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.