Trident.......yes or no

[ThePompousPaladin]

And all 16 missiles can be fired in a certain time because once you have launched the first missile everyone will know where you are and basically you have signed your own death warrant but you should get all your missiles away by the time they wipe you out..... Hopefully

I think the size of the warheads is key, the bigger the warhead the less likely we are to use them.

If they are huge, then they can only act as a deterrent in a MAD scenario. If they are small and could be used 'tactically', then they would become a real threat, and perhaps act as even more of a deterrent, or as a viable way of projecting power.

I'm not advocating nuking people, just hypothesizing that if individual war heads could take out say ships or an army, with minimal collateral damage, they could be used in more situations as a deterrent.

I'm not sure of it's capabilities to be honest, are you allowed to comment?

 

[matthew]

No and in 20-30 years time there'll be another upgrade and another obscene amount of money wasted. That money could be used to make us more energy independent or take millions of people out of poverty

 

[glasfryn]

As someone who used to serve on these boats I can explain that each missile has three warheads
Every missile has a different target
And all 16 missiles can be fired in a certain time because once you have launched the first missile everyone will know where you are and basically you have signed your own death warrant but you should get all your missiles away by the time they wipe you out..... Hopefully

but why I don't care if we kill anyone after they have wiped us out, only those in power anywhere would have that stupid wry smile that says we got you as well
I always thought the MAD system was only generated by those in power, who if they were lucky would be in some bunker somewhere only to die later either by those who might have survived or by some aweful radiation illness

 

[wellquickwoody]

The decision to renew will just make some defence contractors even richer. That's the point of renewing. Greasing the wheels. It's nothing to do with national defence.

Unless you are self sufficient in all areas of your life then you are continually making someone else richer?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

No point to it as the moment we fire any nuclear missile the UK will be OBLITERATED in return

Mr Cameron would be happy with that outcome as it eradicates the national debt in an instant.

 

[simmo]

Let me give an example of how I think it deters. Between 1915 and 1945 enemies of Britain's launched bombers over our country and bombed all of our major cities.

After 1945 and for the next 70 years up to today, that has not occured once even though another enemy of ours, the (former) Soviet air force was far superior to ours.

Why do you think no other air force has dropped a single bomb on Britain since 1945? Lots of other countries have been bombed by various air forces, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea (North and South) Egypt, Libya and in Europe itself Serbia to name but a few off the top of my head

For me a primary and major factor into why no enemy air force has bombed us (conventionally) is the very possibility of their own nuclear anhiliation if they do so.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's what those with a vested interest in keeping you fearful would have you believe.

It's far more likely that the economic deterrent is in play. In spite of the bellicose rhetoric in which some countries indulge, the civilised world is inextricably intertwined through it's trading relationships.

agree with what you say, however that applies to the last 20-25 years. nuclear MAD applied to the 40 years prior to that. the two concepts are mutually exclusive. the question is, will we continue on the path economic MAD or return to one where nuclear MAD is relevant again?

 

[glasfryn]

Let me give an example of how I think it deters. Between 1915 and 1945 enemies of Britain's launched bombers over our country and bombed all of our major cities.

After 1945 and for the next 70 years up to today, that has not occured once even though another enemy of ours, the (former) Soviet air force was far superior to ours.

Why do you think no other air force has dropped a single bomb on Britain since 1945? Lots of other countries have been bombed by various air forces, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea (North and South) Egypt, Libya and in Europe itself Serbia to name but a few off the top of my head

For me a primary and major factor into why no enemy air force has bombed us (conventionally) is the very possibility of their own nuclear anhiliation if they do so.

the reason for this is probably we all learned from the two world wars, and those you think might bomb us now were our alies predominantly Russia who for most of that 70 years have been occupied with keeping their own satellite states in order.
the next war will not be conventional it will be electronic,digital and maybe nuclear.
and any nuclear weapons we may have will be very insignificant.
one subarine in the Norwegian ffiords and three in bay might just knock one of theirs whoever they might be out for a short while
senario is they might want to contact someone here for permission to strike .........and there will be no answer

 

[Thunder Bolt]

the reason for this is probably we all learned from the two world wars, and those you think might bomb us now were our alies predominantly Russia who for most of that 70 years have been occupied with keeping their own satellite states in order.
the next war will not be conventional it will be electronic,digital and maybe nuclear.
and any nuclear weapons we may have will be very insignificant.
one subarine in the Norwegian ffiords and three in bay might just knock one of theirs whoever they might be out for a short while
senario is they might want to contact someone here for permission to strike .........and there will be no answer

The four minute warning is plenty of time to send 16 nuclear warheads in retaliation, which is why we won't be attacked.

Think of it as being in your home, whilst other houses in your street are being attacked. You have several machine guns at various windows protecting your property. You won't use them unless you are attacked. You won't be attacked because you have those machine guns.

 

[The Spanish]

The four minute warning is plenty of time to send 16 nuclear warheads in retaliation, which is why we won't be attacked.

Think of it as being in your home, whilst other houses in your street are being attacked. You have several machine guns at various windows protecting your property. You won't use them unless you are attacked. You won't be attacked because you have those machine guns.

Deterrence only works for so long, if being armed was in itself a deterrent no one would ever engage in combat. But this is constantly disproved. At a point this value of deterrence will disappear, due to a failing in rationality, or simply blood being up.

