Nuclear deterrent: Trident
Apr 20th 2015, 11:50 pm
#47
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Not in Paris
Posts: 18,193
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
Well I suspect this is some trap you are setting, but, with the exception of the Falkland Islands conflict, I can't remember any NATO COUNTRIES BEING ATTACKED, why don't you enlighten me, when has the NATO Alliance been required and failed to step up to the mark? Iraq? No we invaded, Afghanistan, no we attacked AQ, to deny them a base there, Balkans? No peacekeeping then SFOR, Sierra L, no, no no😃. Perhaps you think NI? No nuclear D required there...
Perhaps Korea? No UNITED NATIONS......
Perhaps Korea? No UNITED NATIONS......
Affordable, ha ha, since when as any big defence contract come in on budget, that figure you mention with inflation, cost overruns and project extension is likely to be close to 1 trillion. Milliband and Cameron both want it, so they can both lie about the cost and neither will correct the other. I say get rid. Unlimited wants, limited resources. If you want NHS, better education, a MOD that has weapons it will be able to use in a conflict, dump trident.
Apr 21st 2015, 12:30 am
#49
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,340
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
On that logic, Canada should be arming itself up "just in case".
Despite the number of Russians now living in London, Ukraine is a false comparison. Indeed even if the Ukraine possessed nukes, I can't see them being used for this particular boundary dispute.
The point is not should we relinquish all nuclear deterrent, but Trident itself. In desperate geopolitical circumstances, would Britain send subs over to N Korea or Pakistan any sooner than the USA? Seems unlikely.
Despite the number of Russians now living in London, Ukraine is a false comparison. Indeed even if the Ukraine possessed nukes, I can't see them being used for this particular boundary dispute.
The point is not should we relinquish all nuclear deterrent, but Trident itself. In desperate geopolitical circumstances, would Britain send subs over to N Korea or Pakistan any sooner than the USA? Seems unlikely.
Apr 21st 2015, 12:42 am
#50
Yo
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
I'm assuming Britain has some land based nuclear missiles (UK or US controlled) and/or participates in NATO sited missiles in Europe. That seems an adequate level of nuclear deterrent.
My view is that if geopolitics escalates to the point that a missile will be launched, it is the USA that will be doing the launching. I simply cannot see any European nation making a first strike.
It's a question of priority. Plenty of funds required for health, social and education purposes in the UK; once those areas are properly funded, the luxury of a a Trident replacement might be viable.
My view is that if geopolitics escalates to the point that a missile will be launched, it is the USA that will be doing the launching. I simply cannot see any European nation making a first strike.
It's a question of priority. Plenty of funds required for health, social and education purposes in the UK; once those areas are properly funded, the luxury of a a Trident replacement might be viable.
Apr 21st 2015, 4:43 am
#51
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,340
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
I'm assuming Britain has some land based nuclear missiles (UK or US controlled) and/or participates in NATO sited missiles in Europe. That seems an adequate level of nuclear deterrent.
My view is that if geopolitics escalates to the point that a missile will be launched, it is the USA that will be doing the launching. I simply cannot see any European nation making a first strike.
It's a question of priority. Plenty of funds required for health, social and education purposes in the UK; once those areas are properly funded, the luxury of a a Trident replacement might be viable.
My view is that if geopolitics escalates to the point that a missile will be launched, it is the USA that will be doing the launching. I simply cannot see any European nation making a first strike.
It's a question of priority. Plenty of funds required for health, social and education purposes in the UK; once those areas are properly funded, the luxury of a a Trident replacement might be viable.
Both Britain and France have stated they would use nuclear weapons as a first strike. They both developed nuclear weapons capability in order not to be dependent on an unreliable ally.
It looks like the subs are difficult to detect...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision
Nye Bevan supported a UK nuclear deterrent as well as another organisation the present labour leader now wishes to weaponise......
Last edited by jimf; Apr 21st 2015 at 4:48 am.
Apr 22nd 2015, 3:42 pm
#52
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Not in Paris
Posts: 18,193
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Apr 22nd 2015, 4:30 pm
#53
Dive Bar Drunk
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 8,649
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
But things change.
I have a mini keg of craft beer in the fridge. I have no intention of drinking it but should a friend knock on the door unannounced it is ready to go.
Better to have and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Besides it's good for the morale of a decadent western power like Britain to feel it has a way to play bully to those non-nuclear club members.
Apr 22nd 2015, 5:22 pm
#54
Yo
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
The only point I would concede (since nobody has bothered to make it) is that If a terrorist "state" (IS for example) procured a nuclear weapon and intended to launch against Britain or an ally, Britain might want to have first strike capability.
Apr 22nd 2015, 5:40 pm
#55
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Posts: 4,104
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
The only point I would concede (since nobody has bothered to make it) is that If a terrorist "state" (IS for example) procured a nuclear weapon and intended to launch against Britain or an ally, Britain might want to have first strike capability.
Apr 22nd 2015, 5:48 pm
#56
Yo
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
A nation isn't a nation if it can't protect its borders. Putting the money that went into paying for WWII into the NHS instead would mean Britain would now be a small province of the Third Reich.
Nukes are pretty much useless against non-state actors, because you can't nuke a city to kill a few terrorists, whereas a few terrorists can nuke a city to destroy a state. This is why governments are so scared of non-state actors getting them; they're highly asymmetric weapons.
Nukes are pretty much useless against non-state actors, because you can't nuke a city to kill a few terrorists, whereas a few terrorists can nuke a city to destroy a state. This is why governments are so scared of non-state actors getting them; they're highly asymmetric weapons.
Can't someone come up with a plausible aggressor? Doesn't look like it.They're not that useless against non-state actors...because if there was one aimed at London (with the clock ticking) there would be a very short practical debate on the merits of self preservation.
Apr 22nd 2015, 6:04 pm
#57
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Posts: 4,104
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
No, the old one. Back before WWII, plenty of people were arguing that Britain should forget about defence and build a welfare state. If that advice had been followed, Hitler would have won the war, and we'd be speaking German.
The world is a vastly more dangerous place than it was when I was a kid and America and Russia had tens of thousands of nukes pointed at each other. The Middle East is disintegrating, the EU is teetering, and Republicans want to start the Cold War all over again. If you think Britain should just drop all its defences and let anyone walk in...
What do you mean 'aimed at London?'
Terrorists wouldn't deliver their nuke by ICBM, they'd deliver it in the back of a Transit van, or a small private jet.
Can't someone come up with a plausible aggressor? Doesn't look like it.
They're not that useless against non-state actors...because if there was one aimed at London (with the clock ticking) there would be a very short practical debate on the merits of self preservation.
Terrorists wouldn't deliver their nuke by ICBM, they'd deliver it in the back of a Transit van, or a small private jet.
Apr 22nd 2015, 6:10 pm
#58
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
Hmm. Mine is the 58th post in this thread and every single one is from a male poster.
Just saying.
Just saying.
Apr 22nd 2015, 6:23 pm
#60
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259