify the subject, along with the spelling of "programme". - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @BilCat: see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The previous title was both more concise and more precise. Why exactly do you object to greater concision and greater precision?
    Also, the distinction between "programme" and "program" does not identify the scope. A broad article on both the US+UK systems could reasonably be titled "Trident nuclear programme" or "Trident nuclear program", with the choice made WP:ENGVAR on the basis of what the first editor chose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm satisfied that my comments are sufficient to make my point clear to whoever closes the discussion. - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment There is no article on the United States Trident program as such. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  The category was renamed to match per C2D request from @Brandmeister: Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose US has Trident nuclear submarines and Trident missiles, but those elements combined are not referred to by US government, books, and media as the Trident nuclear program / deterrent like they are in the UK. Firebrace (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Instead of relying on our global readership to know in advance the terminology used in the USA, we can satisfy WP:NAMINGCRITERIA by using a title which does identify the topic unambiguously: more concise and more precise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The only acceptable title would be "Trident (UK nuclear deterrent)", because in the UK it is commonly known as "Trident", and this title follows the convention for disambiguating articles ("UK" never comes first unless it is part of a proper noun). I am in favour of "deterrent" per the exception at WP:NPOVNAME as "nuclear programme" could refer to a civilian nuclear power programme, so "deterrent" is the right word to use if, as you say, we are aiming for precision. "Nuclear deterrent" is also more common in English reliable sources. Firebrace (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, @Firebrace. Bit offbeat on policy there.

As you should know, WP:NATURALDIS allows use of an "alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title". "UK Trident programme" is commonly used in English reliable sources: see Gbooks.

There is also no need to use the POV term "deterrent", because "UK Trident programme" is widely used and not ambiguous with any UK civilian nuclear programme. (note Gbooks gives massively more hits for "UK Trident programme" than "UK Trident deterrent").

I obviously don't know what your motivation is, but it seems very odd that you are advancing a succession of counter-factual and/or anti-policy reasons for opposing reversal of your undiscussed move on the basis of a bizarre claim that no other country has a Trident nuclear deterrent. Tell that to the personnel of Kings Bay and the crew of the Ohio-class submarines.

Would you like to explain what your real reason is? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should rely on our readership to know in advance that "Trident nuclear programme" is a weapon system and is in no way related to nuclear power generation? (See what I did there?) I propose "Trident (UK nuclear weapon system)" as an alternative. Adhere to WP:AGF if you are interested in reaching a compromise. As a 12-year editor you should know that Wikipedia does not disambiguate by sticking names of countries at the front of titles. Titles are formatted like this when "UK" is part of a proper noun, e.g., UK Music Hall of Fame, UK City of Culture, UK Space Agency, UK Chamber of Shipping, and UK Film Council. For examples of parenthetical disambiguation, see Demos (UK think tank), Sikh Federation (UK) (not UK Sikh Federation), Holocaust Memorial Day (UK) (not UK Holocaust Memorial Day), Freeview (UK) (not UK Freeview), and Labour Party (UK) (not UK Labour Party). Firebrace (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, @Firebrace. Yet more counter-factuals, with added personal abuse just to emphasise your lack of substantive argument.
I propose that the article revert to the title "UK Trident programme". Do I need to explain to you why that does not require a reader to know in advance is a weapon system? And that adding the un-needed word weapon does require them to know that? That is why WP:PRECISION says "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". You propose un-needed precision, contrary to policy.

And as any 12yo reading this discussion could explain to you from evidence posted above, "UK Trident programme" is not a case of en.wp choosing to disambiguate by sticking names of countries at the front of titles. It is a commonly used term in reliable sources (see Gbooks), and as such is a form of WP:NATURALDIS.

It would be easier to assume your good faith if you stopped posting demonstrably false assertions, and showed some familiarity with the policy WP:AT, esp the links posted to assist you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Firebrace: I see that you just added[3] to your earlier post a whole load of irrelevant examples of parenthetical disambiguation. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just reading WP:NATURALDIS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It is hard to believe your interpretation of WP:NATURALDIS when parenthetical disambiguation has always been the preferred option. As for my "whole load of irrelevant examples", there are plenty of verbatim Google results for "UK Holocaust Memorial Day", "UK Labour Party" and "UK Freeview". By your logic, these are natural forms of disambiguation that we should be using on Wikipedia, but since evidently we are not, I can only assume that your reading of Wikipedia title policy is wrong. As you clearly have no interest in compromise I am left with no choice but to continue opposing your proposal for "UK Trident programme". Firebrace (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support – clearly UK should be included in the name. Eg "The Pentagon proposed the Conventional Trident Modification program" is in Trident (missile). Oculi (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is not about a modification program. Firebrace (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Support move to Trident (UK nuclear programme) per bd2412 below. Oculi (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as an American who reads the world news, I feel "Trident" as a weapons program unambiguously refers to the UK nuclear deterrent. The article lead makes clear this refers to the UK program; it is the American system that should be disambiguated when referenced. (of course, some disambiguation is necessary to distinguish this from the weapon, the gum, etc.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki: If UGM-133 Trident II+Ohio-class submarines+Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay+W88+W76 are not a weapons program, what on earth are they? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    • What I mean is, the US has lots of nuclear programs, very few of which are of general interest. The UK has Trident, and nothing else. I consider Trident to refer metonymically to the UK nuclear deterrent. I agree that the fact that the US also operates the Trident (missile) does introduce some confusion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
      • The first few sentences of UGM-133 Trident II#History clearly speak of the US-only phase as a "Trident program". Bolding added by me: The Trident II was designated to be the latest longer-range missile, performing greater than its predecessor (Trident C-4) in terms of range and payload capacity. In 1972, the US Navy projected an initial operating capability (IOC) date for the Trident II in 1984. The US Navy continued to advance the IOC date to 1982. On 18 October 1973, a Trident program review was administered. On 14 March 1974, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense disseminated two requirements for the Trident program.
        Simplest way to avoid the confusion which we agree exists: revert to the previous concise and unambiguous title: "UK Trident programme" --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move to Trident (UK nuclear programme), or (second choice) Trident (UK nuclear deterrent). There is sufficient ambiguity here to make a clear disambiguator worthwhile. bd2412 T 02:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support move to Trident (UK nuclear programme) per bd2412. Other countries have used Trident. The UK one is the most prominent, but the question is if there is sufficient ambiguity to need disambiguation. I think BrownHairedGirl has demonstrated that there is. The question becomes if a natural or parenthetical disambiguator is preferred. Looking at the options, I think the least clunky in this case would be a parenthetical. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Actually, only the US and UK use Trident. This came about when I tried to harmonise the name of UK Polaris Programme with this article. The proposed moves will leave us where we started. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The Uk and US are the only ones that have such a program. Since logically the US name could be moved to program, and UK stays with Programme, I see no need for change. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Iazyges: The choice of "Programme" or "Program" usually reflects the language preferences of the writer and/or intended audience rather than the topic. That's why Gbooks has plenty of hits for "uk trident program".

So the "Programme"/"Program" distinction doesn't disambiguate the the 2 topics. Why retain the longer title when the shorter previous name removes the ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

British or US made warheads

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)

GA Review

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:

  1. Trident submarines on continuous patrol;
  2. Trident submarines not on patrol continuously;
  3. Attack submarines armed with nuclear cruise missiles; and
  4. 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)

NAO's latest report

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)

Windows for Submarines?

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)

2018 update to parliament

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)

Relevant article

https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/will-america-help-britain-build-a-new-nuclear-warhead/

BlueD954 (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear material origin and US costs

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)