Nuclear weapons will be used in large numbers at some point and we will see a full scale nuclear war, globally. I cannot even begin to believe, based on humanity's track record, that we can resist forever the temptation of smashing each other to bits with them eventually.

 

[glasfryn]

The four minute warning is plenty of time to send 16 nuclear warheads in retaliation, which is why we won't be attacked.

Think of it as being in your home, whilst other houses in your street are being attacked. You have several machine guns at various windows protecting your property. You won't use them unless you are attacked. You won't be attacked because you have those machine guns.

if its a nuclear war we all be dead and I for one don't give a fig if we get 16 off before the 4 minute warning
and those machine guns you talk of might just as well be water pistols our 16 against their 1000's of nuclear warheads.

 

[Diego Napier]

agree with what you say, however that applies to the last 20-25 years. nuclear MAD applied to the 40 years prior to that. the two concepts are mutually exclusive. the question is, will we continue on the path economic MAD or return to one where nuclear MAD is relevant again?

I can't see us forsaking economic co-operation. People in Russia are the same as people in the West, we know that because we holiday there and they holiday (and buy property) over here. The old stereotypes that frightened lots of the population into believing a nuclear holocaust was imminent worked well in the immediate aftermath of WW2. Even as we shivered in fear that apocalypse was to be visited upon us by those monstrously alien communists, economic ties were being quietly forged that rapidly led to economic dependence. What would be the advantage to our respective leaders in manipulating the populace to revert to that paranoia?

 

[yxee]

if its a nuclear war we all be dead and I for one don't give a fig if we get 16 off before the 4 minute warning
and those machine guns you talk of might just as well be water pistols our 16 against their 1000's of nuclear warheads.

But this isn't logical. You're saying "If there's a nuclear war" and analysis that situation. What the analysis misses is that this chance is much lower when we have the deterrent.

 

[supaseagull]

Apparently Russia has just one nuke which can wipe out pretty much the whole of the South East of England. Therefore, our arsenal or around 500 nukes is pretty insignificant.

We also get told that it's a deterrent. A deterrent for what exactly? The terrorists? Russia? Iran?

Also if it's a deterrent then how come all the other countries around the world without nukes haven't been invaded.

 

[jakarta]

I can't see us forsaking economic co-operation.

That would be the Sanctions we currently are taking against Russia?

 

[jakarta]

Also if it's a deterrent then how come all the other countries around the world without nukes haven't been invaded.

Perhaps you should ask a Ukrainian that question.....

 

[yxee]

Apparently Russia has just one nuke which can wipe out pretty much the whole of the South East of England. Therefore, our arsenal or around 500 nukes is pretty insignificant.

We also get told that it's a deterrent. A deterrent for what exactly? The terrorists? Russia? Iran?

Also if it's a deterrent then how come all the other countries around the world without nukes haven't been invaded.

Like Ukraine? What about the Baltic states who live in fear of invasion? Syria, Iraq? Egypt? Nigeria? Sudan? Congo?

You can't just take a snapshot and let that decide the next 100 years of foreign military policy. It is extremely alarming how many people are willing to throw this away to save money.

 

[stripeyshark]

Yes. The deterent is the fact that our Prime Minister has the option to use it, as a last resort.

With the go ahead from the queen surely?

 

[Greyrun]

Perhaps you should ask a Ukrainian that question.....

And the people of Georgia.

 

[sir albion]

Rather spend the money on having properly funded conventional forces. People bang on about nuclear weapons maintaining the peace...what peace? There has been Korea, Falklands , two Iraq wars, Afghanistan plus all the terror related stuff. None of those countries/groups were concerned about British Nuclear weapons. So in effect we have paid billions on Polaris/Trident for precisely zilch.

As for Russia, do you honestly think Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea/Eastern part of its country even if Ukraine had nuclear weapons? What would Ukraine do, blow Moscow to kingdom come? It wouldn't. But what would have made Russia think twice is if Ukraine had stronger conventional forces to give Putin a bit of a hiding from the start. If Russia has ideas of invading Poland/Baltics or even the UK its conventional forces that would stop him, and currently the west is weak on that score.

Replacing Trident means we have 4 nuclear subs, but conventional forces down to reserves .

The bottom line is Nuclear weapons are such hideous weapons - the end of all of us - that they simply cannot be used. For that reason alone I wouldn't replace

There will come a time when the west gets its comeuppance....Its as if the rest of the world are being bullied into westernisation and like it or lump it
Russia as a country are probably sick and tired of the likes of us and the USA etc dictating what the world should be like.Lets be frank russia is the only real threat on this planet when it comes nuclear weapons etc...Every country is entitled to be diffrent and if they want to flex their muscles against us or the USA then so be it as they're probably Facked off with all these countries ganging up like little bullies to defeat them and Nick their fossil fuels etc.

We whizz into Afghanistan and Iraq for what?
As far as I'm concerned I wish the Russians well as its all rather tedious at times...They have one of the biggest army's and the most nuclear weapons by a country mile...If they blow up our little country the its been a long time coming as we've done nothing but kill innocent civilians and engaged in pointless wars that seem to be about oil.

From Russia with love
Im no tree hugger type either