Trident.......yes or no

[Diego Napier]

That's like saying we don't need a goalkeeper because there's one in Lewis. America will not use their nuclear deterrent if the UK is invaded, so our effective deterrent is nonexistent. The argument is invalid.

Oh the crushing irony of using such a woefully abject simile then stating someone else's argument is invalid.

 

[Diego Napier]

It's precisely because it's a no win situation, that it's a deterrent. I was well & truly in the Cold War, and who could forget the Cuban missile crisis?

You mean like the Germany nuclear deterrent?

 

[Hampster Gull]

You mean like the Germany nuclear deterrent?

The Germans are free loading on this which is fine, they are mindful of their WW experiences. You can only have so many though before the burden is too great on one country.

 

[Mr Bridger]

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

I do believe those wars have been away from the British Isles, because we have a deterrent.

Total agree that they are hideous weapons, but in the wrong hands........

 

[Yoda]

Note the source :

View attachment 64454

How would the Federation of American Scientists know the number of warheads?

The MoD is the source for the missile range above.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I do believe those wars have been away from the British Isles, because we have a deterrent.

Total agree that they are hideous weapons, but in the wrong hands........

Indeed. The problem is we cannot unlearn how to build a nuclear weapon and other hideous war weapons. We must therefore do our best to ensure we are suitably protected

 

[Diego Napier]

The Germans are free loading on this which is fine, they are mindful of their WW experiences. You can only have so many though before the burden is too great on one country.

Well if that's your one eyed view of their agreement to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that's up to you. We're both in a club that includes America, they have more than enough nuclear weapons to assure MAD (if that's still the current loopy theory being bought into; the economic deterrent has always held far greater sway than nuclear).

 

[Hotchilidog]

I thought we were keeping them so Bruce Willis can blow up massive asteroids on his weekends off away from the wife.

If trident were a deterrent to Bruce Willis from making films as awful as Armageddon then I'd be in favour. Deep Impact was way better.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Well if that's your one eyed view of their agreement to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that's up to you. We're both in a club that includes America, they have more than enough nuclear weapons to assure MAD (if that's still the current loopy theory being bought into; the economic deterrent has always held far greater sway than nuclear).

I tend to try and weigh up the facts and opinions and then take a view. Not sure it's one eyed. Anyway it's no criticism of Germany, they spend less than half what we do on defence for worthy historical reasons. On the American point they want us to keep trident

 

[studio150]

Yes

Mutually assured destruction has kept the major powers from starting WW111.

 

[Brovion]

Turkey are in NATO. Would we fire nuclear bombs at a country that invaded Turkey?

A country will only use the deterrent if it itself is under direct threat.

Even if you disagree with me, are you certain enough to gamble our existence on it?

'Gamble with our existence'? It's me who should be asking you that. No, I don't want to 'gamble with our existence', you're the one who wants to blow up the world. And no we wouldn't fire nuclear bombs at a country that invaded Turkey because we wouldn't have any.

 

[Hampster Gull]

'Gamble with our existence'? It's me who should be asking you that. No, I don't want to 'gamble with our existence', you're the one who wants to blow up the world. And no we wouldn't fire nuclear bombs at a country that invaded Turkey because we wouldn't have any.

Not sure yxee wants to blow up the world, at least not from the posts I have seen. Best to keep him away from the button just in case though

 

[Brovion]

A defence "club" only works if people pay their way. Doesn't mean everyone pays the same as there are different circumstances for all but expecting the US to do all is not credible. Anyway regardless 2.2% of GDP is reasonable for a sovereign state to protect itself. I suspect I spend that much protecting my personal belongings and house.

Yes, but if you'd read my first post (not the one you've quoted) you'd see that wasn't the point I was making. I'm not talking about us not pulling out weight in NATO, I'm talking about us focussing our resources.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Yes, but if you'd read my first post (not the one you've quoted) you'd see that wasn't the point I was making. I'm not talking about us not pulling out weight in NATO, I'm talking about us focussing our resources.

Fair enough, I take the point. if we could best serve nato through another means whilst ensuring we have a sufficient defence then ok. It is pretty difficult to call how we are best do this within the club. But I do think the yanks want us to keep it and I suspect it gives us more cloat

 

[Don Quixote]

If we ever have to fire it, no doubt it will be the end of the world, so it is pretty pointless.

 

[OzMike]

Yes and I wish we had it here.

 

[Seagull27]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Trident missile system entirely dependent on the USA, so we can't decide to fire any without their permission and cooperation?

In which case I see no point in us paying to keep it at all.

 

[simmo]

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

In theory any enemy of the future, Russia, China, an Islamic superstate (for examples) could overrun continental Europe and could be massed at Calais. Their leader will know that if they approve their Navy to invade Britain all their major cities COULD be utterly destroyed by us (causing them millions of casualties).

With the Global Financial crisis and the rise of Islamic fundementalism we do live in dangerous and very changeable times (more so than say the mid 90's)

 

[yxee]

To be fair, if the nuclear deterrent has to be used, it didn't serve its purpose as a deterrent.

That is such a bad logical argument.

 

[Ernest]

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