Trident renewal: good or bad?

[Annabella]

An interesting article:

 

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/18/truth-trident-shocking-fact-turn-us-paying-nukes/

 

Its always been like this, WW2 funded by industry and the directors/owners made Billions out of mass murder. So if we don't have Trident renewal, the Russians do and you have Putin with a larger threat. I know it's not ideal but what does one propose instead? We'll ditch ours if you do?

[Al Massey]

Ridiculous decision.

 

What will rise to £100bn could be better spent on other areas of national defence.

 

Ask everyone in the forces what they think.

 

Fairly sure that the majority of not all want trident to be renewed and have this capability.

[Al Massey]

The problem with our food facilities is when it changed to pay as you (starve) dine.

 

It became a business not a service.

[j_jza80]

Its always been like this, WW2 funded by industry and the directors/owners made Billions out of mass murder. So if we don't have Trident renewal, the Russians do and you have Putin with a larger threat. I know it's not ideal but what does one propose instead? We'll ditch ours if you do?

 

I hope you're not accusing the Western Allies of being mass murderers

[el_bandido]

Well they were mass murderers. Most wars involve murder on a large scale.

[Annabella]

I hope you're not accusing the Western Allies of being mass murderers

 

What do you think the allied troops said to the Germans, Italians and Japanese soldiers, put your weapons down, please? Of course there was mass murder, the point was as I said re: industry making billions and a few people. America pretty much bankrupted GB after the war for war payments, who got that money?

[j_jza80]

So if you're confronted by someone who is about to harm you and your family, and you stop them, that's now murder?

 

Forgive me for believing the Nazis had already invaded most of Europe, and went on to set up an industry with the specific intent of murdering Jews, homosexuals, political prisoners, the disabled and roma.

[j_jza80]

America pretty much bankrupted GB after the war for war payments, who got that money?

 

Ah, so the US was supposed to just donate billions of £ worth of weapons...

 

Dont get me wrong, I am less than a fan of some of the American objectives of the war, but to accuse the allies of being mass murderers, whose primary intent was profit, is just pure ignorance.

[Westcoaster]

So if you're confronted by someone who is about to harm you and your family, and you stop them, that's now murder?

 

Forgive me for believing the Nazis had already invaded most of Europe, and went on to set up an industry with the specific intent of murdering Jews, homosexuals, political prisoners, the disabled and roma.

 

Godwin's Law alert!

[Kendo11]

We still don't need it, no matter how off topic we go or how many references to Hitler people make.

 

 

[Westcoaster]

Oops, double post due to kindle operator error!

[Al Massey]

We still don't need it, no matter how off topic we go or how many references to Hitler people make.

 

/QUOTE]

 

Why?

 

Not one person has even been able to give a valid reason why we don't need trident.

[JasonR24]

Why?

 

Not one person has even been able to give a valid reason why we don't need trident.

 

I'm honestly interested as to the alternatives, what are they?

 

Is the only other method either by plane or missle silo?

 

Are we the only country using trident? Is the only advantage because we are a small nation and silos would be easily targeted?

 

I just think everyone has stuck with trident straight away without full exhaustion of all other options

[Al Massey]

I'm honestly interested as to the alternatives, what are they?

 

Is the only other method either by plane or missle silo?

 

Are we the only country using trident? Is the only advantage because we are a small nation and silos would be easily targeted?

 

I just think everyone has stuck with trident straight away without full exhaustion of all other options

 

We had nuclear launch sites.

They cost a fortune.

 

At my old camp we used to store nuclear weapons.

 

It's not practical, especially when idiotic anti nuke protestors come wandering around camp trying to gain entry.

[Al Massey]

And trident is just the nuclear weapons, it is not the submarine.

[Kendo11]

Trident is the full system is it not? Submarine, missile and warhead.

 

Why we don't, because if anyone really, really wants to bring about the end of the world by firing a nuclear weapon a deterrent will be irrelevant.

 

If a country or person or rogue state is of that unimaginable mindset then I wouldn't have thought much would put them off.

 

And if they've done that, and wiped us out, the mutually assured destruction won't count for a lot in any case.

 

 

[j_jza80]

No, Trident is the ballistic missile. The Submarines are Vanguard class.

 

The US also operate missiles from their Subs.

[j_jza80]

Godwin's Law alert!

 

I was replying to a specific point he made about WW2.

[Al Massey]

Trident is the full system is it not? Submarine, missile and warhead.

 

Why we don't, because if anyone really, really wants to bring about the end of the world by firing a nuclear weapon a deterrent will be irrelevant.

 

If a country or person or rogue state is of that unimaginable mindset then I wouldn't have thought much would put them off.

 

And if they've done that, and wiped us out, the mutually assured destruction won't count for a lot in any case.

 

/QUOTE]

 

Just so we are clear, firing a nuke isn't a secret.

Once it's armed, all the superpowers detect it.

 

Hence why MAD is the reason why no one will use nukes.

 

The chances of a rogue nation or person getting a chance to just fire a nuke is non existent, because of MAD.

 

So if we were to get rid of trident.

We are no longer part of the mad agreement.

 

We then become irrelevant in the nuclear war.

 

We also have no bargaining power.

 

If all, and I mean all other nations were to get rid of nukes then yes, I'd be happy for trident to go, but that will never happen.

[Kendo11]

No, Trident is the ballistic missile. The Submarines are Vanguard class.

 

The US also operate missiles from their Subs.

Trident is the system, according to everywhere I've just read.

 

Whataboutery anyway.

 

 

[Kendo11]

Just so we are clear, firing a nuke isn't a secret.

Once it's armed, all the superpowers detect it.

 

Hence why MAD is the reason why no one will use nukes.

 

The chances of a rogue nation or person getting a chance to just fire a nuke is non existent, because of MAD.

