Recently, Keith Brown of the Scottish National Party, MSP for Clackmannanshire and Dunblane, made statements in the Scottish Parliament about the Trident nuclear deterrent and HMS Prince of Wales.
These statements have raised concerns due to inaccuracies.
In his address, Keith Brown stated:
“The UK is no paragon of virtue—that is before we even mention the possibility of selling off the Prince of Wales aircraft carrier, which cost billions to build and would be sold at a discount, or the possible closing down of the Royal Marines because the niche capability that Neil Bibby talked about is not valued by the UK Government.
What is the sound of a nuclear Trident submarine drill? It is a ‘plop’ in the water. Hundreds of billions of pounds have been spent on something that has never been independent, does not even work and could not conceivably be used.”
The claim that the UK might sell HMS Prince of Wales is based on speculative reports. While media outlets have suggested that budget constraints could lead to such a decision, the Royal Navy has firmly denied these claims.
They have stated their commitment to operating both the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. Reports of potential sales or mothballing are not grounded in official plans from the Ministry of Defence.
The speculation arose primarily from discussions about budget allocations and operational readiness, but there has been no formal or informal move towards selling the carrier.
Trident’s Operational Reliability
The Trident II D-5 missile system has a historical success rate that underscores its reliability. Since its introduction, the Trident II D-5 has recorded 191 successful sea launches out of 196 attempts, resulting in a 2.6% failure rate, making it one of the most reliable strategic missile systems globally.
According to William Alberque, former Director of Strategy, Technology, and Arms Control at IISS, the Trident II D-5’s reliability is evidenced by its 135 consecutive successful tests from 1989 to 2011. The system’s performance has been exemplary, with a US test success rate of 181 out of 184 launches, highlighting a 1.6% failure rate for US sea launches.
The recent UK test failures, while concerning, do not reflect the system’s overall reliability. These failures were attributed to human error, such as incorrect programming of the missile’s target coordinates in 2016 and modifications made in preparation for the 2024 test.
The overall performance history of Trident II D-5 supports its reliability.
As Alberque explains, “The Trident II D-5, however, has historically been one of the world’s most reliable strategic missiles and has recorded 191 successful sea-launch tests since 1989. While two failed UK sea launches in a row is dispiriting, and the timing is embarrassing…they do not necessarily indicate a shortcoming in the system.”
A common misconception is that the UK’s Trident system is under US control or requires US approval for use. This is not the case. The UK retains full operational control over the Trident system, which uses stellar sighting guidance and inertial navigation, independent of GPS, ensuring that the US cannot “turn off” its functionality.
The Trident missiles are maintained in a shared pool with the US for cost efficiency, but this does not affect UK control. The UK does not use “permissive action links,” meaning there is no reliance on US codes for missile launch authorization. The decision to launch lies solely with the UK Prime Minister and is managed through the Royal Navy chain of command. This ensures that the UK has autonomous control over its nuclear deterrent, contrary to claims made in the Scottish Parliament.
In summary, the UK’s Trident system is both reliable and independent. The Royal Navy manages the system’s operations, and the decision to launch lies solely with the UK Prime Minister, not requiring US intervention. These points directly counter the claims made in the Scottish Parliament.
The statements made by Keith Brown in the Scottish Parliament regarding the Trident system and the HMS Prince of Wales contained significant inaccuracies. The Trident II D-5’s track record and the UK’s independent control over its nuclear deterrent are well-documented, contradicting the notion that the system is unreliable or dependent on the US.
Similarly, the Royal Navy’s commitment to operating HMS Prince of Wales contradicts the claim of its potential sale. Accurate information is crucial for informed decision-making and maintaining public trust.
Well here we have it!these are type of politicians that Westminster wants to consult with over defence policy! Bonkers.
While I have no time for any of his other statements the issue of independence of operation of Trident should be front and centre. The current system is completely untenable when you have a Republican President hell bent on pulling out of NATO and a Vice Presidential Candidate making false allegations about the UK and questioning its nuclear posture. At a very minimum a supply of Trident D5 should be transferred to the UK and LM be required to establish a maintenance facility on UK shores in much the same way we operate TLAM. Also given the 180 billion and… Read more »
Trump is not intending to pull out of NATO, he simply wants NATO members to meet their spending commitments.
As for maintaining our own missiles, why would we want to take on a huge additional expense?
Trump doesn’t want to pull out of NATO? So why did he say he wants to pull out of NATO and why did he try to pull all troops out of Germany. Why did congress pass a law to stop him pulling out of NATO? As for maintaining our own missiles, what’s the point in us spending £100 billion on a system that we can be cut off from at any time by any rogue US politician? Better not to have the system in the first place under these circumstances. This is no longer the America of Ronald Reagan when… Read more »
He didn’t say that and Congress (the Democratic party) have their own agenda.
