Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Does the UK really need a nuclear deterrent? In the age of austerity and guerrilla terrorism, I am finding the argument for the £100 BN Trident renewal increasingly flimsy. Is it purely a political obligation to NATO and the USA? What do you think on this issue?

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Get rid. If the threat is Russia , then France also has a deterrent. Plus, if America is our friend, they have it in spades. Buy more cruise missiles and Nuc tip those and more helicopters that kill tanks.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

That's pretty much what I am thinking.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Britain having trident or Polaris never prevented WW3, USA having it prob did. Well done USA.....

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

It's because a lot of people in Britain get a bit excited about the thought of Britain as a major military force. Absolute weirdos.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Actually UK is fifth biggest ass kickers in the whole wide universe

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

No question, they can make some big bangs.....

I like the idea of removing it and the servicing of it from britains shores.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

If it got cancelled just think of all the fat people weddings it would fund :@)

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

I think they haven't needed nukes for a long time now,any wars now are going to be over resources,so the use of nukes seems highly unlikely these days.
Even in the days of the cold war I think it was highly unlikely anyone would have launched a nuke,it was more a battle of bluffs.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

They probably don't need them, no country needs them, but as long as they exist, some countries will keep them around, only way to rid the world of them is to convince every country to keep promises and actually dispose of theirs which will never happen.

If the US and France have them, I'd think that would be sufficient, other countries know if they do something to the UK or Canada or anyone else, the US and France would likely intervene.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

If the French have them, we'll have them.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Yeh but we could never make soft fresh crusty missiles like the French do every morning. ;)

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

I for one am glad we have the French to protect us.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

That might happen. After all, they've closed down their white flag making factory so might fight for a change.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Given how quickly France have rolled over in previous conflicts it's probably safer if we have them rather than they.

I'm surprised people think the US would bail in and help us. They are usually late to any party trying to assess what is in it for them.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

If people think the US or France would risk a nuclear conflict to defend the UK then I'd like some of whatever you're drinking.

Only one country in recent times voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons after the US, the UK and Russia signed a treaty guaranteeing its sovereignty within its existing borders - Ukraine. Last time I looked it's not going well for them.

The world is a far more dangerous and unpredictable place then it was during the Cold War. Nuclear proliferation is growing not shrinking. Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea all have nuclear weapons and Russia is resurgent. A replacement for our current Trident-carrying submarines won't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. We can barely predict what geopolitical circumstances will find ourselves in 18 months' time let alone 15 years.

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

The defence of Canada is much more closer aligned with the United States through NORAD and as such remains under its 'nuclear umbrella'. The same cannot be said for the UK or indeed the rest of Europe. A comparison between the threat posed to the UK and Canada is also unlikely to be equal given the disparity of the two countries as world powers.

Since 1945 nuclear weapons have only acted as a deterrent against the use of conventional forces rather than an offensive/defensive weapon. As such Ukraine wouldn't have needed to bomb Moscow as Russia is unlikely to have risked a nuclear confrontation in the first place over 'Novorossiya' by sending its troops into Ukraine.

In the UK's case we have Russian nuclear-capable bombers regularly circling our airspace, testing our defences.

To be replaced with what? Trident - and any successor submarine-based system - is the most efficient way of maintaining a continuous nuclear deterrent without making the UK itself a target for a nuclear 'first strike'. Any potential adversary planning to attack the UK knows that there is at least one British submarine at sea that could retaliate with at least 40 nuclear warheads at any target anywhere in the world.

Moreover the question of Trident plays into a larger question about the UK's place in the world. We hold a permanent seat on the UN Security Council because we are one of five nations permitted to possess nuclear weapons under the NPT. If we unilaterally disarmed ourselves then we would no longer be able to justify this position and our influence on global affairs would shrink significantly. Some people may welcome this but I cannot say I am one of them.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

A good response, but I remain unconvinced. Can you suggest a scenario that fits the emboldened bit above? A scenario where the USA or France would not be compelled to act, and that Britain would have an absolute uni-lateral need for nuclear attack capability.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

The Vogons are in first place in those rankings.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

No, I can't, as there's no realistic scenario where the UK would use its nuclear weapons in a unilateral offensive. Reread my last post. It's a nuclear deterrent. It's to prevent an aggressor from using either their own nuclear or conventional forces against the UK.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Can you think of a scenario where the people of America would willingly trade their cities for London?

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

I also think it naive that people think the USA or France would willingly sacrifice their own cities/population by responding to an attack on the UK.

