[Closed] So, Trident...

and halted the advance of dictators over the past 60 years

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I see spending on Trident in the same way as spending on the UK Space Program or Higher Education Research, you're pumping money into the local economy, employing a range of highly skilled technical people, developing new technology (with potential non military spin-offs eg GPS).

If we canned it all, you'd have loose a whole load of skills, shut a massive ship yard and have the skills emigrate looking for work elsewhere or just sit on the dole in Barrow etc.

Without the fear of mutual destruction we would have lost many many lives again since the last two world wars.

No one is going to enter a full on fight knowing you can't win.

Its all about proxy's. For that reason I think Trident is worth every penny.

The world has become a lot more 'global' since the one and only time (well times technically, but in the same period of history) we let off one of these, and it was a poxy tiddly thing in comparison to todays weapons. Today we have a much better understanding of the collateral damage a nuclear explosion can have in a huge radius around the blast site. I am struggling to think of a location you could safely nuke without doing significant damage to yourself or one of your world allies. I just don't believe there would ever be a day when a UK leader would be prepared to order a launch, not because of the damage to the enemy but the self inflicted damage, which makes the threat they generate and any sort of world peace they have been previously credited with an entirely moot point in the modern global world order.

Can someone explain to me in simple, or complex terms, why trident needs replacing?
I.e. What's worn out on it from over use?

/Actually scrap that. I assume the people are talking about the submarines rather than the missiles.

Deterring smaller 'non-nation' groups is a red herring. Say ISIS get nuclear capability - who you going to nuke without MASSIVE collateral damage? They would know this and no amount of Trident would deter them from deploying their dirty bomb.

I am struggling to think of a location you could safely nuke without doing significant damage to yourself or one of your world allies

If you read [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-State-Whitehall-Cold/dp/0141008350 ]The Secret State[/url] it describes Russian and US simulations of a Nuclear War. The UK and all of Western Europe would be pretty much wiped out and uninhabitable, whereas the USA and Russia are so vast that there would survive (to some extent, although massively changed).

[quote=IanMunro said]Can someone explain to me in simple, or complex terms, why it needs replacing?
I.e. What's worn out on it from over use?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6454273.stm

What's worn out on it from over use?

Subs reaching end of life, bit like a VW Passat with 200k miles on it. Only no molgrips to keep it going.....

the headline figure of £30-£40Bn is the lifecycle cost over 20 years and in today's monetary cost. The actual cost of trident replacement is around £2Bn a year - so about £48-£64 for every working taxpayer. That's about one pint of beer a month for the guarantee the UK will always be safe from invasion.

I would not renew personally
Expensive white elephant vanity project

[quote=just5minutes said]That's about one pint of beer a month

Speak for yourself 🙂

Thanks allthepies.

BigDummy - Member

do you think the British government would seriously consider a nuclear strike on Russia in the event of a Russian invasion of Poland?

I have no idea. I'm no fan of Trident, i'm just trying to understand/appreciate as many angles as i can.

Poland* is a Friend and Neighbour. If by spending money on Trident, we can help calm their concerns (if only a little), then surely that must be considered.

(*extend to include Ukraine, Finland, etc.)

I'm grateful that i don't have to make a decision, i don't think it's an easy one.

There are far more countries in the world without nuclear weapons than with them, and I don't see Russia taking its chances invading Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Spain, Canada etc. etc. The idea that a small island pottering the east Atlantic about with no real idea about the outside world is such a goal compared to the other 3/4 of the globe is pretty daft.

[img] [/img]

I love the way people boldly state that nukes have prevented countless wars as if it's a fact, with absolutely zero evidence.

I also think it's pretty ****ing tragic that we are so concerned with 'global power and influence' and that we think the best way of going about it is spending billions taking part in an international dick-waving contest.

it gets even more bizarre,[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort ] even having them we might not use them[/url] !

I don't want to be a resident/citizen of a country that fires a nuke at [i]anybody[/i] so I'd be a lot happier if we gave up trident and spent the money on something much more useful. Health and education would be favourite. I think the deterrence thing is a load of balls, anyone who it would deter would still be deterred by the rest of the international community, those it won't deter (IS and other nutjobs) obviously don't matter. Unless we are planning on suddenly pissing off the rest of the world we don't need nukes.