IF the US decided to stop supplying Trident missiles that would be a whole different ball game, not just for the nuclear deterrent. It would threaten US/UK relations as a whole – you could kick AUKUS, Five-Eyes into touch for a start.
There are far more profitable ways to spend billions of pounds than establishing a missile maintenance capability, which would require US approval under ITAR anyway, that is unlikely to ever be needed.
Ah, right sorry I must have missed all that, so Trumps a stand up guy and it’s all the Democratic Party that is causing the issues.
There was me thinking 50% of Americans want to re-elect a fascist criminal that tried to over throw democracy and pull down the entire western alliance.
I can sleep easy now then 😀
It seems to me u watch cnn or some other leftwing media about trump he never tried to overthrow democracy at all and how is he a fascist I mean do u know what a fascist is that’s a strong word to be throwing around
Whoa hang on there! I am what is called a right wing voter BUT Trump is a nutter and along with Vance is a danger to the free world!
Like Dick Cheyne and George Bush you only think your a right wing voter but your really a liberal lefty CNN watcher that doesn’t know right wing politics 😀
Yes I know exactly what a fascist is a Donald trump and the MAGA movement fit exactly in-line with the original fascist movement.
If Donald trump and his gang didn’t try to over throw democracy how come most of his lawyers have been tried for their actions and lost and he is awaiting trial. Or is it just a CNN Democratic Party conspiracy that just happens to be backed by Mike Pence and the Cheyenne’s
Is there no system for censuring MSPs who mislead parliament?
To me it should be treated the same way lying in court is treated. Potential jail time.
Reform of this archaic system is long overdue.
As opposed to how MPs can openly and knowingly lie in the Commons without any repercussion?
It should apply to both
I agree with Marked, speaking in Parliament should be like speaking in a courtroom, and MPs oaths should include a promise not to lie, at least during debates.
Aside from Mr Brown’s particularities, his overall political direction is the crux of his thinking. Even when. as here, there are alternative assessments of the present situation in defence, those are merely details that mask a central argument. For the Nationalists, the United Kingdom doesn’t work at any level of policy, buses or missiles. All nationalists share in one sense the same mindset, and it is defined easily enough in conflicts, remote and ancient, not modern and speculative.
Probably more accurate to say that launch control of Trident lies with the captain and first officer of the boat. The Prime Minister can request the launch through the chain of command but the Captain doesn’t have to. Conversely, if the UK is attacked first and the chain of command is destroyed, the captain and first officer can retaliate without receiving any direct order to do so.
Whatever happened to orders being passed down the chain of command and the certainty that they would be carried out? The PM would request the Trident submarines Captain to launch a missile but he doesn’t have to obey?! WTF?
First job Starmer had after the King asked him to be PM, was to write letters to the captains of the Trident boats. It is generally accepted that those letters lay out options for what to do in the event of a nuclear exchange and one of those options is for the captains to make their own decision. Suppose the theory is that the uncertainty increases the deterrent effect as an enemy couldn’t predict what response they’d get.
The letters of last resort are specifically to cover the situation when orders can not be transmitted to the boat and any response cannot be heard by the PM – because he is dead and the Government no longer exists.
If the PM can transmit an order, the captain obeys it and does not make his own decision.
I think he meant that the captain can fire without the PM’s say so, but he can’t refuse to fire when ordered.
Captain could only fire on his own authority if PM and HMG no longer exists, and the Letter of Last Resort comes into effect. But it is only one of several options, available to the Captain in that secenario.
Most experts think there might be 4 options stated in the Letter.
As I understand it, the PM chooses one of four options in his/her letter of last resort.
1: Retaliate.
2: Do not retaliate.
3: Go to the USA if it still exists and take further orders from there.
4: Go to Australia if it still exists and take further orders from there.
I am sure it is something like that. But several consider that another option is for the Captain to use his own judgement.
Surely if you intentionally misinform….or lets be honest out and out lie…..you should be accountable
I grow weary of clowns saying “trident is useless, we never use them etc.” That is the whole point of a deterrent.
Our independent nuclear deterrent is being used 24/7/365.
True, we use Trident every minute of every day of every year. It is out there at-sea, providing a strategic deterrent.
Thank god for our sub at sea for use as a retaliatory weapon in case a dictator decides to make a nuclear attack against uk or nato. Until we live in a better world.
Trident could also be used in retaliation if an enemy launched an overwhelming conventional attack on the UK, assuming assistance from NATO colleagues was insufficient, delayed or ineffective.
The SNP pushing disinformation is not a surprise considering that the Scottish National Party a decade ago was probably getting funding from Russia with their failed independence campaign and unfortunately for the SNP, Scottish independence is arguably against the interest of the West given it only benefits Russia and not the West
Surely someone called him out?