> Trident is made by Lockheed Martin, though. Or does the UK have the capacity to perform maintenance and manufacture make spare parts on their own?
The Economist piece spells out that, yes, long term maintenance is problematic, but in the short term nothing will break over night.
With Polaris (the system before Trident) the UK was manufacturing the missiles (effectively under license). It seems unclear whether there's any similar arrangement with Trident.
I guess my main point was that the deterrent is independent (the UK prime minister decides when to fire and can do so without the US sign-off) and there's no cliff-edge where the tech can be disabled by the US. So, with the raw materials ready to go and UK arms manufacturers like BAE Systems perfectly capable of building the tech, the risk to the UK (of being without a nuclear deterrent) is relatively low. Not zero, but low.
The Economist piece spells out that, yes, long term maintenance is problematic, but in the short term nothing will break over night.
With Polaris (the system before Trident) the UK was manufacturing the missiles (effectively under license). It seems unclear whether there's any similar arrangement with Trident.
I guess my main point was that the deterrent is independent (the UK prime minister decides when to fire and can do so without the US sign-off) and there's no cliff-edge where the tech can be disabled by the US. So, with the raw materials ready to go and UK arms manufacturers like BAE Systems perfectly capable of building the tech, the risk to the UK (of being without a nuclear deterrent) is relatively low. Not zero, but low.