If Barrow and other communities are based on the industry then obviously something would need to be done to help them, don't want a thatcher-esque destruction of communities.

it gets even more bizarre, even having them we might not use them !

yep, that's in Peter Hennesay's book, only one PM has said what was in his letters and that was don't retaliate!

That map up there ^^ is misleading, firstly South Africa has no nuclear weapeons since the collapse of the Apartheid regime, and secondly it includes NATO countries such as Turkey and Germany which do not have so-called "independent" nuclear weapons like Britain allegedly has, but it excludes Canada which has full NATO membership. I don't know what that's all about.

Ernie- it's a bit unfair that the image doesn't come with its key, but all of that is true and explained. The green colour of South Africa denotes a former nuclear power.

That map up there ^^ is misleading, firstly South Africa has no nuclear weapeons since the collapse of the Apartheid regime, and secondly it includes NATO countries such as Turkey and Germany which do not have so-called "independent" nuclear weapons like Britain allegedly has, but it excludes Canada which has full NATO membership. I don't know what that's all about.

EDIT : I've figured it out, it's an old map showing where nuclear weapons were stationed, although I don't know why Kazakhstan is a different colour to Russia.

I'd be a lot happier if we gave up trident and spent the money on something much more useful. Health and education would be favourite.

If we do give up Trident then this is absolutely where the money shouldn't go. If we are going to use that money then we should spend it on Science and Engineering, with the aim of creating a new ARM, Google, Oxford Instruments etc.

Ernie-

Map of nuclear-armed states of the world.

Light blue- NPT-designated nuclear weapon states (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States)

Red- Other states with nuclear weapons (India, ****stan, North Korea)

Yellow- Other states believed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)

Dark blue- NATO nuclear weapons sharing states (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey)

Green- States formerly possessing nuclear weapons (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa)

Sorry I don't know what happened there with a double post as the result of trying to edit my post.

States formerly possessing nuclear weapons (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa)

Mmm, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, were not formerly states and I don't know how that's relevant anyway. And I don't understand how Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey, are "NATO nuclear weapons sharing states" but Canada is not.

Still, I get the gist of your point so no worries 🙂

and maintaining the fleet,

Personally, I'd be more worried about the fact we have zero capability in the RN or RAF to find suspected submarines in our territorial waters - we have to borrow planes from the French, Yanks and Canadians to do it.

Pointless having whiz bang weapons systems if the dirty ruskies/koreans/ISIS/whatever can sit off Holy Loch with impunity.

Well, yes, that's minutiae- regardless of the accuracy of the map the point stands that many countries, and two (three if you ignore French Guiana) entire continents, are not being nuked as a result of them not having nukes. And many have far more desirable resources than we do.

Personally, I'd be more worried about the fact we have zero capability in the RN or RAF to find suspected submarines in our territorial waters - we have to borrow planes from the French, Yanks and Canadians to do it.

This is very true. In my days in the mob (early 90s) anti submarine warfare was our specialist nato role with much of our naval fleet dedicated to that role. For that capability to be so diminished because it was an old school cold war need, yet to invest such a sizeable chunk of our defence budget on the very things we are unable to now catch is an irony that is somehow lost on the political parties.

Personally, I'd be more worried about the fact we have zero capability in the RN or RAF to find suspected submarines in our territorial waters - we have to borrow planes from the French, Yanks and Canadians to do it.

The whole premise of a retaliatory force (such as Trident) is that you don't need to be able to detect / prevent a first strike, just have a big enough stick which you can deploy in response.

The whole premise of a retaliatory force (such as Trident) is that you don't need to be able to detect / prevent a first strike, just have a big enough stick which you can deploy in response.

And you are of the belief that submarine warfare is only about nuclear threat?

And you are of the belief that submarine warfare is only about nuclear threat?

No, but I am of the belief that if the Russians really want to send their subs into our territorial water, it doesn't really matter. What are they going to do, launch an invasion?

What are they going to do, launch an invasion?

🙂 probably better methods than that!

However, the vast majority of active submarine use since WW2 has been the firing of conventionally armed missiles at land based targets.

Pro Trident (with my name what do you expect!)

