Its political status is more obscure and ultimately more important, but is still linked to its design purpose.

to blow shit up?

Thats what it does but why do we need it? What does it do that conventional stuff doesn't?

What is the function of this huge bomb? Who are we dettering from doing what?

Thats what it does but why do we need it? What does it do that conventional stuff doesn't?

You see? I knew you'd get there in the end. That's the right question!

It's the ability to deliver proportional response.

If, for example PRNK developed ICBM capability, what stops them from firing? What stops them from holding it over you in any form of negotiation?

The ability to deliver proportional response.

[EDIT] It keeps any future playing field on level terms.

North Korea's a terrible example Daffy… They're living proof that you can operate MAD without ICBM capability. Proportional (or disproportionate) response isn't dependant on nuclear weapons, NK could be removed from the maps with conventional weapons if there was the willingness to do so.

Buzzlightyear – the background to the French position is that the French were never very happy with NATO and developed their own nuclear deterrent, subsequently (1966) they withdrew from the military command structure of NATo whilst still retaining membership.

all well and good talking about british nukes, but as long as israel has them the whole of the middle-east is going to be twitchy. Is it really sensible that one of the most unstable areas of earth has a nuclear capability? Then there is India and Pakistan, again very stable societies.

Trident and its ilk does nothing to prevent any of the above.

It's their to blow the **** out of China/North Korea/Iran and Australia.

Is our Trident submarine system actually "independent"?

Isn't it American?

Well, we're in charge of it, and of setting it off. As for where the bits come from, I'm not sure it's relevant – even the stuff that's been designed from the outset to avoid using American technology (Eurofighter, for one) tends to end up with some kit somewhere that's bought in from America, simply because there are so many parts to machines of this complexity.

What cities are the warheads targeted at nowadays and are they the right targets?

Well, that's obviously not public. I suspect that they'd operate on the same basis as the artillery do – get a target, go and do the sums, aim and fire.

Wouldn't a tactical-nuke aircraft-based system be more flexible in this post Cold War situation?

Not really. A nuclear sub has the massive advantage of your enemies not having a clue where it is, and therefore the provides no advantage to a first strike strategy. A plane, on the other hand, takes a long time to get to where it's going, has to cross a lot of people's airspace ("Hello, [insert name of president of every country between you and your target], we'd like to fly a nuke through your airspace"), provides plenty of time for a counter attack, can be shot down, and is often a suicide mission – the Vulcan certainly would have been if it were ever used.

if its just a deterrent and no one knows where it is except the captain, why not just pretend to have them and save a few billion quid?

No one has yet explained. Who are we deterring from doing what?

I really don't think North Korea is going to invade the UK

If the US didn't exist then I'd say it was worth it as a deterrent but I can't see anyone nuking us without fearing a response from the US. Can't we just buy a US system anyway if we really need our own (like we're doing with the F35)? Not saying the UK defence industry doesn't come up with some good stuff and being totally reliant on the US would be a mistake but spending billions on something that's just supposed to be a deterrent doesn't seem smart.

Worth it to deter who from doing what?

But are the Americans in the control loop, or do Cameroon and Clegg really have their fingers over the "fire" button?

Well, on Monday they said the first thing that happened after the new PM has his chat with the Queen is that he's briefed on how to nuke people. So I assume so. That's not to say we wouldn't normally have a chat with NATO or the US about these things.

I've been wondering about the range also – my understanding is that Trident operates in the Atlantic/Arctic oceans. Are you suggesting that it could strike N.Korea and China?

Trident has a range of 7000 miles, the world's about 25000 miles around, so you need to have it in the right place. However, nobody knows if you have it in the right place, and if you have two out at once, you've got near global coverage.

Worth it to deter who from doing what?

Pakistan, North Korea, Israel etc. from doing anything stupid, including nuking their neighbours. Pakistan is probably the biggest worry on that list as we know they've got a working system and a fair risk of their government being toppled.

