So, where does everyone stand on the Trident replacement?

Chat Forum

[closed]

So, where does everyone stand on the Trident replacement?

109 posts & 52 voices | Started 2 years ago by Daffy | Latest reply from BigEaredBiker

Tags:

Pages: « Previous 1 234 Next »

rkk01 - Member

The deterrant force as it stands represents a cost that we cannot afford.

The Lib Dems are not advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament, merely that we cannot justify the cost of replacing the current system. If at some stage the economy picks up and as a Nation we can justify spending money on a class of submarines with no other task than lurking in the ocean depths, then so be it.

The use of attack submarines with cruise misiles offers a level of deterrance more appropriate to current world issues.

The argument about losing our military industrial capacity hardly holds true. Nobody is suggesting not having nuclear powered subs in the Navy - sub construction would not cease. We haven't built an aircraft carrier since WW2, but that isn't stopping us designing and building a new class of carriers for the 21st century..

Posted 2 years ago #
brakes - Member

what would happen it you fired a nuke into a volcano?

Posted 2 years ago #
chewkw - Member

Keep the Trident.

Posted 2 years ago #
Whathaveisaidnow - Member

No UK, . . . no X-Factor!

That there is deterrent enough.

Posted 2 years ago #
west kipper - Member

Someone may correct me on this...
But I've read somewhere that Trident is not an independent deterrent anyway, that the system 'needs American permission before it can be used'
If thats the case, then surely we're nothing more than a glorified American frontline force, and we're ACTUALLY PAYING for the privilege.

If its true or not, I'm still in favour of getting rid, as others have said, its time this country stopped trying to kid on that we're the school bully's 'second hardest' wee mate.

Posted 2 years ago #
mt - Member

Why not spend the money on ensuring our countries food security.

Posted 2 years ago #
FG - Member

Perhaps someone can explain for me why we can't just keep the system we have currently?

That's what the LibDem's are proposing - they say that our subs can last 45 years (like similar American ones) rather than 25 like the government says.

Posted 2 years ago #
konabunny - Member

Why not spend the money on ensuring our countries food security.

What would be "food security"? What would be the use of it if we didn't have "energy security", or "connectivity security"? It's impossible to be totally self-reliant on anything these days. Ask North Korea...

Posted 2 years ago #
mt - Member

Konabunny - good question but you are thinking old world with NK comment.

Food security, energy security, they are all linked. Since when has self relaince been the long term way to security?

Posted 2 years ago #
konabunny - Member

OK, then, fair enough - what is "food security"? There is no problem with supply so long as we have the money for it - same with oil.

Posted 2 years ago #
grim168 - Member

Scrap it and but more typhoons. Guess where I work

Posted 2 years ago #
mt - Member

Hello Konabunny.

My comments are purely bored Friday afternoon so keep that in mind. Most of the UK's food is imported (and the % is getting higher each year), how do we protect that supply? Is the danger to that supply higher than any nuclear threat? Given that a strong Navy has in the past been used to secure the UK's access to it's suppliers, what use will a nuclear missle be when I want my toast. Since the Navies ships all require some sort of energy supply to power them as do all the worlds farmers with thier tractors what will be do feed 60 odd million people needing food?

It will soon be 4 so am off home.

Posted 2 years ago #
nickc - Member

Interestingly there are about the same numbers of people employed making Korma Sauce as there are involved in the UK weapons industry, we don't worry about their employment prospects...

Why have a nuclear deterrent? Look at the Permanent members of the UN security Council...therein lies the answer.

It's a "relatively" small price to pay for having that sort of influence. Whether we should have that influence is another argument, probably

Posted 2 years ago #
Edric 64 - Member

With a smaller Navy and Airforce Trident is a must surely? Our forces have been severely depleted over the years there is no way we could mount a campaign like the Falklands now.i think we need a nuclear threat to complement our shrinking forces and standing as a world power

Posted 2 years ago #
nickc - Member

Guys, Trident isn't a "weapon" in the normal meaning of the term, you have to stop thinking in terms of this thing being used, it's an entry ticket to a club...It separates those "with influence" and those "without".

Now certainly you can have a debate about whether the UK should wield that sort of influence, what with the balance of economic power shifting to the East, but as long as the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office remains one of the first people that an incoming PM talks to, we'll have a Nuclear weapons programme...

Posted 2 years ago #
konabunny - Member

Most of the UK's food is imported (and the % is getting higher each year), how do we protect that supply?

Most of everything is imported, at least partially. Martin Luther King said "Before you've finished your breakfast, you will have relied on half the world", and that was fifty years ago!

How do we protect that supply? I dunno - what's the biggest threat?

Posted 2 years ago #
simonfbarnes - Member

It separates those "with influence" and those "without".

on the "Big Bully Club" ? Why would one want to be in ?

Posted 2 years ago #
DickBarton - Member

Was this not a long running joke with Yes Minister and the Yes, Prime Minister? Is there a 3rd series to come about due to this Trident thing?

Posted 2 years ago #
backhander - Member

Guys, Trident isn't a "weapon" in the normal meaning of the term, you have to stop thinking in terms of this thing being used, it's an entry ticket to a club...It separates those "with influence" and those "without".

Quite right.
Couldn't we just lie about it?
Have the "deterrent" and the club pass and save the money?