Too many "school bullies" with sticks with nails in them in the world playground for us not to have it.

On a grim note, if I was watching a mushroom cloud rise I would really be wishing whoever launched it was also going to be having a miserable day.

Interesting thread, I like the explanation of how it works.

Yes trident should be replaced and yes we should spend 2% of GDP on defence as per he NATO commitment.

As @footflaps said the money is spent on design/build/maintainence, this is a high tech project and building a road, school or hospital isn't going to advance our technology or support high tech industries.

No, but I am of the belief that if the Russians really want to send their subs into our territorial water, it doesn't really matter. What are they going to do, launch an invasion?

with a single submarine you can easily close a shipping channel, decimate a surface navy, generally cause havoc.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril."

As we're part of NATO though, we have the big stick with nuclear weapons in the form of France and USA who have oodles more nukes than us so it's not like we have no deterrence without it.

If there was ever a situation (whatever that may be be) that involved having to send off some nukes, France and USA are hardly going to sit there and go "lets leave this to Trident, it's about time it got some use", they're going to send off their massive barrage. So having trident makes no difference. The money's better spent on other tech to bolster NATO, e.g. jets and ground troops

No, but I am of the belief that if the Russians really want to send their subs into our territorial water, it doesn't really matter. What are they going to do, launch an invasion?

It's only 30-odd years since the last invasion of our territory.

However, the vast majority of active submarine use since WW2 has been the firing of conventionally armed missiles at land based targets.

Given they could just use ICBMs to do this, it's not a new threat. ICBMs would be much harder to intercept than a sub floating up the Thames Estuary and getting stuck in the tidal barrier...

It's only 30-odd years since the last invasion of our territory.

FWIW, if the Russians wish to invade the Falklands by Sub, they're welcome to it.

If we do give up Trident then this is absolutely where the money shouldn't go [health and social services). If we are going to use that money then we should spend it on Science and Engineering, with the aim of creating a new ARM, Google, Oxford Instruments etc.

This

I'm in favour of Trident, not becuase of the bonkers notion of a nuclear deterent but becuase its a great way to ensure the money isn't just spunked up the wall.

If we canned Trident and instead spent the money on research into nuclear fusion or something else equally game changing that would be better but since that wouldn't happen then Trident is a good thing.

Schools and hospitals need funding but not by cutting investment in this kind of stuff.

We have 'used' nukes as allegedly Thatcher threatened to nuke Argentina if the French didn't hand over the info for the Exocet missiles

Given they could just use ICBMs to do this, it's not a new threat. ICBMs would be much harder to intercept than a sub floating up the Thames Estuary and getting stuck in the tidal barrier...

Unfortunately a conventional ICBM looks a lot like a nuclear ICBM - giving the benefit of the doubt might not work so well when you see one going up.

The sceptics looked into converting some boats a while back as the missile hitting the ground at 18,000mph makes a hell of a mess even with no warhead at all. I believe that it was the Ruskies that pointed about that they weren't happy to sit back and see how big the bang was before doing anything

Perhaps we keep them but offer them to the EU as part of the EU army they want to form. That way we can get all the members to pay for them and it doesnt look such an expensive option that way. I find it hard to forsee when the UK would use them in isolation from either the EU or NATO

[i][b] "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."[/b][/i]

This pledge was made by the UK government in 1968.

This commitment under international law was reaffirmed as recently as 2010 when the UK fully endorsed a Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference conclusion that :

[i][b]Reaffirms the unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals

Calls on all nuclear-weapon States to undertake concrete disarmament efforts[/i][/b]

To develop and commission a new generation of nuclear weapons is in complete violation of international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Other countries which violate international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran and previously Iraq is alleged to have done, can except to have crippling sanctions imposed if they are lucky, or bombed if they are less lucky.

To develop and commission a new generation of nuclear weapons is in complete violation of international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Which is why they are not doing that. To be honest , whilst anti any more trident spending, I acknowledge they are very carefully not developing or commissioning new nuclear weapons. It's the vessels that are knackered and need replacing - the missiles are still box fresh.

To develop and commission a new generation of nuclear weapons is in complete violation of international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

New subs are still Trident 2 aren't they? Nothing new being developed there and iirc the warheads are also the same?