[Closed] Trident - what's your opinion?

Pointless waste of money.

I rarely agree with TJ but on this one he has my support 😆

TJ + GJP +1

TJ + GJP +D +1

[i]Is our Trident submarine system actually "independent"?

Isn't it American?[/i]

Depending on which sources you beleive, it isn't 100% independent from the US. They still make (single source) part of the weapons system (apparently).
The missiles are swapped about anyway - a missile fitted to a US sub are taken out and then can (and are) fitted into UK subs in the future.
Would the UK ever use (or threaten to use) the detternt independentaly? I dont think so, IMO.

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

The USP of the Trident system is it can strike from anywhere without being deteceted. Its fundemental to the detterrent, but also makes it darn expensive.

Personnally I think "the west" (or whatever you want to call it) does still need a nuclear detterrent (can you hand on heart say what Iran or N.Korea will be upto in 30 yrs time). But Im not convinced the UK still has the standing on a global stage to still require it.

Having said that, the trident replacement keeps me in a job. so I shouldn't speak up to loudly 😉

My housmate works at AWE and that's his only reason for wanting it.

Suspect it's not necessary though I'd like to hear more about the alternatives (lib dems weren't advocating complete nuclear disarmament, just getting rid of trident)

any nuclear weapon entails indiscriminate injury to civilians and therefore its use is a war crime. If cannot be legally used there is no point having it.

aircraft need a base which would be the first target to be hit in the event of a nuclear strike on us, whereas a sub with trident can be anywhere in the many oceans around the world and only the sub commander knows where exactly it is so all our potential enemies are in the dark until after they've pressed their button.
i'm not for using it as a pre-emptive strike or anything like that, but more as the deterent that we use it for nowadays.
i don't think were silly at all with the likes of iran and north korea playing silly buggers at the moment.

i work in defence, and all the smaller projects are getting cut in favour of this thing. Would be good for me if it got cancelled.

Bin it.

The thing about submarine-launched tactical nuclear weapons is that they are undetectable - right up until the first missile breaks the surface.

Then it's a race to get off the rest of the weapons before an ASROC or SUBROC weapon vapourises the 5 square miles of ocean they are sitting in.
The weapons need a particular set of criteria to successfully launch and time is ticking away.
The blokes on the subs know that they are effectively dead* as soon as they launch the first bird.

*Assuming they are attacking a Nation with an effective nuclear capability of course.

Agree with TJ

It's not really a weapon in the traditional sense of the word. It's the (small, given the influence the thing gives us) price you pay for a seat at a very exclusive club.

[i]Suspect it's not necessary though I'd like to hear more about the alternatives[/i]

Im of the opionion, if you're going to do something, do it properly. A Submarine based missile system is *the* most effective detterent. Nothing else can compare, for the aforementioned reasons.

[i]any nuclear weapon entails indiscriminate injury to civilians and therefore its use is a war crime. If cannot be legally used there is no point having it [/i]

Much as I aggree with your statement, the war in Iraq was illegal, but it didn't stop it happening. Bad things happen in war/conflict

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

You think that's not already being investigated? Think again!

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project ]Check this out[/url]

Project Falcon is a US funded project, but you can bet your bottom dollar we would be or indeed will be helping fund it if it's viable!

Having a Nuke on a Sub is all well and good in terms of indetctibility, but to have a Nuke on a remotely controlled aircraft capable of "delivering" its payload anywhere in the world within an hour or so, would kind of render Nukes on subs irrelevant!

Personally, I'd love to see a Nuke free world, but whilst nobody else is about to go ahead with full Nuclear disarmament, sadly to carry a big stick but speak in hushed tones, is a situation I'd rather maintain for the moment... Especially as there are still despots in charge of some countries, with Nuclear capability!