Tron – so we have a nuke to nuke Pakistan with if they nuke India?

Whats that to do with us?

When you say " from doing anything stupid" what do you mean?

I really can see no logical case at all for Trident and no one has yet given me any reason that holds together logically.

None of those countries you mention Tron are any threat to us.

TJ:

You cannot prove that Trident does not work; therefore you cannot confidently scrap it and know our security will be retained.

Is that logical enough?

Are we not all missing the point – the UK is skint! How can we pay for the replacement when we're already facing massive cuts in all areas?

Nope. That is not logical at all.

Who is it deterring from doing what?

so we have a nuke to nuke Pakistan with if they nuke India?

No, the fact that we're able to nuke Pakistan deters them from nuking India.

OP asked about opinions, IMO I wouldnt sleep any worse at night if the UK had no nuclear weapons.

So does India contribute to the costs?

Tron – why is that anything to do with us and why is the Indian nuke not sufficient to do so anyway?

Sorry – still no logical reason.

You don't want to spend a penny in foreign aid but are willing to spend billions on a nuke to deter Pakistan from nuking India?

sorry – you have to come up with better than that

According to the BBC, North Korean missiles currently being developed (Taepodong-2) could strike the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2564241.stm

I love the fact that the North Korean missiles are called Taepodong 😆

As for Trident – huge waste of money.

TJ, I'm interested in your definition of "logical" and more interested in your logical reasoning for your stance.

You asked for a logical reason for keeping trident and I gave you one. To put my previous post another way: it obviously works because we've not been subjected to nuclear attack and there is no longer a threat of a cold war.

Perhaps the rise of non-state warfare and terrorism is a result of the fact that states are unwilling to engage in warfare through fear of the nuclear deterrent.

Logical eh?

You don't want to spend a penny in foreign aid but are willing to spend billions on a nuke to deter Pakistan from nuking India?

This is becoming ridiculous. I say one thing, and you somehow produce a line of best fit that lists every other opinion I may possibly hold. I'm sorry to disappoint you yet again, but I'm not against foreign aid.

Go back to browbeating people into joining unions and cribbing from the Socialist Worker. You are a thoroughly objectionable character, and your arguments don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny – there's a simple pattern of ad hominem attacks, demands for references and you regularly change your position entirely once you've been wrongfooted.

To put my previous post another way: it obviously works because we've not been subjected to nuclear attack and there is no longer a threat of a cold war.

There's a massive logical fallacy in that argument.

If North Korea can make their missiles work (and who is to say they won't) then we won't be able to deter them any other way.

Aircraft flying from the UK could never reach their targets – if nothing else because there's precious little chance of Russia allowing our nukes across their air-space.

Cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier somewhere in the Pacific might work today, but anti-aircraft technology is a rapidly developing science and will render them impotent. This is actually a problem right now for anyone who fancies having a go at Iran's nuclear installations.

So, not replacing Trident is equivalent to Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament. The CND, and pre-New-Labour have always been very keen on this, but there's no evidence it would actually work.

Sadly, world love and optimism isn't going to cut it.

Tron – calm down – was it not you who on the economics thread said no foreign aid? If not then I apologise for muddling you up with someone else.

As for my arguments holding no scrutiny – wrong I am afraid and I do not change my position at all. My arguments and positions do not appeal to you but they are logical and coherent ( as are yours mainly)

Sorry I got under your skin.

Mintman – how do you know it has prevented a nuclear attack?

Mintman – Member

TJ:

You cannot prove that Trident does not work; therefore you cannot confidently scrap it and know our security will be retained.

Is that logical enough?

You cannot prove it does work. You cannot show it made any difference at all.

As Grumm says

To put my previous post another way: it obviously works because we've not been subjected to nuclear attack and there is no longer a threat of a cold war.

There's a massive logical fallacy in that argument.

I don't think so, its not a very good argument i admit but it is logical nevertheless.

