Trident replacement

[beorhthelm]

something missed in the debate is that in 10, 15, 20 years time we could be facing nuclear threat from Russia or any other Eastern European country, or joking aside even France. the nuclear deterent shouldnt be viewed in the here and now, but longer term strategic potential threats. once you dont have it, it would be incredibly difficult to rebuild the knowledge and expertise.

 

[itszamora]

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.

Hence why it's defensive - if at some point in the future a nutter in charge of Iran, or North Korea, or whoever, decides that nuking us is a good idea, the thought that they will be vapourised if they try might well make them think twice. It is bizarre, but the weapon's worth lies not in it being used, but in the fact that it can be used.

And Hitler from about 1943 was completely insane. Nuclear weapons are a world away from the V weapons.

 

[8ace]

i believe the current system is designed to destroy the cities of Moscow and St Petersburg and that's about it - can anyone confirm?

 

[itszamora]

i believe the current system is designed to destroy the cities of Moscow and St Petersburg and that's about it - can anyone confirm?

I'm pretty sure they can be fired wherever we aim them at. However yes as a Cold War system, I suspect they were built with those two places in mind. I can't imagine that hitting them is any different to anywhere else in the world though.

 

[beorhthelm]

Except that a Nuclear weapon isn't a 'defensive' weapon, it's a very 'offensive' one.

*A* nuclear weapon is offensive. A nuclear deterent system, ie one that can be launched in responce to an attack or under standing orders in the event of no communication from government, is defensive. dont hit us because we can and will hit you back.

 

[8ace]

I'm pretty sure they can be fired wherever we aim them at. However yes as a Cold War system, I suspect they were built with those two places in mind. I can't imagine that hitting them is any different to anywhere else in the world though.

Yeah it's an entirely SLBM based system so could be launched at anywhere I guess.
You have answered my question about the size of the system so thanks

 

[User removed 4]

something missed in the debate is that in 10, 15, 20 years time we could be facing nuclear threat from Russia or any other Eastern European country, or joking aside even France. the nuclear deterent shouldnt be viewed in the here and now, but longer term strategic potential threats. once you dont have it, it would be incredibly difficult to rebuild the knowledge and expertise.

You missed out China! Do people not realise that the same people that were responsible for killing their own in tiananmen square are still in charge there, if they've got a nuclear capability , i'm quite sure i want one too, i certainly wouldnt put it beyond these people to attempt to strongarm us into something under nuclear duress.

 

[The Spanish]

Very difficult to quatify but I would imagine our independent nuclear capability has paid for itself many times over through the years.

I am even not getting into the old 'oh its silly we are not a world power any more' bollocks. just an insignificant little trillion dollar economy and nuclear power with an obscure language which owns vast amounts of assets worldwide. why the self hate all the time?

 

[folkestonesgull]

If China wanted to take on the world it could, but why would it when it can sell to us all instead?

If you look at countries like Iran they believe it is hypocrisy that we have nuclear weapons but tell them they can't. Why I disagree with what Iran are doing they have a fair point.

If I look at our place in the modern world I would like to see us as a similar 'player' to Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries. None of these have nuclear defense systems in place...

 

[Franks Wild Years]

This

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

The only two real choices for the government should be a replacement of the current system as it stands or abandoning it altogether. Any smaller system would not allow us to have the continuous at sea deterrence that we have operated since the 1960s which means there is always at least one sub on patrol - which pretty much guarantees our ability to strike against any attack on us. An ending of this policy would ironically make it more likely we would have to use the system as at times of heightened tension we would have to put the subs out to patrol which in itself would raise the stakes with any prospective enemy.

We would also be kidding ourselves if we think that any savings would be spent on the military - there is no way the money would be ringfenced. Also dont be misled by the 80-100bn figures bandied around. This is a figure covering the 50 year lifespan of the system and includes all the shore infrastructure, training, salaries etc - 2bn a year to both guarantee our security and ensure we keep our seat in the UN Security Council is a small price to pay. Also note that the French nuclear system costs 15% of their defence budget - ours is about 4% as we maintain an independent system but piggy back on US R&D expenditure.

