Trident. Yes or No
Stateless nutters with a suitcase of sunshine are one threat. Nuclear-armed states that may not entirely follow the happy-clappy agenda are another.
You can never deter a stateless nutter with anything. If you are really lucky his sponsor (if a state) might just think twice.
You can (hopefully) deter the nuclear-armed state, provided that he is convinced that :
a) He can't find and neutralise your delivery system
b) Once the weapon is on the way, he's toast - with no escape route.
The further away and faster you can deliver the good news, the more convincing that deterrent is. Given that one of the (currently) more unfriendly nuclear armed states is still the one trident was specified against, difficult to see why we should go for anything less.
So that's a "yes" then.
You can never deter a stateless nutter with anything. If you are really lucky his sponsor (if a state) might just think twice.
You can (hopefully) deter the nuclear-armed state, provided that he is convinced that :
a) He can't find and neutralise your delivery system
b) Once the weapon is on the way, he's toast - with no escape route.
The further away and faster you can deliver the good news, the more convincing that deterrent is. Given that one of the (currently) more unfriendly nuclear armed states is still the one trident was specified against, difficult to see why we should go for anything less.
So that's a "yes" then.
Modern Elmo,
Racist claptrap!
Racist claptrap!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fairford, Glos
Age: 99
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only part we make is the bit that goes bang, delivery and guidance systems are supplied by the US and they control one of the launch keys - so hardly an 'independent' deterrent but, as Gruntpuddock suggests, a highly convenient financial arrangement for America.
In the end, it has always come down to our PM wishing to look tall on the international stage!
harrym
In the end, it has always come down to our PM wishing to look tall on the international stage!
harrym
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fairford, Glos
Age: 99
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<<<< Which key is that then? Where located and held by? >>>>>>>>.
Not a real key of course - a figure of speech for one of many lines of code that must be inserted to activate the system.
harrym
Not a real key of course - a figure of speech for one of many lines of code that must be inserted to activate the system.
harrym
Our new 'White House occupant' will have far less need for WMD's than the Toxic Texan had merely by virtue of not alienating most of the world..
They will be available if necessary !
They will be available if necessary !
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drifting further (well SSBNs drift too) but the UK Border Force on TV last night was very impressive with some Gucci kit - CO2 sniffers, vibration sensors for heatbeats etc. State of the art but then what?
Illegals released pending investigation. Escape from the compound back to the Calais refugee camp. No passport so no idea where to deport them.
Overstaying visas etc.
Then a perfectly bonafide US male who didn't realise he needed a work permit even for a short lecture tour is turned back.
We need to get tough and then stay tough.
I read recently a letter in the Daily Mail (I know, I know) from a Doctor chap which flabbergasted me about our Trident deterrent. This chap said that the boats only go to sea with one missile. Is it true that all the money spent is only to keep one boat at sea with one missile?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, of course the bomber (Jackspeak, may I now go and wash my mouth out) ONLY goes to sea with one misslie. The rest of the slio's are full of spare ipods.
The bomber goes out to play with a number of deliverable sunshine options.........More than a troll can count.
The bomber goes out to play with a number of deliverable sunshine options.........More than a troll can count.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the Thread subject is a “regular” on here and the repetition can get rather tedious, some of the flights of fancy and other assorted bollox expounded do border on the entertaining. Sadly, even if the Polaris Sales Agreement (as amended) and the Kings Bay Missile Processing Agreement were available for public viewing, I doubt it would make any difference to the sundry theories and “hidden facts” some people have fixed in their minds. I would say shame on you other chaps for winding them up but, in all fairness, it is good sport.
Under the rules, if we give up the nuclear deterrent, we will never get it back.
If we did give it up, what concessions would we wring from the other nuclear Powers? Probably none, which seems a criminal waste of a significant bargaining chip.
Like it or not, the nuclear deterrent does buy us a place at the top table. I’m amazed that so many of you would like to give that up. So many souls happy to serve behind the counter and so few with ambitions to run the shop!
Of course it’s useless against a stateless nutter but that’s no argument against its true value. There are some nasty buggers out there who are nation states and, although they seem benign for now, could give us serious cause for concern in the future.
As some of you have already observed, any money saved from giving it up would not find its way to other parts of the Defence Budget. The cost of our ultimate “big stick” is not that great compared to its value. My personal view is that we would be either very brave or very stupid to give it up.
Under the rules, if we give up the nuclear deterrent, we will never get it back.
If we did give it up, what concessions would we wring from the other nuclear Powers? Probably none, which seems a criminal waste of a significant bargaining chip.
