[Closed] Trident submarines without the missiles

Utopian view is utopian ... 😆

One point is that the US are very keen on us retaining our nukes and diplomatically would kick up a huge fuss behind the scenes and really could make the UK life rather difficult.

Funny really to think how much money and scientific effort the UK put into getting nukes and then we just give them up?

I dont berate you at all- paranoid?- I made one sarcastic comment after you made your disdain for me obvious [as you have done once again] Mleh

Why do I continue - I find afd homes and shooting the messenger are not effective persuasion techniques.

Have you considered reason and logic.

TBH i dont have any personal issue with you please dont make me reconsider that with increasingly personal attacks 😉

People seem very focused on Russia "nuking us", they wouldn't have to nuke us they could defeat is with conventional weapons, we'd have no last resort threat without N-weapons so would just have to roll over.

[quote=jambalaya ]People seem very focused on Russia "nuking us", they wouldn't have to nuke us they could defeat is with conventional weapons, we'd have no last resort threat without N-weapons so would just have to roll over.So, no point in having them then as to use them against Russia would see them obliterate us with theirs.

Klunk, complete bollocks on the part of the Grauniad as usual.

funnily enough written by a daily mail columnist.

operation unthinkable was originally an offensive operation against the Soviets

"to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though 'the will' of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment"

must have made interesting reading for Stalin when it was sent to him by Philby. No wonder the soviets were paranoid, they had just fought and won the great patriotic war (where 80% of the German forces were deployed against them) at enormous cost in men to find out their so called allies were planning a surprise attack.

Have you considered reason and logic

OK.

The World is a dangerous place and completely unpredictable.
A Strategic Nuclear Defense is probably the most effective way of guarding against any future threats.
We do not know what the future threats are.
NATO could completely dissolve next year for all we know.
The USA may go back to a policy of Isolationism again.

As I quoted above "speak softly and carry a big stick."

TBH i dont have any personal issue with you please dont make me reconsider that with increasingly personal attacks

The Keyboard Warrior has awoken I feel the fear! 🙂

[quote=gobuchul ]The World is a dangerous place and completely unpredictable.
A Strategic Nuclear Defense is probably the most effective way of guarding against any future threats.Does this argument work for all nations? That would be great. We could just sell everyone a few nukes and establish world peace.

Does this argument work for all nations?

Obviously not.

As there are numerous failed or close to failed states in the World.

As we are a Liberal Democracy then we get the politicians and the policies we vote for. So we in theory have control on when those weapons are to be used.(No, please don't start this argument.)

So, no point in having them then as to use them against Russia would see them obliterate us with theirs.

You miss the point. The point here is not prevention, or deterrence, but macho chest-beating about how we could murder millions of people who have bugger all to do with whatever the likes of Putin might decide to do. Like I said, tit-for-tat genocide. By today's nuclear weapons logic, at the end of the second world war, millions of German civilians should have been put up against a wall and shot.

Like I said, tit-for-tat genocide.

dazh - So what is it you are suggesting?

Do you believe that NATO could get rid of it's nukes and we would be safe in the medium to long term?

The genie is out of the bottle, for all the problems of the Western Democracies, I prefer them to be suitably equipped to deter an aggressor with nukes.

jambalaya - Member

People seem very focused on Russia "nuking us", they wouldn't have to nuke us they could defeat is with conventional weapons, we'd have no last resort threat without N-weapons so would just have to roll over.

Ah, like that time they invaded the Ukraine and we nuked them?

Ah, but Ukraine is just an ally without their own nuclear deterrent - obviously a nuclear power isn't going to step in...

[quote=dazh ]Like I said, tit-for-tat genocide. By today's nuclear weapons logic, at the end of the second world war, millions of German civilians should have been put up against a wall and shot.

You claim to understand the game theory, yet you keep coming up with stuff like this 🙄

Ukraine isn't part of NATO or anything else.

They were unaligned, thus Billy no mates. Harsh world out there. Worth noting if you plan to lead a country.

Ukraine applied to join the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008. Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych, who preferred to keep the country non-aligned, was elected President.

aracer - Member

Ah, but Ukraine is just an ally without their own nuclear deterrent - obviously a nuclear power isn't going to step in...

