Nuclear (trident replacement) do we need one?
 

Lots of talk on the telly and radio from the Pm and his cronies about replacing the ageing trident nuclear force, Do we need to have a nuclear force in todays world? lots of other simmilar sized Euro countries manage just fine without!
25 billion is a lot of money for something we won't ever use and can't use without the yanks permission.
It's all very well saying that these so called rogue states could use them against us, but they won't and deep down we all know it.
The cold war has long gone let go of the past and invest the money in something more worthwhile.
We are not and never again will be a major player in world affairs, it's about time we stopped trying to be.
I used to be a major supporter of nukes but just don't think we can justify them anymore.

Why bother with nukes. Surely a small container full of something nasty that can be dropped in the water supply would do the job just as well. It could be kept in a small drawer in the office at No10. Job done. :E :E

No.

No we don't and indeed they might but Agree and even if a rogue state did use the weapons can we, in all honesty, vapourise a large segment of their innocent population too? Some of the countries might be r*tsh*t and the whole population might, at least on TV, hate our guts, but the world has moved on.

We have gone from the stability of mutual assured destruction; do we expect rogue states to be similarly deterred? If they believe we they then the deterrent isn't worth a string of beans.

Now 80 JDAM is a different kettle of fish.

So we might need a valid deterrent to decapitate a rogue state. Is a nuclear missile the way to do it? I would suggest not.

I'm not accustomed to being a Hawk on PPRuNe (by normal standards, absolutely, but not among some of the Tebbits here!) but I believe that the case for retaining a nuclear deterrent remains strong - both as a deterrent and as a ticket to the top table.

But what surprises me is the 'all-or-nothing' nature of the debate. The choice seems to be between a top-of-the-line Cold War strategic deterrent, based on deep-diving nuclear subs that can evade or avoid the fleets of enemy Hunter Killers (that no longer exist) and that can guarantee being able to destroy Moscow (no longer a requirement, when St Pete's or Nizhny Novgorod would do!), and that can penetrate Moscow's uniquely capable (and largely fictional) ABM defences.

Why is nobody suggesting the cheaper option of a stand-off air launched deterrent (perhaps even Storm Shadow based) augmented by cruise missiles, both of which would be carried by versatile, flexible platforms that might also have a useful conventional role?

Jacko,

Trident IS a versatile, flexible platform. It can strike anywhere in the world, without the need for Host Nation Support or permission to overfly and is much less vunerable to detection.


The argument against Storm Shadow, the V bombers etc was debated and won/lost years ago...let it lie. I am astounded by some of the comments posted on here. Yes asymetric threats are a reality but, so are Nuclear nations such as N Korea, Pakistan, India, France, Russia, Israel and probably Iran very soon. The availability of Nuclear technology and expertise is such, that the list of capable nations will increase exponentially over the next 100 years.

We have lived safely since 1945 because of the deterrent and NATO. Without the deterrent of both Nuclear and conventional forces, we would all now be drinking brake fluid.

It is quite conceivable, that within 20 years, a weak United Kingdom, without a Nuclear Deterrent could be under serious threat of destruction without any form of retaliation. If you think the world is rosy and we are loved by many, then maybe you should expand your vision outside your local Tescos. The world is much more dangerous now than it has been for the last 40 years. Yes the deterrent gets my vote. It will last longer and be far cheaper than providing boob jobs and social security, legal aid and accomodation for economic migrants. One of the few correct although unpopular decisions TB will have made during his tenure.

You can forget all the arguments about whether we need a deterrent or not, without it we lose our permanent seat on the UN security council and as far as the government is concerned that is the real reason for keeping any sort of nuclear force

Weight and punching seem to be the clinching arguments, sod the cost.

So we have a debate about to stay nuclear or not, what about a debate as on out putative world power status?

If the UK goes nuke-free, there's going to be an open seat on the UN Security Council as was mentioned above.

Who'd fill it? Iran? Israel? North Korea? India? Pakistan?

Just my 2 pennies worth:

- There are only 2 other similar sized (by any meaningful measure) EU countries. Germany does without, France doesn't.

- From what I understand, that is not true. Just something spread by the anti brigade.

- Yes very true. Who would have thought it 20 years ago?

- Not true. As well as being a nuclear power, we are in the top 5 countries in the world in terms of GDP and military expenditure. We also have a permanent seat on the security council. Just because we live on a small island doesn't mean we're not a major player in world affairs.

Having said all that I'm not necessarily pro strategic nukes, I just think the argument should be more factually based.

Maybe Jacko is on the right lines - a dedicated, cold war style capability is not needed. I think subs may be the way ahead, I just want them to be able to do lots of useful stuff when not firing nukes (ie all the time!). As far as the navy is ever useful, of course. ;)

Widger,

Outmoded thinking, old chap:

"The argument against Storm Shadow, the V bombers etc was debated and won/lost years ago"

But it was won ONLY on the basis of being able to hit Moscow (no longer necessary), to survive Russian hunter killers (no longer relevant) and to penetrate Moscow's ABM defences, which were over-stated to the point of being mythical.