Like it or not, the nuclear deterrent does buy us a place at the top table. I’m amazed that so many of you would like to give that up. So many souls happy to serve behind the counter and so few with ambitions to run the shop!
Of course it’s useless against a stateless nutter but that’s no argument against its true value. There are some nasty buggers out there who are nation states and, although they seem benign for now, could give us serious cause for concern in the future.
As some of you have already observed, any money saved from giving it up would not find its way to other parts of the Defence Budget. The cost of our ultimate “big stick” is not that great compared to its value. My personal view is that we would be either very brave or very stupid to give it up.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Magnetogorsk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grasp the nettle
GBZ
A coherent point, but why not take the next step? The answer is, very brave.
If Britain really wants to stand up and be counted, to have an impact that is truly is worthy of a 'top table' nation then why not do something brave, something admirable, look the world in the eye and say we can do without our nuclear weapons - and so can you.
The British deterrent is an embarrassing anachronism. Gifted to us by others we have the capability to strike Moscow. Even in the days when that mattered, it didn't matter because our contribution to the apocalypse would hardly have registered.
The same is true today. The UK will never unilaterally use Trident - even if the US were to sanction such use.
The suitcase bomb threat does not exist. The rogue nation threat does not exist. Britain will never trade ICBMs with Iran or China or North Korea or whoever this week's fantasy villain is. Neither can you deter stateless groups or madmen with an SSBN.
The nuclear flag wavers will always shout - you don't know that! What if, what if, what...
The truth is there is no downside to the UK renouncing Trident and using the money for something else – even if it is not defence (and I believe tht it SHOULD be, while recognising that it probably will not). It would be the one thing the nation has done since 1945 to mark it out as a real world leader in something. Waving our second-hand weapons around buys us nothing of value.
You almost admit as much when you say:
>>If we did give it up, what concessions would we wring from the other nuclear Powers? Probably none, which seems a criminal waste of a significant bargaining chip.<<
If it's not worth anything then it's not a bargaining chip. It's a throwback, an anachronism – a waste of our time and money.
If you really, really, really can't live wothout a nuclear blanket well then let's buy ASMP or tweak a few Storm Shadows. That way you can keep your place at the table, your seat at the Security Council and the Americans won't laugh too hard at us... which I suspect is what really worries the decision makers.
So be brave.
A coherent point, but why not take the next step? The answer is, very brave.
If Britain really wants to stand up and be counted, to have an impact that is truly is worthy of a 'top table' nation then why not do something brave, something admirable, look the world in the eye and say we can do without our nuclear weapons - and so can you.
The British deterrent is an embarrassing anachronism. Gifted to us by others we have the capability to strike Moscow. Even in the days when that mattered, it didn't matter because our contribution to the apocalypse would hardly have registered.
The same is true today. The UK will never unilaterally use Trident - even if the US were to sanction such use.
The suitcase bomb threat does not exist. The rogue nation threat does not exist. Britain will never trade ICBMs with Iran or China or North Korea or whoever this week's fantasy villain is. Neither can you deter stateless groups or madmen with an SSBN.
The nuclear flag wavers will always shout - you don't know that! What if, what if, what...
The truth is there is no downside to the UK renouncing Trident and using the money for something else – even if it is not defence (and I believe tht it SHOULD be, while recognising that it probably will not). It would be the one thing the nation has done since 1945 to mark it out as a real world leader in something. Waving our second-hand weapons around buys us nothing of value.
You almost admit as much when you say:
>>If we did give it up, what concessions would we wring from the other nuclear Powers? Probably none, which seems a criminal waste of a significant bargaining chip.<<
If it's not worth anything then it's not a bargaining chip. It's a throwback, an anachronism – a waste of our time and money.
If you really, really, really can't live wothout a nuclear blanket well then let's buy ASMP or tweak a few Storm Shadows. That way you can keep your place at the table, your seat at the Security Council and the Americans won't laugh too hard at us... which I suspect is what really worries the decision makers.
So be brave.
Consider the following strange events.
The US and UK have joined up to design a common missile compartment for the next SSBNs. Which will presumably be an Astute or a Virginia snipped in half and stretched, like an early US boat.
The US Congress continues to block the development of a replacement warhead for Tridents and any notional landbased missile. However, presumably AWE is doing something, since it's not a National Laboratory but - well - an atomic weapons establishment.
The boffins at Aldermaston whose predecessors had all those smart kids in LO's junior and grammar schools are working more closely with the US than in years and their work is greatly respected.
If the US can't get the job done at home, where will they get it done?
The US and UK have joined up to design a common missile compartment for the next SSBNs. Which will presumably be an Astute or a Virginia snipped in half and stretched, like an early US boat.
