Forum menu
Imagine if the £70bn equivalent that was spent on the trident programme a couple of decades ago had been spent on R&D into non petrochemical energy sources. We might now be sitting pretty as an energy independent state telling the arab nations to go f*ck themselves. No messy little interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan, no need for Islamic extremists to hate us. Now that would have been national security.Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
Great Comment ! Not guaranteed but the gist of it is true.
A similar point is that in the 1500/1600/1700 England should of pored all of its money into naval defense, due to the threat from the spanish/dutch/french.
Any money going into education was a waste of resources, however without the standard of education improving the industrial revolution may never have happened so its always difficult to know where to channel resources without hindsight.
We made the mistake with Polaris of keeping it on past when the americans phased it out of their fleet, then we had to pay to bring the facilities back online at huge expense to service them - we shouldn't make the same mistake with Trident, saving a few pennies and having to spend as much or more in the future to service them - either pay for the up to date version or get rid.
Personally, I think that the answer lies in getting rid of trident and filling the tubes with multiple clusters of tomahawk, both with and without sunshine buckets on the end - we don't really need to achieve what we did in the days of long range ballistic missiles and MIRV's any more, we can more than counter any enemy with accurate cruise missiles and 250kt rather than megatonnes from subspace.
Completely useless a waste of time - its only function is to boost the egos of the politicians.
Spend the money on something useful instead - like hospitals and trains - that would generate more jobs.
Scrapping trident does not mean no more subs - still easily have conventional weaponed nuclear subs if wanted.
Its a hideous waste of money.
grum - Member
So if we're covered by the US why do we need our own? So we can feel important?France has got nukes too, so wouldn't we be covered by them as they are part of the EU?
Because it's part of our commitment to NATO and still in our best intrests. To follow your argument to it's logical conclusion, we need no armed forces at all, because as a member of NATO the Americans will help us if the shit hits the fan.
Each submarine carries an unopened message from whoever is the current Foreign Secretary which either 1: Gives permission to use the weapon or 2: Denies it.
Interestingly, long after he sloughed off any responsibility for policy making (due to retirement), Dennis Healy was asked if, as the result of a nuclear strike on the UK, he would have authorised (then) Polaris retaliation.
He said no, there'd be no point in simply upping the kill rate - we'd all be dead anyway from the first strike, so what would be the point...
tj - regards should we have the deterrent, and is it really worth all that money - I'm afraid I'll quote a great politician, Dennis Healey
Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.
I think the fact our top nuclear armed sub is on exercise in the south atlantic along with a squadron of Typhoons at Port Stanley acts as a very effective deterrent to the argies that have been stirring about the sovereignty of the Falklands and the associated gas/oil supplies down there
Orbiting nukes are the way of the future.Subs are basically long tubes pressureised in one direction, rockets and orbiters long tubes the other way - transferable skills, jobs are safe, gets GB back into the space race etc, etc. What's not to like?
I think the big advantage of submarines is that nobody knows where they are. With space-based platforms everyone would know where they were all the time.
[i]I think the big advantage of submarines is that nobody knows where they are[/i]
[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/12/sub_prang/ ]Esp. If you're using an ipod[/url]
zulu - I agree with that quote - its just that its not reffering to nukes and nukes do not make us any safer in any way.
Its just a huge waste of money. I'd rather half was spent on conventional forces and half on schools hospitals and roads.
germany and italy manage to be safe without nukes.
germany and italy manage to be safe without nukes.
See above.
votchy - Member
I think the fact our top nuclear armed sub is on exercise in the south atlantic
There's nearly always a nuclear armed sub in the south atlantic.
keep them and for all those people who say it's a waste of money as they will never be used, well lets blow up france if it makes you feel better
Because it's part of our commitment to NATO and still in our best intrests.
In what way is it in our best interests? How do Germany, Spain, Italy etc fulfil their commitment to NATO?
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
I think the fact our top nuclear armed sub is on exercise in the south atlantic along with a squadron of Typhoons at Port Stanley acts as a very effective deterrent to the argies that have been stirring about the sovereignty of the Falklands and the associated gas/oil supplies down there
Though if you read the drill report for the first bore you'll see that reserves are way below expectations.
grum - MemberIn what way is it in our best interests? How do Germany, Spain, Italy etc fulfil their commitment to NATO?
As a personal deterrent. It is, after all, a part of the UK forces first, NATO second. Germany, Spain, Italy etc all provide elements of their own forces to NATO. The only country that is a member but has no forces to provide are Iceland, but they do provide a air monitoring base that covers most NATO countries, and they have provided peacekeeping forces on various NATO deployments.
Dafy, you need to learn a little more about the Subs we own - they are not one and the same thing - never have been and never will be. We have plenty of nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines - less than [b][u]20% of our nuclear powered subs are trident carriers[/u][/b]. There is a VERY big difference between building nuclear powered subs and building nuclear weapons - totally different skill sets. We don't even build the trident missles - they are bought in from the states (as was polaris).
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.
20% are nuclear armed? really? By my estimations we have 10 nuclear submarines in service of which 4 are Vanguard class! 40%
I think the fact our top nuclear armed sub is on exercise in the south atlantic along with a squadron of Typhoons at Port Stanley acts as a very effective deterrent to the argies that have been stirring about the sovereignty of the Falklands and the associated gas/oil supplies down there
That and the fact that there isn't any oil there...
I don't think we should keep the nuclear missile deterrent, it should just be replaced with cheaper systems that are more relevant/easier to deploy & actually use without ending up a war criminal for irradiating everyone.
The point of the jobs & skills retention, is that if you don't do it yourself then you can only buy whatever foreign countries develop themselves and if they'll even sell it to us.
The only country that is a member but has no forces to provide are Iceland, but they do provide a air monitoring base that covers most NATO countries, and they have provided peacekeeping forces on various NATO deployments.
It does, however, have a bloody great volcano...
I said that by killing the replacement program you kill the workforce.
is it like building pyramids then ?
They should all be put to work building horse drawn carriages. Or perhaps steam engines. Or VCRs.
Or... this is genius. Half of them dig holes in the ground.. and then, wait for it, the other half fill them back up again. They could be digging one and filling in another at the same time! Full employment!
I wonder why this hasn't been thought of before.
Scrap it and campaign for the rest of the world to follow.
Deterrent relies on the person you're trying to deter being logical before they press the button.
If we scrap them what happens when we are attacked by aliens?
We just start playing Slim Whitman's Indian Love Call.
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..
what would happen it you fired a nuke into a volcano?
Keep the Trident.
😈
No UK, . . . no X-Factor!
That there is deterrent enough.
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.
Why not spend the money on ensuring our countries food security.
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.
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...
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?
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.
Scrap it and but more typhoons. Guess where I work 😀
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.
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
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
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...
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?
It separates those "with influence" and those "without".
on the "Big Bully Club" ? Why would one want to be in ?
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?
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?
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.