We could have a cheaper deterrent, using the twin platforms of sub/ship-launched Cruise and an air-launched stand off missile.

It might not guarantee the ability to take out Moscow, but I'd suggest that that is no longer necessary.

no - spend the money on getting the things we need now, to:
1. keep personnel in op theatres alive
2. look far enough ahead to get the stuff we'll need soon - rather than at the last minute
3. spend what's left (should be a fair bit) on the NHS, police, firemen, nurses, teachers etc etc - money spent at home will win more votes than big, black subs filled with big, shiny missiles

Who really thinks the money would go back into the defence budget?? :ugh:

Mmmmmmmmmmnicccceee,

That's part of the point. The cost of Trident was peanuts compared with all those other "good causes" you mention and all that money has gone down the drain. At least we still have Trident and it remains effective for the purpose it was designed for. Scrap Trident and the money will last about a month in the NHS, never to be seen again!

NG I am not arguing but am impressed (I mean it) as I didn't think we rated that high. I looked it up and found a forward projection as well.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_...rojection.html

Accoring to Goldman Sachs in 2000 we actually ranked 4th, well behind Germany, with $1437b against $1875b and slightly ahead of France $1311b.

However China, in 2005, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/ch.html is at over $2200b (est) which drops us to 5th.

By 2050 GM estimates the UK will drop to 7th behind China, India, Brazil and Russia.

Mind you, GDP itself is contentious and money spent cleaning up pollution counts!

Learn the lessons of history. You've got to plan for the possibilities of tomorrow, not the present.

The money could certainly be spent on extra kit today (although we all know that wouldn't happen), but I believe it has to be spent 'just in case'.

UK Governments own figures;

Work and Pensions £116 Billion
Health £81.8 Billion
Education £55.2 Billion
Chancellors Office £50.6 Billion
Defence £30.9 Billion, this includes RN, Army and RAF AND TRIDENT!
Scotland!!!!!!! £24.5 Billion !!!!!!!!!
Transport £13.7 Billion
Wales £11.8 Billion
NI £11.9 Billion

Quite interesting results in this survey by the BBC.
Most of the 'anglo saxon' people can't see a need for a nuclear deterrant.
All of the people who werent born in or whose parents probably werent born in this country say we need it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ans/html/1.stm

4 December 2006

BAE SYSTEMS’ STATEMENT REGARDING PROPOSAL TO DEPLOY NUCLEAR DETERRENT BY SUBMARINE

Welcoming news of today’s announcement regarding the proposal to deploy the UK’s future nuclear deterrent by submarine, BAE Systems’ chief executive Mike Turner said:

“BAE Systems welcomes the decision that the UK’s future nuclear deterrent will be deployed by submarine, which means the UK can sustain a very high level of skills and capabilities within its defence industrial base.

Any delay would have meant a loss of those skills, making the UK dependent upon overseas suppliers.”

I thought this massive debate and consultation exercise was to address all of the potential alternatives, and not just be a direct Trident replacement yes/no exercise.

A direct replacement will, inevitably, cost many billions, whereas a viable scaled down deterrent (largely sub-strategic) based on Cruise and Storm Shadow could be aquired at a fraction of the cost - and might be manageable on a basis that would make it wholly autonomous, and not reliant on the USA for servicing, support, modernisation and upgrade.

Jacko,

read an article (believe it was on BBC online) that said something along the lines of "Defence chiefs have already ruled out alternative systems as viable options, leaving the choice to replace trident with another sub based deterrent or to let it slide"

Paraphrased for the masses, can someone find that quote? dont have time now!

Trident is inappropriate for the post Cold War world, it was designed to take out Russian cities & similar, something we won't need to do again I think. If we must keep a deterrent then a smaller version, probably cruise missile based, that could be launched from ships, subs, even aircraft (anyone remember the Herc J with the cruise missile dispenser in the freight bay?!!) would do the job, which is to deter anyone from hitting us - let's face it, we're never going to actually use the things, we just want people to know we've got them. Perhaps some large containers with the words 'nuclear warhead' stencilled on the side would do the job just as well, & for minimal cost.

The kind of people we square up to these days we can't use a Trident against, although some might argue that it would improve hugely some of the places we're fighting in. But the whole basis of deterrence is based on rationality, the opposition has to mind being wiped out, & do you think Al Qaeda would care if we dropped a warhead on them? It would give them the martyrdom they desire with all the attendant virgins etc, publicity, wipe out lots of innocents etc.

When this government can't give the troops fighting in Afghanistan decent quality ammunition that dosen't jam in a firefight, why do we want to spend £25 billion on a weapon system we don't need, can't use & most of the people don't want?