Couldnt we just pretend we've got all this stuff, everyone knows we've got/had it. No body knows what iran etc have/might have?
Just make out weve got the biggest & latest shit. Tell the world we;ve spent 100 billion £ on new weapons. If we need to use it, it dont really matter anyway, cos the whole world will be f'd, and the country might save a few quid to spend on something usefull

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

To me, this "deterrent" property seems to make sense in the Cold War when the stakes and counter threats were massive. But I'm not sure who's cities should be targeted now or that any nations pose such a direct threat to the UK. What do you think?

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?

I had been thinking that a high-altitude aircraft based system, something like a high altitude bomber that could also be shepherded by Eurofighters. Or maybe a weapon that could be launched from Eurofighter, though it limits range if only deployed from UK runways? [I'm actually a bit stumped as to what Eurofighter is for these days too]

I find all these things (war planes, the old Russian Mayday parades, tanks etc) incredibly stirring for some reason. Maybe it's my Prussian roots. BUT BUT BUT, these are modern times and shield-bashing and sabre-ratting is so old hat.

The old Great Britain used to be very pro Arab, now we're pro Jew. IMO (and I'm not alone) this has contributed greatly to our undoing.

Trident. Nice idea. Let's wander round the plant like the big dumb bully kid at school. Reality a) We can't afford it b) It doesn't work on terrorist-type attacks (because they are martyrs and are going to their heaven anyway c) H E L L O! It will kill ALL OF US WHATEVER COLOUR OR CREED.

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

Essentially we'd have to have an American "OK" in order to fire it, politically as well as operationally

OK so in fact it's not independent at all - I suspected so.

Hotback Desiato's spaceship:
[img] [/img]

Buzzlightyear, don't think for one second either that unmanned planes capable of carrying Nukes won't happen.

And they won't be "limited" to Mach 6 either! From those in the know about Scramjet technology, we're talking potential for Mach speeds easily into the double figures (meaning speeds of approaching 10,000mph!) are theoretically possible in decades to come!

The ability to drop a "bucket of sunshine" on a state is neither here nor there. The threat that we may or may not have the capability is where it's value lies. It harks back to the original principle of mutually assured destruction and thinking that it is a weapon designed to be used is just not right (in my opinion). As for whether we'd use it without the USA: technically dependent or not, how likely is it that the UK will enter a nuclear war without the military backing of a superpower, whoever that might be (even perhaps the EU oneday)...

I vote keep it, after all it might not be of use today but what about tomorrow (metaphorically speaking)?

Wouldn't a nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missile launched from a nuclear sub (SSN rather than a SSBN) be a cost effective compromise?

Most international situations come with a little bit of warning so it would be reasonable to assume that a SSN could be maneuvered into a position to deliver to cruise missile with a flight time of under an hour?

Can someone who thinks its a good idea please explain its purpose? who are we deterring with it now?

Buzzlightyear - Member
[I'm actually a bit stumped as to what Eurofighter is for these days too]

Reckon I can answer this one. I spent a week last month camping next to a Eurofighter Typoon equipped base and came to the conclusion that the Typhoon has three major roles in the modern warfare theatre:

1) Firstly, it's absolutely the most ****ing awesome plane to ever leave the ground. I mean, REALLY incredibly, sky-burningly, outrageously-expensively amazing.

2) Secondly, it's a Spitfire deterrant:

[center][img] [/img][/center]

3) Thirdly, its raison d'être is to distract Dave Yates into leaving his workshop at critical moments when you're just about to burn your frame in half.

I don't think camping next to a Trident base would be as exciting, soTrident should be scrapped and the mighty NATO net can catch us if we fall.

"I vote keep it, "

Yeah I understand the caution. Nukes/MAD has contributed to the Cold War "peace" no doubt.

But we need spend a wodge of cash - we probably don't have it given our commitment to save the banking system et al. Is it 7 years? It's not long enough to develop a new system with the required level of assurance IMO.

Not really sure why I'm even posting, as TJ says who is it supposed to deter? We have overstretched conventional ground forces and we're pissing away money on a city-killer we'll never use, and which if we were ever to wish to use, we would already be so deeply ****ed we might as well not bother.