 

So if we were to get rid of trident.

We are no longer part of the mad agreement.

 

We then become irrelevant in the nuclear war.

 

We also have no bargaining power.

 

If all, and I mean all other nations were to get rid of nukes then yes, I'd be happy for trident to go, but that will never happen.

Which is my point, if there was a nuclear war then we would all very quickly become irrelevant.

 

 

[Digsy]

Trident is the full system is it not? Submarine, missile and warhead.

 

According to teh interwebs the US Navy uses them in their Ohio class submarines as well.

 

Why we don't, because if anyone really, really wants to bring about the end of the world by firing a nuclear weapon a deterrent will be irrelevant.

 

No one wants to "bring about the end of the world" by firing a nuke. They want to gain a strategic advantage while still being left with something to conquer after the exchange has ended. There is no can be no strategic advantage with nuclear war because of MAD. The cold war nuclear triad of ground based launchers, nuclear armed bombers and submarines ensured that no side's entire retaliatory strike capability could be wiped out in a first strike. If you wanted to keep just one of those options, submarines would be the way to go because of their length of time on station and low detect ability.

 

If a country or person or rogue state is of that unimaginable mindset then I wouldn't have thought much would put them off.

 

Its possible that some nutball or terrorist group may eventually get hold of a nuke and use it just to make a statement, but they won't "wipe out" an entire country or opposing ideology that way. It is unlikely they would get hold of several devices, or a single large device. Also, that country or group would instantly become an international pariah - of this I am certain. The question then arises of "could the target country, or one of its allies retaliate in kind?" Very difficult to do against a terrorist group because there would literally be no one to aim it at. If someone like N.Korea dropped an egg, they could probably be taken out in a conventional war (that I am pretty sure several countries would be happy to join in) but the nuclear option would definitely be there. However, the idea of a "limited nuclear war" between nation-states isn't something I really believe in. I think it would quickly escalate, so you have MAD again.

 

And if they've done that, and wiped us out, the mutually assured destruction won't count for a lot in any case.

 

So you are saying if someone else manages to get a first strike in, as we will be wiped out anyway its pointless retaliating? How do you think a possible enemy's war planners would look upon that kind of strategy?

 

I don't really like nuclear weapons and it is very possible that global warfare is moving into a realm where they are becoming less and less relevant. It could very well be that conventional warfare is becoming less relevant, let alone nukes. But remember the one and only time nuclear weapons have been deployed was when there was absolutely no chance of retaliation on the same scale, ever since then they have kept a sometimes uneasy but lasting peace between the major global powers.

[Digsy]

Anyway, forget the missiles. This is the scariest thing I've ever read

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]213441[/ATTACH]

[Kendo11]

According to teh interwebs the US Navy uses them in their Ohio class submarines as well.

 

Yep, it is also the name of the missile.

 

But the debate the other day, the £1bn (possibly) cost covers our Trident System.

 

That consists of the missile, the delivery system AND the submarine.

 

Hence the cost.

 

That is Trident as MPs have debated it.

 

 

No one wants to "bring about the end of the world" by firing a nuke. They want to gain a strategic advantage while still being left with something to conquer after the exchange has ended. There can be no strategic advantage with nuclear war because of MAD. The cold war nuclear triad of ground based launchers, nuclear armed bombers and submarines ensured that no side's entire retaliatory strike capability could be wiped out in a first strike. If you wanted to keep just one of those options, submarines would be the way to go because of their length of time on station and low detect ability.

 

Its possible that some nutball or terrorist group may eventually get hold of a nuke and use it just to make a statement, but they won't "wipe out" an entire country or opposing ideology that way. It is unlikely they would get hold of several devices, or a single large device. Also, that country or group would instantly become an international pariah - of this I am certain. The question then arises of "could the target country, or one of its allies retaliate in kind?" Very difficult to do against a terrorist group because there would literally be no one to aim it at. If someone like N.Korea dropped an egg, they could probably be taken out in a conventional war (that I am pretty sure several countries would be happy to join in) but the nuclear option would definitely be there. However, the idea of a "limited nuclear war" between nation-states isn't something I really believe in. I think it would quickly escalate, so you have MAD again.

 

That's kind of what I'm saying, that a realistic nuclear threat at the current time wouldn't come from a developed nation, more likely a rogue state or terrorist organisation.

 

The kind of organisation that I doubt would be deterred by a deterrent (excuse the pun).

 

So you are saying if someone else manages to get a first strike in, as we will be wiped out anyway its pointless retaliating? How do you think a possible enemy's war planners would look upon that kind of strategy?

 

Pretty much.

 

As above, I would have thought if a nuclear attack comes from anywhere our little island would be so decimated a retaliatory strike would serve little purpose.

 

I don't really like nuclear weapons and it is very possible that global warfare is moving into a realm where they are becoming less and less relevant. It could very well be that conventional warfare is becoming less relevant, let alone nukes. But remember the one and only time nuclear weapons have been deployed was when there was absolutely no chance of retaliation on the same scale, ever since then they have kept a sometimes uneasy but lasting peace between the major global powers.

 

This is why I think the funds would be better spent on another area of defence.

 

At the current moment I doubt any of the nuclear superpowers even entertain the idea of nuclear war, even some so extreme as Russia.

 

North Korea are a lifetime away and Iran keep trying but from what I've seen they're pretty far away also.

 

To me that would leave a nuclear attack coming under a ground based blast as opposed to being delivered on a missile.

 

The money could in my opinion therefore be better spent on intelligence, homeland defence and so on ensuring no such thing is possible.

 

 

[Kendo11]

Anyway, forget the missiles. This is the scariest thing I've ever read

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]213441[/ATTACH]

I read that the other day, that's definitely one area where funds should be spent I'll definitely concede that hahaha!