I see. So Jamba is referring to the hypothetical where Russia invades us, having marched across the entire of europe (except France)? He can't be referring to a guaranteed NATO response since the US and France are in NATO...

I've no idea what jamba is talking about.

In that case, maybe you should leave him to answer the question?

But that aside; The question of nuclear escalation still comes down to when would we escalate. Yes Prime Minister covered it pretty well 30 years ago tbh but the problem is the same. First aggression? Not a chance. First aggression against NATO? Again no chance, because the question of conventional response isn't answered yet- we'd never escalate while there was any prospect of winning a war, or having it stop quickly. Realistically we'd always launch tomorrow, the only time there's any prospect of a nuclear escalation on our part is invasion of the UK.

we'd never escalate while there was any prospect of winning a war, or having it stop quickly.

Realistically we'd always launch tomorrow, the only time there's any prospect of a nuclear escalation on our part is invasion of the UK.

We don't have to suddenly wipe everything off the map, policy has long been developed around a flexible response that would likely see us destroy a significant military or infrastructure target in return.

On the other hand, here's your 'it's all gone tits up' escalation scenario:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

See also cobalt bombs, fantastic area denial weapons provided you're actually crazy enough to build one.

Current policy specifically states that it does not rule out a first use and includes using weapons in support of NATO, allies and our other defence treaties.

Having a written policy gives credibility to the deterrence

we deliberately maintain some ambiguity about precisely when, how and at what scale we would contemplate use of our nuclear deterrent. We do not want to simplify the calculations of a potential aggressor by defining more precisely the circumstances in which we might consider the use of our nuclear capabilities (for example, we do not define what we consider to be our vital interests), hence, we will not rule in or out the first use of nuclear weapons

UK does not require US or NATO authorisation to use its deterrent

The UK has long been clear that we would only consider using nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence, including the defence of our NATO Allies, and in accordance with our international legal obligations, including those relating to the conduct of armed conflict.

I assume that 'relating to the conduct of armed conflict' covers the whole spectrum of weapons in a conflict, conventional, chemical and biological. A catch all phrase.

You're suggesting handing them over to the RAF and only to be used Monday to Friday 9-5 (early finish on Friday)?

you know the RAF well then ..... ;-D

and only if they can live in 5 star hotel 😀

I see. So Jamba is referring to the hypothetical where Russia invades us, having marched across the entire of europe (except France)? He can't be referring to a guaranteed NATO response since the US and France are in NATO

They were so not serious about invasion that they military mapped most large towns in the UK in detail

TBH I think the people in most danger of US nuclear weapons are probably other Americans

No wonder the soviets were paranoid

They always are, it is part of their makeup.

No wonder the soviets were paranoid, they had just fought and won the great patriotic war (where 80% of the German forces were deployed against them) at enormous cost in men

Well the enormous cost in men was in a big part a result of Soviet tactics.

The left always make the mistake of trusting the Soviets too much (see the Rolls-Royce Nene fiasco) and the right trust the Yanks too much. Far better to be in control of your own destiny.

You claim to understand the game theory, yet you keep coming up with stuff like this

I said I understand it, not that I agree or accept the conclusions drawn from it. The problem with all this red blooded military talk is that it conveniently ignores the central issue, which is the murder of millions, possibly billions of people, and I'm always amazed at how this aspect seems to be ignored or degraded when people talk about it. I guess I can't keep a straight face when discussing the potential destruction of human civilisation as a way of keeping the peace. The trouble with deterrence is that we're only 60 years into this crazy, reckless project, and we don't get a second chance if it goes wrong.

they still think they can win it. last man standing and all that, I'm the king of ash.

The trouble with deterrence is that we're only 60 years into this crazy, reckless project, and we don't get a second chance if it goes wrong.

Alternatively expressed as "we've been hearing for sixty years that nuclear war is imminent" - a bit like the Daily Express winter weather predictions really.

Yeah, but the French have nukes so we don't need any. It's not as if they're going to sit idly by and let a northerly breeze carry the glowing remains of London over Paris when they could have intervened first.

Ah, like that time they invaded the Ukraine and we nuked them?

My point would be that as they had nukes we did nothing much (aside from sanctions). Now copy that over to a UK without nukes and relying on the US to help out.