I'm quite happy with the UK having a nuclear deterrent. Whether we should be spending $100bn on it is another question entirely.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

It should be noted that the £100 billion figure is reached by estimating the cost of the entire Trident replacement programme including the submarines, missiles and operating costs at 2012 prices over a 35 year period. This would be around £2.9 billion per year, roughly 10% of the total UK defence budget.

Whilst it is still isn't an inconsequential government spending for 2016 will be £746.6 billion meaning the annual cost to the Exchequer would be less than 0.4% of the total UK budget.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

That's the whole point, nobody, except possibly a rogue terrorist group, is going to use these weapons.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Sir Humphrey: [talking about nuclear fallout shelters] Well, you have the weapons; you must have the shelters.
Hacker: I sometimes wonder why we need the weapons.
Sir Humphrey: Minister! You're not a unilateralist?
Hacker: I sometimes wonder, you know.
Sir Humphrey: Well, then, you must resign from the government!
Hacker: Ah, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not that unilateralist! Anyway, the Americans will always protect us from the Russians, won't they?
Sir Humphrey: Russians? Who's talking about the Russians?
Hacker: Well, the independent deterrent.
Sir Humphrey: It's to protect us against the French!
Hacker: The French?! But that's astounding!
Sir Humphrey: Why?
Hacker: Well they're our allies, our partners.
Sir Humphrey: Well, they are now, but they've been our enemies for the most of the past 900 years. If they've got the bomb, we must have the bomb!
Hacker: If it's for the French, of course, that's different. Makes a lot of sense.
Sir Humphrey: Yes. Can't trust the Frogs.
Hacker: You can say that again!

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

I was about to like BritInParis's wel thought out points, but Ben trumped you. Sorry.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

So the annual cost of trident replacement would be less that half of the UK overseas aid budget. The cost doesn't seem extravagant at all. The issue is really whether a trident replacement would be sufficient.

Putin has made the nuclear question even more complicated – and Trident may not be the answer | Paul Mason | Comment is free | The Guardian

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

The premis of NATO is that one member attacked all Members retaliate. We (UK) have no reason to keep it. Get more tank killing helicopters and hat would seriously worry Putin. He is as likely to attack with a full nuclear strike as we are, so why bother having it when the US and France both have it.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

So you really think that, if Putin was to attack London, Americans in New York and LA would be lining up demanding their government nuke Moscow?

Heck, he wouldn't even have to bother attacking London: Russians already seem to own half of it these days.

The real issue I see with Trident is that the government are preparing for being attacked by another organised national military, while their borders are open to anyone who wants to walk in. Most of those ISIS members from the 'migrant' boats will be in London in a few months. As is usual with the military, they're focused on fighting the last war.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

How well has that worked in the past?

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......

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Eh! How would Russia invade without first going through Europe, do you think they would sail up the Thames like William of Orange? Or do you think it will be via hull port, enough Russian fishing ships dock there, no pun intended, but that is no catch.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

I've got a magic rock that protects me from tigers. Since I've never been attacked by a tiger, it clearly works.

America is only going to launch nukes to defend London if American politicians believe there's something to be gained worth losing American cities in return. Personally, I can't see anything that would possibly be worth that to them.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Well, where were they during the Falklands conflict?

I believe you are forgetting Monica's missiles during the Balkan conflict.

If you wish to rely completely upon others that's fine. But it seems to be a little chicken shit to me. :p

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

The Royal Navy barely has enough ships for a decent Regatta these days, and nowhere near enough to fight off the Russians. And the government scrapped the last marine patrol aircraft a while back, so they'd probably still be drinking G&Ts when the Russian fleet docked in London.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

You do understand the range of ICBMs, don't you?

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

To be fair, I don't believe Thatcher invoked the NATO treaty at that time. But no-one in their right mind expected the Germans or Turks to help recapture a couple of islands they'd never heard of, if she had.

Edit: it's probably worth noting that, at the time, the MoD was rolling back their independent capabilities in favour of only retaining those which were required as part of NATO (e.g. for anti-submarine work in the North Atlantic). Had the Argentinian government not been run by idiots, they could have waited a year and Britain wouldn't have had anything capable of taking the islands back without NATO support.

It's probably also worth noting that seeing nuclear-capable bombers dropping bombs on the Falklands must have caused a few brown trouser moments in Buenos Aires. A couple of nukes dropped on Argentina could have eliminated most of the military opposition.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

ICBM do not invade, they destroy. I do have an inkling of their range yes, if you need to know, look it up on google...

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

What real threat is prevented by the possession of Trident ? Next time there is an attack on the Tube in London, will the MinofDef nuke ISIS ?