Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Trident replacement
- Thread starter 8ace
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #2
I have voted fence, although sitting in the fence is not something I like to do.
I suppose the "fence" option for the government is a similar size deterrent but is it really the fence option when it is so expensive?
I don't really know enough about the subject to make an informed decision in this instance
I suppose the "fence" option for the government is a similar size deterrent but is it really the fence option when it is so expensive?
I don't really know enough about the subject to make an informed decision in this instance
brakespear
Doctor Worm
No deterrent, plenty of countries get by without.
disgruntled h blocker
Active member
Can't we just outsource it to the Americans just in case we want to nuke someone?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,019
what does the size matter? its about being suitably specified to enable a full retailitory strike in the event of us being attacked. its basic Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, dont nuke us or we'll land a few on your capital city. the current system costs rather alot because it maintains 4 subs, so one is always on patrol, lurking out in the sea undetected ready to respond. alternatives might be to have surface ships armed with Tomhawks, though they can be shot down and it much easier to find a ship bobbing about the ocean than a sub underneath. Land based launch makes that location a primary target so doesnt really work unless you have many.
Trufflehound
Re-enfranchised
Pitchforks.
SI 4 BHA
Active member
Can't we just pretend we've got a new system, rather like Saddam did with his WMDs? He seemed to be able to fool everyone, so why can't we.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
It's stupid to spend this money on a weapon that will never be used when our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were crying out for better equipment.
There's no imminent likelihood of us attacking Russia or China as they no longer represent any kind of threat. The Cold War was over 20 years ago and the kind of war we need to fight has changed. There won't be Warsaw pact forces sweeping across Western Germany towards us now.
So I'd say scrap it and put the money to spend on conventional weaponary instead.
The emerging Nuclear powers, say Iran, North Korea, India and Pakistan are more likely to have a scrap amongst themselves than look to attack us.
There's no imminent likelihood of us attacking Russia or China as they no longer represent any kind of threat. The Cold War was over 20 years ago and the kind of war we need to fight has changed. There won't be Warsaw pact forces sweeping across Western Germany towards us now.
So I'd say scrap it and put the money to spend on conventional weaponary instead.
The emerging Nuclear powers, say Iran, North Korea, India and Pakistan are more likely to have a scrap amongst themselves than look to attack us.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
What's NATO for?
Why does the UK, alone of all NATO members smaller than the USA, think that an "independent" capability to destroy the world is worth spending billions on?
Why does the UK, alone of all NATO members smaller than the USA, think that an "independent" capability to destroy the world is worth spending billions on?
Because as long as France has nuclear weapons I want Britain to aswell. Never trust the French.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
Well the French have an independant Nuclear deterrent as well.
My arguement against it is principally economic - it really is just an enormous white elephant now. There are better ways of defending this Country from attack. Your average Al Quaida inspired terrorist isn't worried about a Nuclear Strike - he's intending to martyr himself like the Kamikaze pilots of WW2 so the concept of MAD doesn't work in his mindset.
My arguement against it is principally economic - it really is just an enormous white elephant now. There are better ways of defending this Country from attack. Your average Al Quaida inspired terrorist isn't worried about a Nuclear Strike - he's intending to martyr himself like the Kamikaze pilots of WW2 so the concept of MAD doesn't work in his mindset.
Last edited:
34064 Fighter Command
New member
Because we haven't moved on from our Imperialist past, and are still deluding ourselves that we are a World Power and still have an Empire.
withdeanwombat
Well-known member
Gone for none.We are a pimple on the world atlas.We have been trying to pretend that the sun never goes down on the British Empire.
Hint. It has.
Hint. It has.
Are you comfortable with our ultimate form of defence resting not with ourselves but with the US then?
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,776
Spend money on a threat we would never use
or
Spend it on the troops in Afghanistan
It's a tough one isn't it
or
Spend it on the troops in Afghanistan
It's a tough one isn't it
- Thread starter
- #18
Spend money on a threat we would never use
or
Spend it on the troops in Afghanistan
It's a tough one isn't it
No chance that the money saved from Trident would go on regular defence spending.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
Except that a Nuclear weapon isn't a 'defensive' weapon, it's a very 'offensive' one. If we launched it there would be nothing left of the UK to speak of to be worth fighting for - it would be a radioactive wasteland that wouldn't be habitable for hundreds of years. Unless of course the persons we launched it against didn't have a Nuclear capability, in which case we would be guilty of using a WMD against a defenceless Country.
Hitler thought his 'V' weapons would be sufficient to stop Germany being defeated in 1945 - he was wrong.
- Thread starter
- #20
I agree with this but we've made a few new enemies recently, how long before we are in range of Iran's nukes?