The US Congress continues to block the development of a replacement warhead for Tridents and any notional landbased missile. However, presumably AWE is doing something, since it's not a National Laboratory but - well - an atomic weapons establishment.
The boffins at Aldermaston whose predecessors had all those smart kids in LO's junior and grammar schools are working more closely with the US than in years and their work is greatly respected.
If the US can't get the job done at home, where will they get it done?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBZ / VC,
I thought for a moment that no one was going to make a decent argument, but you two have saved the day (and helped my ‘enforced’ essay no end – ta !!)
There’s little doubt that the UK’s ‘independent’ (word used wisely) nuclear deterrent serves little purpose. Against a re-emergent nuclear state (no clues there) we would undoubtedly have the US nuclear umbrella to shelter under – and why would a resurgent Russia want to attack the UK anyway? Against a terrorist nuclear incident (God forbid) the UK would need to prove conclusively that it was state-sponsored in order to have a target to strike – even then, would striking the population of a state with a nuclear missile be proportional to AQ detonating a dirty-bomb in London? Also, after the ‘dodgy dossier’ debacle, the UK government would have a hell of a time convincing the House, let alone the public, that a particular state sponsored the terrorists.
For a Labour government that has had its fingers burnt previous by its nuclear-policies, it is far easier for them to accept the status-quo and keep Trident, albeit in a new boat. Let us hope that the US decide to replace Trident in 2042 with a missile that is exactly the same size at Trident – otherwise the UK would have spent £20+ billion on 4 submarines that they no longer need, because there is no way that we can unilaterally support Trident if the US no longer use it.
The only debate worth having is whether, or not, our ‘top table seat’ is predicated on our nuclear weapon status – I suspect if we look hard, it is only the UK that thinks that it gives us status, the other nations really couldn’t care less.
P&G
I thought for a moment that no one was going to make a decent argument, but you two have saved the day (and helped my ‘enforced’ essay no end – ta !!)
There’s little doubt that the UK’s ‘independent’ (word used wisely) nuclear deterrent serves little purpose. Against a re-emergent nuclear state (no clues there) we would undoubtedly have the US nuclear umbrella to shelter under – and why would a resurgent Russia want to attack the UK anyway? Against a terrorist nuclear incident (God forbid) the UK would need to prove conclusively that it was state-sponsored in order to have a target to strike – even then, would striking the population of a state with a nuclear missile be proportional to AQ detonating a dirty-bomb in London? Also, after the ‘dodgy dossier’ debacle, the UK government would have a hell of a time convincing the House, let alone the public, that a particular state sponsored the terrorists.
For a Labour government that has had its fingers burnt previous by its nuclear-policies, it is far easier for them to accept the status-quo and keep Trident, albeit in a new boat. Let us hope that the US decide to replace Trident in 2042 with a missile that is exactly the same size at Trident – otherwise the UK would have spent £20+ billion on 4 submarines that they no longer need, because there is no way that we can unilaterally support Trident if the US no longer use it.
The only debate worth having is whether, or not, our ‘top table seat’ is predicated on our nuclear weapon status – I suspect if we look hard, it is only the UK that thinks that it gives us status, the other nations really couldn’t care less.
P&G
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There’s little doubt that the UK’s ‘independent’ (word used wisely) nuclear deterrent serves little purpose. Against a re-emergent nuclear state (no clues there) we would undoubtedly have the US nuclear umbrella to shelter under ...
Undoubtedly,. yes. My suspicion is many British ban-the-bomb peaceniks think it's OK for Blighty to ban precisely because they know Uncle Sugar won't. Uncle Sugar will be there holding the boom-boom umbrella over them to keep disarmed Britain safe.
– and why would a resurgent Russia want to attack the UK anyway?
"Why can't those vulgar wolves learn to be vegetarians?" said the sheep.
No need to attack if one can get what one wants by intimidation and threats of attack.
Undoubtedly,. yes. My suspicion is many British ban-the-bomb peaceniks think it's OK for Blighty to ban precisely because they know Uncle Sugar won't. Uncle Sugar will be there holding the boom-boom umbrella over them to keep disarmed Britain safe.
– and why would a resurgent Russia want to attack the UK anyway?
"Why can't those vulgar wolves learn to be vegetarians?" said the sheep.
No need to attack if one can get what one wants by intimidation and threats of attack.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read recently a letter in the Daily Mail (I know, I know) from a Doctor chap which flabbergasted me about our Trident deterrent. This chap said that the boats only go to sea with one missile. Is it true that all the money spent is only to keep one boat at sea with one missile?