This is all jolly interesting but the upcoming vote in Parliament is going to be a clear Yes

My point would be that as they had nukes we did nothing much

Seems quite unlikely that our primary response to this was a nuclear response.

The deterrent also does not seem to stop nations attacking Israel either.

I do like the premise that there's a plan in the Kremlin that the second we get shot of our nuclear weapons spetsnaz will absailing into number 10 and landing craft packed with tanks will be hitting Great Yarmouth beach after sailing past the similarly ill equiped Swedes and Finns.

I would like us not to renew trident, but realistically as long as we keep having petulant children for our political leaders worldwide voted for by petulant children as demonstrated by a few here, so they can fight for turf in the worlds playground, then I don't see us growing up and relinquishing these weapons any time soon.

Is it any wonder that the five permanent members of the UN security council also are the most belligerent on the planet?

It's the same principal as the playground, isn't it.

The bullies will stay away from the small kid who has the capability to hurt him back, whether it is a bigger brother or mad fighting skills, but he small kid who doesn't have that is in danger of getting bullied.

It seems to me tht there is no need to update trident unless the hardware is so old that people think it will be unreliable if ever tested, or there are anti-missile systems in existence that render it ineffective if ever used.

Other than that people only have to think that it would work, like a bluffers hand.

Seems quite unlikely that our primary response to this was a nuclear response.

Who ever suggested that it would ever be anyone's primary response? Straw man smells of straw!

the premise that there's a plan in the Kremlin that the second we get shot of our nuclear weapons spetsnaz will absailing into number 10 and landing craft packed with tanks will be hitting Great Yarmouth beach after sailing past the similarly ill equiped Swedes and Finns.

Planning fifty years agead means that it's difficult to envisage what might lie ahead - twenty years ago the possibility of Russia invading Ukraine would have been laughed at nearly as much as the possibility of us being at war in Afghanistan. Indeed, it was so preposterous that Ukraine gave up its Nuclear weapons in return for guarantees that the UN Security Council nations would protect them from it ever happening 😳

Ukraine gave up its Nuclear weapons in return for guarantees that the UN Security Council nations would protect them from it ever happening

Are you suggesting that the Ukraine would have launched nuclear weapons against Moscow if they had them? In response to some pretty minor border skirmishes and the annexing of a disputed peninsula where most of the natives identify themselves as Russian?

It seems to me tht there is no need to update trident

As far as I understand it they aren't, the missiles are staying, it is the subs that are hitting their design life and need replacing.

Nuclear war will not be between the West against Russia, North Korea, China, Indian, Israel or even Iran ...

But rather the nuking will be a retaliation against those stolen nukes fired from those missing(countries/locations) from the list above ...

😛

mute point really as Labour wont be in government to influence the outcome one way or the other

Are you suggesting that the Ukraine would have launched nuclear weapons against Moscow if they had them? In response to some pretty minor border skirmishes and the annexing of a disputed peninsula where most of the natives identify themselves as Russian?

No, it would never have come to that, because Russia would never have invaded...

[quote=Pawsy_Bear ]mute point really as Labour wont be in government to influence the outcome one way or the other
[b]MOOT[/b] point FFS!!!

I'm going to kill the next person to get that wrong!

No, it would never have come to that, because Russia would never have invaded...

So you don't think the Russians would have calculated that the Ukraine wouldn't risk complete annihilation to defend it's claim on the Crimea and a couple of Eastern cities where everyone thinks they're Russian?

No one would ever invade UK territory because we have nukes?

There's some folk in the South Atlantic that might disagree.

[quote=dragon ]

It seems to me tht there is no need to update trident

The missiles are getting a life extension, but that's a relatively small part of the cost (we come back to JC being an idiot). The Vanguard subs are already having a life extension, but they'll still need replacing - it's not possible to continue with them beyond that.

[quote=scotroutes ]I'm going to kill the next person to get that wrong!

Make sure it's somebody without the ability to retaliate - though I wouldn't worry about anybody who reckons their mate will defend them, as in reality mates often choose self preservation 😉

[quote=scotroutes ]No one would ever invade UK territory because we have nukes?
There's some folk in the South Atlantic that might disagree.

An interesting point you make there, given that it appears the calculation was made that we wouldn't retaliate at all - they thought we had no deterrent.