Stinkypup

Time will tell Dave- I get what you are saying, no side in innocent. My gut feeling he is a very clever strategist who is playing a very careful and clever game of chess. Flying Tupolev 22M-3s close to Nato owned airspace is not exactly marking his territory... or maybe it is.
And Syria? I would love to know the full reason for his involvement in the Middle East... Part of that carefully considered strategic game of chess.I have my own thoughts and feel that we live in very dangerous times as a result of issues in all parts of the globe.

Shard

Russia is no threat to NATO, and certainly no nuclear threat. However, even if she were, as the audio clip suggested, a submarine based delivery system may soon be obsolete. The case for scrapping Trident gets stronger and stronger IMO.

dave_j

As you say, both sides play this game. I doubt that Putin has forgotten the 24 hour encirclement of the USSR by B52 bombers at a time when the USSR was having difficulties doing the same.
As for the Middle East, you have to ask what our involvement in Syria has been. I well remember writing to my MP complaining about Hague travelling the globe drumming up support for a bunch of thugs calling themselves the Syrian Opposition. Perhaps if the west had not so prematurely and in my view mistakenly recognised them from the outset, simply because our government disliked Assad, then perhaps they would have folded and not have become so bold as to go halfway to destroying their own country.
'Ahhhh' I hear you say, 'But Assad's a Tyrant and should be removed'. Maybe so, but as was Gadaffi and Hussein. No Russian involvement there. We did that all by ourselves.
I would argue that this catastrophe will only end when one side wins. If Assad wins then at least we'll know who the leadership is. If the opposition wins then we end up with a Libya or an Iraq on Israel's doorstep and yet another can of worms opens. I argue that both Russia and Iran see this and are in a position to act. I suspect that the west also sees this but cannot act overtly for political reasons, instead they mumble about this and that and let Russia and Iran clean it up for them.

MarkG

So, if Britain gets rid of Trident, what do you plan to replace it with?

'The Yanks will protect us!'?

Well, the Yanks are busy going bust, and it's looking increasingly likely that the next President will be a nationalist, regardless of whether it's Trump or Sanders. They won't be eager to start a war with Russia to protect Britain. Keeping Putin out of Canada or Mexico, maybe.

'The French will protect us!'?

Good one.

'We'll build a huge conventional military capable of defeating anyone who tries to invade.'

Ha-ha. Yeah, right.

dave_j

The issue with Trident is cost and lack of need.
The issue with nuclear weapons is that no sane government will use them as a first strike against another nation state. Even when proposed during the Vietnam war when the US threw everything else at the Viet Kong, they edged back from the limited use of nuclear weapons.
But the geni is out of the bottle and nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented so it makes sense to retain a form of retaliatory response as a threat.
The support argument for submarine based response weapons arose when the 'enemy' had such a widespread capability that the possibility existed that all surface based weapons would be neutralised in a first strike.
In today's world, it's understood that this will not happen. The only possible use would be by a rogue lunatic state who might own a few weapons at best.
Retaliation by surface based, either by land or sea, will continue to exist after a first strike and thus the submarine argument carries little weight. Such a lunatic state would not be influenced by the existence of Trident.
I would argue that the UK already has the capability to respond and Trident has no longer a place in the 21st century.

Shard

That's well and good, but what about the potential obsolescence argument that is raised in the audio clip - the fact that underwater drone technology will be advanced enough within a decade that the subs will be rendered incapable of reaching their launch destination?

Pizzawheel

Interesting points re: Russia. First I think Crimea is Russian- the bulk of the public think so- the way it was "given" to the Ukraine in the 50s was pretty bizarre. Looks like Russia realizes they've lost the Ukraine and want to get the Russian bits back before it turns completely to the West- which it should do. Comparing the fortunes of the Ukraine and Poland over the last 20 years makes a startling comparison.

Shard

Good post.

MarkG

With what?

I may just have been hallucinating at the time, but I thought I read that the RAF retired all the air-dropped nukes some years ago?

Besides which, they won't have much chance of reaching Moscow without being shot down.