TJ is looking for a good and logical reason and that's fine. He wont find one though because his view is too short term-ist' looking at the threats of today and not those that the future may/will bring.

Tron -Go back to browbeating people into joining unions and cribbing from the Socialist Worker. You are a thoroughly objectionable character, and your arguments don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny – there's a simple pattern of ad hominem attacks,

Can I say – pot, kettle and black? What is that but an attack upon me?

Mintman – not short termism at all – I really can see no logical argument for having it.

As for your argument……

I like to roll newspaper up into balls and throw it out of train windows. Why you ask? – well it stops the elephants from trespassing on the railway lines. You may claim their are no elephants on the railway lines – but to me that is simply proof that the newspaper balls work.

I don't think so, its not a very good argument i admit but it is logical nevertheless.

If you link things in such a way with no evidence of cause/effect you can 'prove' anything you like.

You could just as well say that increasing foreign holidays or watching tv obviously stopped nuclear armageddon.

Good logical reasoning chaps (the elephant one particularly made me chuckle).

You say that linking events with no evidence can prove anything. I'd be inclined to agree which is why I made a point of saying that my argument was logical but not actually very good.

Don't forget that cause and effect theory, chaos theory and that damn butterfly flapping it's wings in Japan is an entire stream of science along these lines.

You say that you are not looking short term but repeatedly look at the here and now "who are we deterring from what". How about asking "who will not do what because we have a deterrent"?

You are right, I cannot prove that Trident has stopped nuclear war, and you cannot prove it is a waste of money. Makes it a great discussion point methinks!

As for my arguments holding no scrutiny – wrong I am afraid and I do not change my position at all.

Sorry, but this is patently untrue.

In the thread on DC/CDM as prime minister, you first took a position that the rich wouldn't leave to avoid tax, then you went for "Let the rich leave". When it was pointed out that the top 1% contribute a great deal of the UK's income tax payments, you then decided that the rich wouldn't leave at all.

Mintman – I think it is about macho posturing and nothing else nowadays. I can possibly accept the MAD doctrine worked in the 60s and 70s ( but I doubt it) but now?

I still want to know in what situations it would have any function?

How does Italy, Germany, Norway survive without a nuke? How about Australia – they have no nukes, are not a part of Nato but still seem to survive.

Tron – No change in my position – I don't believe they would leave, however if they do I don't mind them going. I have said both things consistently.

I am absolutely certain that not enough people would leave to make a significant difference

For once I'm with TJ on this – shock, horror!

A few years ago NZ was in the same kinda position with its Air Force going to buy F111's (or whatever the version was). The half dozen or so were going to use up the vast majority of their budget (mainly used for coastal command/rescue). And it was all going through until someone asked the questions – "why do we need them?".

"To defend NZ against our enemies", came the answer.

"Yes, but who can actually put a plane above NZ airspace and attack us?"

Ah, slight problem there, as they are all long-time allies (UK, US, Aus, France…).

For me Trident and the associated subs have had their day and we as a country can't afford them, unless someone can show me otherwise. And really we shouldn't be involved in other overseas wars, unless someone else is paying. Lets get back to Ministry of DEFENCE, not OFFENSE.

Don't forget that cause and effect theory, chaos theory and that damn butterfly flapping it's wings in Japan is an entire stream of science along these lines.

Its true.

I washed my car (first time in 2 years), and the volcano exploded – proven link!

I still want to know in what situations it would have any function?

The threat of escalating inter-state warfare.

How does Italy, Germany, Norway survive without a nuke? How about Australia – they have no nukes, are not a part of Nato but still seem to survive.

The EU relies on NATO to act as their military arm.

b r – Member
Don't forget that cause and effect theory, chaos theory and that damn butterfly flapping it's wings in Japan is an entire stream of science along these lines.

Its true.

I washed my car (first time in 2 years), and the volcano exploded – proven link!

So my cancelled flight was your fault then! 👿