Not that I'm particularily in favour of ground deployments either but scratching trident would pay for a lot of helicopters, APCs and body armour. Or, y'know, nurses or teachers or some other such mad lefty concept.

Well I see that too - are the Germans/Spanish/Italians/Swiss/and many others desperately worried that they don't have an independent deterrent?

So why do we worry about it especially?

"So why do we worry about it especially?"

The usual line is that it gives us extra world and diplomatic power. Hard to see what we use it for really.

Myself, I hope we use it like in Civilisation. "Greetings from King Cameron of the British people. OUR THREATS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!"

Nah, they aren't woried, because they know NATO will protect. Good ol' NATO: the yanks with the piles and piles of every nuke you could ever need; the French with their, er, whatever the French have got; and the Brits with their rusty nuking subs hiding under the Arctic.

Nuclear war is dead, Trident is pointless. No nation on Earth would use nuclear weapons whilst the USA is still THE nuke-force to be reckoned with. The only threat from nukes is subversive terrorist bombs in densely-populated places - not something a nuclear deterrant can deter...

EDIT: oh, Northwind, you beauty, that actually brought a nostalgic tear to my eye... What a game, what a game!

Remember the Knott review prior to the falklands conflict "we don't need amphibious capability anymore so scrap it". Next thing we're heading south nabbing ships from trade because we don't have the right stuff. Right now it might not appear that we need the nuclear deterrent but what if that changes?

A common point seems to be that today the tools our forces have are inadequate. What if in the future the tool they need is the threat of the nuclear deterrent and we deprive them of that; what then?

Errr. In short - let the Americans sort it out I suppose. After all, we need their permission/codes to fire, so they can fire their own weapons if they like.

I'm losing faith in the MAD argument you see. The Americans run MAD so we shouldn't need to.

Incidentally, what is the French argument for their kit, and what do they actually have?

"distract Dave Yates into leaving his workshop at critical moments when you're just about to burn your frame in half."

LOL a lot!

I'm in favour. The alternative would be to upscale our conventional forces by such a margin, it would be far more expensive.

Better still, keep trident [b]and[/b] upscale our armed forces. Sh!tcan freebies for serial spongers and you'd save money. 🙂

Happy Days!! 8)

So what function does trident have? Can someone explain please as I can't see one

It's like a hornet in your garden. You don't f* with the nest.

Can someone who thinks its a good idea please explain its purpose? who are we deterring with it now?

Trident as it stands is not a weapon system in the conventional sense; it is/was a statement of intent to would-be aggressors.

In the current climate, Trident serves very little purpose, but what happens in 10-30 years when/if the world changes? You can't just rustle these things up when the need arises. This was shown with helicopters in Afghanistan, and helicopters have a much shorter lead time than a Submarine based nuclear deterrent.

If the order is not submitted soon, the new boats won’t be ready for Vanguard and its class being decommissioned.

There are NO alternatives to a submarine based ballistic system.

Air delivered weapons can and will be intercepted.
Land based systems will never get through planning - it was tried in the 50s.
Using Astute is ridiculous, the blue water sub would have to enter a brown water environment and would be easy prey + Tomahawks can be easily intercepted.

Daffy - you still havent told me what its purpose is. What is it for - now or in 30 yrs time

Its designed purpose is obvious.

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 [u]any[/u] form of negotiation?

The ability to deliver proportional response.

[EDIT] It keeps any [b]future[/b] 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 ****stan, 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?

****stan, North Korea, Israel etc. from doing anything stupid, including nuking their neighbours. ****stan 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 ****stan 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 ****stan with if they nuke India?

No, the fact that we're able to nuke ****stan 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 ****stan 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 ****stan 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 - [b]there's a simple pattern of ad hominem attacks,[/b]

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.

[i]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.[/i]

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! 👿