Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Not even one hypothetical scenario where Britain would want to use sub-based nukes. Not one. Just rationalisations that the French have 'em and that we can't rely on the yanks. Oh, and it's relatively affordable so why not. :unsure:

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

My 'affordable comment' was ironic, so I hope that wasn't aimed at me. I agree with your last sentence.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

I think you and me are reading the same book, same page, same line .....

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Spend a fortune on something you pray will never be used, if you do use it, chances are everyone including the yanks are using it too, pointless waste of UK taxpayers money.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

...and I've even seen the Virgin balloon (though not yet this year).

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

The only time a NATO member has invoked Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) of the Washington Treaty was by the United States on 12 September 2001. This led to the NATO-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

Whilst I'd agree Britain's history of military procurement isn't exactly covered in glory the £100 billion figure comes from Nicola Sturgeon who is not renowned for her unwavering support of our nuclear deterrent and therefore can be counted on for giving the most conservative (i.e. worst case scenario) estimate.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Don't worry, I wouldn't trust the French further than I could throw them either.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

What would be a better alternative to a trident replacement?

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

US provides some tactical nuclear weapons to some european countries but retains control.

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......

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

The first priority of any government is to protect its citizens, it's not a luxury. If it cannot do that then nothing else matters.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

At the moment.

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

You're getting caught up in slogans. Protect from what? How about protection from disease by building a more robust health service. If it was 1955 and we did not know then what we do now (about his states will act in a nuclear age) then a nuclear deterrent might be arguable. Times have changed.

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.

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Protect from the new and improved Third Reich? :lol: 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.

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Hmm. Mine is the 58th post in this thread and every single one is from a male poster.

Just saying.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

They should take the vote away from women?

Bit regressive based on a small forum sample of male views.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

It's just that those good ol' tridents are so very phallic you know.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

I suppose my position is that given the cost and highly unlikely chance of deployment, there ought to be a specific risk. You can't justify modern defence policy based on what happened 80 years ago, to do so ignores the enormous changes that have taken place. I don't buy into the notion of a new Cold War, and in any case, the last one did not require the use of nukes.

Disintegration of the Middle East is a valid point. Perhaps Israel could become incensed at ardent British support for Palestine and threaten a strike.

A transit van or private jet is a more likely delivery method, agreed, even so, if the weapon could not be eliminated, there would be some justification for a first strike.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

If a rattly old 737 explodes in a nuclear fireball over the middle of London, who are you going to launch a missile at?

As I said a while back in this thread, the fundamental problem with Trident is that nukes protect you from other states, but aren't much help if your borders are wide open to people who hate you. 'Globalization' will end the day a terrorist does explode a nuke in a Western city.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

It's not inconceivable that the intelligence agencies would be aware of the rogue nuclear device, the ratty old 737, and the timescale to detonate is it?

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Trident is not a deterrent against terrorism, period. If UK needed to strike against a regime that had attacked UK, it could easily use Nuc tip cruise, trident is the silver cutlery that a family must keep in case we have visitors, there will be no food to give them though, because we are spent all the money on the silver....get rid. Incidentally, many of you a Canadian citizens, why are you not demanding your own trident platforms, those yanks can't be trusted....jeezus...

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

I was looking for a post I could agree with so I didn't have to write one....this is it....nail hit squarely on the head.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

You were looking for platitudes, you found platitudes, well done.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Not a platitude, Im just in 100% agreement with what was said, I dont see any point of adding further lines that say the same thing thats already been written.

Maybe i should have just gone for the simple "good post" emoticon.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

It's also worth noting that one of Argentine commander Gen Menendez' staff officers had been a student at the Staff College in Camberley the previous year. My old man told me some time later (he was on the directing staff at Camberley that year) that amongst the logistics and planning exercises on the syllabus was a hypothetical scenario wherein a nominally friendly foreign power invaded a British protectorate in a far-flung corner of the world. The conclusion was that it was neither militarily nor economically viable to use force to retake the territory. The staff officer concerned was apparently very surprised (and his subsequent career prospects seriously dented) when the Task Force was deployed.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Obviously Britain wouldn't use the deterrent for anything other than the British national interest. Why would USA or France use theirs for the British national interest?

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Interesting update on whether there is a need for Trident:

Labour's Emily Thornberry: Trident may be obsolete in 10 years – audio | Politics | The Guardian

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Trident was obsolete the day it was conceived.
It was never the child of common sense, more that of the military and defense industries aided and abetted by a weak political class.
Q. What is the purpose of Trident?
A. In the first instance as a deterrent. In the second instance as a weapon of war.
Q. Who would anyone aim this deterrent at?
A. I can't think of any that fulfill the target properties.
Q. If deterrent fails, who might enter the crosshairs? There is the much vaunted ambition of the PRK but you don't need a Trident for that. Equally Iran has temporarily turned away from nuclear ambition, buy it wasn't Trident that influenced this. IS? Not even credible.
So the purpose of Trident is spending taxes and filling pockets. If it were maintaining employment then the UK government could have done this more effectively and more cheaply by supporting the steel industry.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

Hmmmm... I think that that train left the station years ago. However there might be another along shortly if NATO continues to creep up to Russian borders.
There's nothing like a rumbling fear inducing bogey man to stoke the fires under defense budgets a little... and Putin, well he'll fill the bill nicely.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

With, to put it nicely, bloody good reason

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

You have to remember that the USSR was invaded twice by the west in the 20th century, lost in excess of 20m dead in WW2, and whatever the comics and funny papers might have had you believe when you were young, it wasn't the Tommies or the GIs who decided the outcome of WW2 in Europe, it was the descendants of Kutusov and those who sent Napoleon packing.
The issue we have to deal with is that we tend to be self centered when we view history. We fail to look at events from the viewpoint of the adversary.
The Russians are right to be wary of NATO whose political masters see Russia-bashing as a means to improve their personal political ambitions.
'Ahhhhhh,' I hear you say, 'What about the annexation of the Crimea, that proves Putin's a bum.'
Not so, look at the history of the events. The annexation followed the overthrow of a democratically elected government sympathetic to Russia, but we don't hear much about that.
It seems that democracy is only good when it suits us.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

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.

Re: Nuclear deterrent: Trident
 

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.