Posted 2 years ago #
porterclough - Member

Couldn't we just lie about it?
Have the "deterrent" and the club pass and save the money?

Didn't work very well for Saddam. He took the "beware of the dog" sign down and denied he had a dog, but carried on playing a tape recording of barking in the garage. Didn't stop the US breaking in on the pretext of getting rid of the imaginary dog.

Posted 2 years ago #
thekingisdead - Member

We don't even build the trident missles - they are bought in from the states (as was polaris

So what does AWE aldmerston do?
The UK build's the majority of the trident weapon system. IIRC some parts are bought from the states.

I need to learn? really? I never argued that a Submarine with a nuclear payload was the same as one powered by either a PW1 or PW2 nuclear reactor. I said that by killing the replacement program you kill the workforce. When Barrow was building the Trafalgar class, they were designing the Vanguard class, as the Vanguard class was being built, they were designing the Future Attack Sub, which became Astute (they also designed and built 2 RFA support ships) During the Astute build phase, they are currently designing the Successor program, during that build program they design the replacements for the Astute class.

To be fair, you're original post does *imply* that you thought that a nuclear powered and a nuclear armed sub are one and the same. The industry could survive designing / making only SSN's, probably in much smaller numbers than it employs now though.

My job would go if Trident wasnt replaced, Still think it should be scrapped though. Waste of money, IMHO.

Posted 2 years ago #
backhander - Member

Didn't work very well for Saddam. He took the "beware of the dog" sign down and denied he had a dog, but carried on playing a tape recording of barking in the garage. Didn't stop the US breaking in on the pretext of getting rid of the imaginary dog.

Fair one, but we have no desirable natural resources.

Posted 2 years ago #
thekingisdead - Member

but we have no desirable natural resources

....not withstanding the fine women of slough.

Posted 2 years ago #
backhander - Member

...excluding the womanfolk of slough obviously.

Posted 2 years ago #
anjs - Member

Couple of points:-

Big diffrence between nuclear armed and powered subs

Not a squadron of Typhoons at Port Stanley just Flt 1435 of 4

Awe is now run by Lockhead Martin

Posted 2 years ago #
noteeth - Member

As befits the offspring of an Army officer and a CND activist, I **** well refuse to rationalise nuclear weaponry - not least the white elephant pile of sh1te that is Trident. Split the difference between conventional forces and hospitals (inc looking after the chaps and chapesses who saw us through the last big lot of bother - it's the WWII generation who fill our under-resourced elderly care wards, FFS). Just make sure that we have sufficiently-trained bods to slot any radical getting rad with a dirty suitcase - that is where the threat comes from, imo.

I dinnae have any quarrel with the ordinary folk of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea. Still less do I want the means to turn 'em into dust. We should simply bring back the Panhellenic Games - and let the **** politicos fight it out with each other on the sportsfield.

Waste of money. Get rid.

Posted 2 years ago #
druidh - Member

I rather like the idea of having an English nuclear deterrent based in an independent Scotland....

I wonder what the rent would be?

Posted 2 years ago #
thekingisdead - Member

Awe is now run by Lockhead Martin

Correct, but the weapons are still built in the UK.

Posted 2 years ago #
Daffy - Member

Big diffrence between nuclear armed and powered subs

Not in terms of design.

Posted 2 years ago #
thekingisdead - Member

Big diffrence between nuclear armed and powered subs

Not in terms of design

i dont think anyones talking about the design of the subs here Daffy.

The "big differnce" comment was made in response to the implied suggestion that all submarines carried a nuclear detterent.

Posted 2 years ago #
Kuco - Member

Why have them and not use them. Come on guys their just sitting there gathering dust at least let one banger off

Posted 2 years ago #
bassspine - Member

noteeth - Member

I **** well refuse to rationalise nuclear weaponry - not least the white elephant pile of sh1te that is Trident. Split the difference between conventional forces and hospitals

Just make sure that we have sufficiently-trained bods to slot any radical getting rad with a dirty suitcase - that is where the threat comes from, imo.

I dinnae have any quarrel with the ordinary folk of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea. Still less do I want the means to turn 'em into dust. We should simply bring back the Panhellenic Games - and let the **** politicos fight it out with each other on the sportsfield.

Waste of money. Get rid.

spot on, noteeth. You've got my vote

Posted 2 years ago #
mt - Member

konabunny - Member

Most of the UK's food is imported (and the % is getting higher each year), how do we protect that supply?

Most of everything is imported, at least partially. Martin Luther King said "Before you've finished your breakfast, you will have relied on half the world", and that was fifty years ago!

How do we protect that supply? I dunno - what's the biggest threat?

Hi Kona, That is the big question is Trident part of the answer? Or would the money be better spent on other things given the unstable world?

Posted 2 years ago #
west kipper - Member

So, can one of you Janes-defence trainspotter types confirm or deny what I mentioned earlier, that we need American approval for the launch codes?.
Because its worse than a white elephant if that's true.

Posted 2 years ago #
tree-magnet - Member

west kipper - Member
So, can one of you Janes-defence trainspotter types confirm or deny what I mentioned earlier, that we need American approval for the launch codes?.
Because its worse than a white elephant if that's true.

And as a hemp wearing hippy (seeing as we're making unfounded assumptions), can you? I've certainly never heard that, why would it be the case?

Posted 2 years ago #