So.....are Trident a necessary deterrent?

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

You think the only reason we haven't had a world war in the last 70 years is because, at any moment, a nuclear country can just say **** it and destroy the planet? Are you serious? Nuclear weapons are a pointless expense and we should use that money where it is required, the NHS for a start.

Yes, I am serious. The history of the "civilised" world is one long timeline of one aggressor,after another, waging war on their neighbours, ruthlessly. These depots will always be there. A nuclear capability means that a huge military force like Russia or China can be discouraged and, therefore negated by a lesser power. There will always be willy waving and harsh threats, but in the end, the cost of aggression would be too high. Rogue nuclear states might think twice before attacking a better equipped "enemy"

 

[sir albion]

Ok so Putin decides to he wants to get rid of us. He bombs us. The USA the bombs Russia. The world ends. But thank god we spend billions on nuclear warheads right?

Russia would more likely flatten us and the states with their nuclear arsenal lol
I do think we will see nuclear attacks in the future as the worlds becoming very volatile.

 

[The Albion Roar]

The point is not to use them. They are an asset to possess that let's all current and future states know that its a bad idea to drop nukes on the UK. Nobody can predict what the future will be like in 10 - 50 years, so I think it would be logically to keep them...at least until the super advanced aliens take them away from us.

Warfare has moved on from needing nuclear warheads.

Once upon a time, nations fought over sovereignty, cowardly superiority and ideology, and obliterating the enemy was considered the victorious thing to do. Now they fight for economical power and financial gain.

Scenario - Russia wants something major (oil deals / gas deals / influence in a given region) from a non-nuclear UK. The UK says 'no'. Russia obliterates the UK; the UK and most of western Europe, parts of eastern Europe and Russia become a no-go zone for anyone for 50 years. Russia doesn't get what it wants.

That pretty much makes nuclear warheads redundant.

I wonder if Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland et al feel equally bullied by Russia?

Russia would more likely flatten us and the states with their nuclear arsenal lol
I do think we will see nuclear attacks in the future as the worlds becoming very volatile.

What purpose is served for Russia flattening the UK? What would they hope to achieve?

 

[dangull]

Why not? They would still have their army, all their leaders and everything else. Only now they have a great propaganda event to get their people on side. If anything it makes us worse off.

The USA, NATO led alliance would not make that impossible.

Nuclear war means nobody is a winner.

 

[The Rivet]

In response to a Midnight_rendezvous post:

That's not quite the only scenario is it ?

Putin threatens us with the bomb. He gambles the US will not retaliate on our behalf. Game over.

You were called naïve some little time ago, now Midnight_rendezvous might deserve the same accusation don't you think?

 

[sir albion]

Warfare has moved on from needing nuclear warheads.

Once upon a time, nations fought over sovereignty, cowardly superiority and ideology, and obliterating the enemy was considered the victorious thing to do. Now they fight for economical power and financial gain.

Scenario - Russia wants something major (oil deals / gas deals / influence in a given region) from a non-nuclear UK. The UK says 'no'. Russia obliterates the UK; the UK and most of western Europe, parts of eastern Europe and Russia become a no-go zone for anyone for 50 years. Russia doesn't get what it wants.

That pretty much makes nuclear warheads redundant.

I wonder if Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland et al feel equally bullied by Russia?



What purpose is served for Russia flattening the UK? What would they hope to achieve?

To be fair we have nothing and it's unlikely although we're not the most liked country in the world and just poodle to the USA.

I'd be happy to let all these top guns battle it out while I sit in the pub

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Warfare has moved on from needing nuclear warheads.

Once upon a time, nations fought over sovereignty, cowardly superiority and ideology, and obliterating the enemy was considered the victorious thing to do. Now they fight for economical power and financial gain.

Scenario - Russia wants something major (oil deals / gas deals / influence in a given region) from a non-nuclear UK. The UK says 'no'. Russia obliterates the UK; the UK and most of western Europe, parts of eastern Europe and Russia become a no-go zone for anyone for 50 years. Russia doesn't get what it wants.

That pretty much makes nuclear warheads redundant.

I wonder if Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland et al feel equally bullied by Russia?



What purpose is served for Russia flattening the UK? What would they hope to achieve?

One nuclear warhead from Russia wouldn't obliterate the vast area that you describe. First of all, there would be the threat, then the cities one by one as we wouldn't have the capability to retaliate.

With nuclear weapons, Russia knows that with just one bomb sent on it's way, we can fire a missile in return already programmed to take out a major city. It's a standoff, and so has prevented them being used since the 1960s when we were first armed. See Cuba.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

The world could disarm its Nuclear stockpile tomorrow and it would not make a blind bit of difference,mankind has the ability and knowhow to make them again..