We cant just keep the current system as it stands as in about 10 years time the Vanguard submarines will start to spring leaks - and given the length of time it takes to build and design new subs then the process needed to start about three years ago.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

You missed out China! Do people not realise that the same people that were responsible for killing their own in tiananmen square are still in charge there, if they've got a nuclear capability , i'm quite sure i want one too, i certainly wouldnt put it beyond these people to attempt to strongarm us into something under nuclear duress.

China is one of our most important trading partners ( we are one of their biggest export markets ) and isn't about to launch a conventional, never mind nuclear attack against us. Maybe they'll attack Taiwan or an uprising in Tibet, but we are of no Political importance to them.

In 20 or 30 years time Trident will be obsolete, and it's replacement will also be obsolete.

The MAD philosophy is also obsolete. The only Country that has used a Nuclear weapon has been the United States, they are de-facto the Country that poses the greatest threat.

 

[London Calling]

something missed in the debate is that in 10, 15, 20 years time we could be facing nuclear threat from Russia or any other Eastern European country, or joking aside even France. the nuclear deterent shouldnt be viewed in the here and now, but longer term strategic potential threats. once you dont have it, it would be incredibly difficult to rebuild the knowledge and expertise.

We can still **** up there countries without nuclear weapons, why do we need to be able to say, we will also destroy your nation and by the way in this example all of the surrounding nations , and probably the whole of Europe.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Hmm, a Nuclear attack against France. I'm pretty certain that would probably result in a large swathe of London and the South East suffering substantial Radioactive contamination.

Brighton would probably be destroyed in the shock wave.

Still if you want to shit on your own doorstep be my guest.

 

[glasfryn]

its never a deterent .............and none of us will ever see it working will we, spend the money on something else

 

[itszamora]

its never a deterent .............and none of us will ever see it working will we, spend the money on something else

That's the entire point - no we won't see it working, but that is PRECISELY why it is a deterrent. Without nuclear weapons I suspect the Cold War would have been a whole lot warmer, as the USSR could have rolled into much of Europe without the fear of total annihilation.

 

[itszamora]

Yeah it's an entirely SLBM based system so could be launched at anywhere I guess.
You have answered my question about the size of the system so thanks

I think in terms of size of the warheads, weapons have moved away from the enormous 50-odd megaton bombs simply because delivery systems are much more accurate. Wikipedia says most of our warheads are 80-100 kilotons, roughly six times as powerful as the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima. Each of our missiles can also carry up to eight independently-targeted warheads, so that's quite a lot of destructive power.

 

[perth seagull]

Keep it to protect our oil reserves in the South Atlantic from those slimey Argentines.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

As others have said - you dont know that the deterrent works - you only know when it has failed. Its a hedge against the future and a lot cheaper in terms of its impact (political impact not military) than anything else we have.

China could well be a threat in the coming years - they state they will try and take Taiwan by force which will draw in other countries around the world. Trade means nothing to them in this area, Taiwan is its major trading partner. The Chinese also increase thier defence budget by 15-20% every year now for many years and are rapidly expanding their nuclear capability. If people really think that a war between China and Taiwan will not affect us then they are plain wrong.

And in reference to relying on the US - the Soviet Union policy during the Cold War was to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Netherlands (ignoring the fact that the Soviets had a no first use policy). The logic being that it would show the US that they were serious about the war, get them to stay out of Europe as would the US risk a global nuclear war to get some revenge for the Netherlands. We dont know what the global security situation will be in 50 years time and I for one wouldnt want to rely on the US in the face of a nculear threat.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

This is such an emptive subject [almost as much as which political party you support]
However, I think several of you are missing the fundamental purpose of a "deterrent" and how it actually deters. It's not unlike an insurance policy, you pay out hoping you never need it, but if you don't have it and something goes wrong, you are well and truly fcuked.

For the nuclear deterrent, any nation who choses to fire on us must know they will likely receive retaliation. NATO as an agrement never to be the first to strike [unlike in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks].

I believe we are all correct to suggest that Russia and China are no longer the nuclear threat to us. But if Iran or North Korea could strike us knowing we have nothing to retailiate with, I personnaly believe this to be quite a high risk.

A burgular alarm is a deterrent, it won't stop me being burgled, but increases the risk of a purpertrator being caught. It costs me about £150 a year in a maintenance contract. I'm now skint, so should I throw this deterent away? Like our country I don't harbour immense treasures so ought not to be a target, but just in case ....