 

[dangull]

The world could disarm its Nuclear stockpile tomorrow and it would not make a blind bit of difference,mankind has the ability and knowhow to make them again..

It only takes something like the nutters from ISIS who would decide to use it without thinking to much, rather than Russia, North Korea, Iran, that will be the threat in the future.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

It only takes something like the nutters from ISIS who would decide to use it without thinking to much, rather than Russia, North Korea, Iran, that will be the threat in the future.

We live in a very dangerous world in reality,any flashpoint as you have stated could trigger at best a very uncomfortable future for us all.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

Of course they are, vital to our national security.
We would be literally defenceless otherwise

 

[easynow]

Warfare has moved on from needing nuclear warheads.

Once upon a time, nations fought over sovereignty, cowardly superiority and ideology, and obliterating the enemy was considered the victorious thing to do. Now they fight for economical power and financial gain.

Scenario - Russia wants something major (oil deals / gas deals / influence in a given region) from a non-nuclear UK. The UK says 'no'. Russia obliterates the UK; the UK and most of western Europe, parts of eastern Europe and Russia become a no-go zone for anyone for 50 years. Russia doesn't get what it wants.

That pretty much makes nuclear warheads redundant.

I wonder if Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland et al feel equally bullied by Russia?



What purpose is served for Russia flattening the UK? What would they hope to achieve?

There is no purpose. Since WW2, no country has liked the idea of being vapourised. It's the madness of nuclear war that has prevented major global conflict. I think national defence is one of the most essential areas to spend money on. If you can't properly defend yourself (or help your allies) from all types of threats then nothing else really matters.

 

[glasfryn]

No. Trident is utterly redundant in the modern world.

is the correct answer
one silly little weapon against massive odds
spend the money on hospitals and decent schools
remember MAD
we will all be dead anyway so why not enjoy the money when you can?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Yes , of course it is , with Russia throwing its weight about in Europe , China with its expansionist attitude in the Pacific , not to mention those level headed North Koreans , or what about about nuclear armed Pakistan , thats a nice stable country with no chance whatsoever of being taken over by a more radical islamic movement, yep, youre 100% right , we'd me absolutely mad to retain a deterrent

Quite right. Any UK politician arguing for unilateral nuclear disarmament is not fit for office, a threat to our national security and does not take the defence of this country seriously .. (Corbyn/Sturgeon two excellent examples)

 

[wellquickwoody]

You think the only reason we haven't had a world war in the last 70 years is because, at any moment, a nuclear country can just say **** it and destroy the planet? Are you serious? Nuclear weapons are a pointless expense and we should use that money where it is required, the NHS for a start.

So what is the cause of us not seeing a multi national conflict in the world for 71 years nearly?

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Just one nuclear warhead is enough to dine at the top table. We have a multitude. Trident does not need upgrading.

The spheres of influence spread further than one appreciates with us having a say at that table and that say is independent too.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

is the correct answer
one silly little weapon against massive odds
spend the money on hospitals and decent schools
remember MAD
we will all be dead anyway so why not enjoy the money when you can?

A nuclear bomb is not a silly little weapon. We wouldn't all die. There is a man in Japan who survived both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

The world is now run on economics. If Johnny Foreigner is going to bomb the hell out of everyone else then who will buy their consumer goods!

 

[Half Time Pies]

The idea of having nuclear weapons as a deterrent might seems crazy at the moment in a unipolar world with one major power however the international political situation can change very quickly. Nuclear weapons were very relevant during the cold war which only ended 25 years ago more recently they have no doubt prevented a war from breaking out between India and Pakistan.

The balance of power in the world has shifted with regularity throughout history and there is no reason why it won't shift again. Although we are living safely under the umbrella of NATO at the moment imagine what we would feel like without that protection in place. I don't expect the US to continue to be the predominant power forever so we shouldn't be totally reliant on them for our defence, we need to plan for the future and a world which may be significantly less stable that the one we currently live in.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

The idea of having nuclear weapons as a deterrent might seems crazy at the moment in a unipolar world with one major power however the international political situation can change very quickly. Nuclear weapons were very relevant during the cold war which only ended 25 years ago more recently they have no doubt prevented a war from breaking out between India and Pakistan.

The balance of power in the world has shifted with regularity throughout history and there is no reason why it won't shift again. Although we are living safely under the umbrella of NATO at the moment imagine what we would feel like without that protection in place. I don't expect the US to continue to be the predominant power forever so we shouldn't be totally reliant on them for our defence, we need to plan for the future and a world which may be significantly less stable that the one we currently live in.

The cold war has started again,not quite as cold but getting colder cold enough for Cheyenne Mountain Complex to be opened again.