[Closed] Trident - what's your opinion?

Mintman - Australia is not in Nato

The threat of escalating inter-state warfare.

Who what and when? Who is going to go to war with the UK and are you suggesting that we would use the nuke before anyone nuked us? - and how will Nukes prevent another invasion of kuwait? they didn't last time. Nor Russians in Afghanistan nor were they much use in Vientnam or Korea

Nuclear submarines of all types are about power projection and posturing. The reason for wanting the ability to project power is all that oil in the Falklands basin that we claim is ours. The current trend in conflicts is over energy suppy such as oil in Iraq, pipelines in Afganistan and Russia's interest in Georgia and surrounding states.

The discussion at the moment is not whether to continue with Trident where the majority of the costs have already been incurred (infrastructure/design/manufacture), but whether we should fund a replacement.

IMO the SSBN design is inflexible and outdated. The argument that you cannot track them is no longer true for larger states (US and Russia) who have the satellite technology to track them via their thermal plumes at depths where missle launch is possible. This (along with noise considerations) is why you get a lot of subs hiding under the ice.

The use of an adapted SSN with nuclear tipped cruise missles is more flexible with the ability to use in conventional warfare.

As to the political reasoning, the cold war is over but recently Russia have started testing UK air defence for response times again and the energy shortarges that are going to happen will result in a very unstable politcial situation in the upcoming years.

Best reason for not continuing with Trident would be the closing of HMNB Clyde paving the way for an independent Scotland :-).

but dont we have to get the americans to service trident?

so when they move on to their new system we will end up having to shell out a load of cash for them to keep their trident servicing facilities open

personally id be happy if we got rid of it

and even though its our biggest area of manufacturing id be very very happy if we stopped making all the tanks, bombs guns and bullets we do

its a national shame that we make so many things for making people die in different ways and then sell them to some of the most unscrupulous users of such weapons; saudi, israel, kazahkstan, china and in the past iraq and so on

seriously what would be the negatives of not having a nuclear deterrent?

on the plus side we could probably pay off our deficit overnight

and as for the energy thing, id rather we poured money into ITER or other alternative sources so we dont have to go to war to keep the school run mums in petrol

Mintman - Australia is not in Nato

Thank you for that, Australia is not in the EU either which is why I said the EU uses NATO as its military arm.

Who what and when?

I've got hairy balls not crystal ones and I sincerely suggest that the person that knows these answers become SoS Defence.

are you suggesting that we would use the nuke before anyone nuked us?

You are again confusing action with threat of action.

and how will Nukes prevent another invasion of kuwait? they didn't last time. Nor Russians in Afghanistan nor were they much use in Vientnam or Korea

You can continue picking conflicts that may or may not be relevant but the consistent flaw in your argument is that you assume Trident is used in response to a conflict. Trident is best used as a threat; that is the most powerful element.

You seem to want me to justify Trident with hard facts about the future of warfare which you and I both know aren't available. I've purposely not asked you to prove that we will not need the deterrent in future because I know you can't answer it; it's a silly basis for a debate.

Mintman - I really don't see this threat as credible in the future and would like to know what sort of incidents it would be useful for - I Point out a few incidents that the nukes we have did not deter from happening.

There is no point in having an empty threat - if you threaten with something you have to be prepared to use it.

I mention Australia as it has no nukes, is not a part of nato but still survives.

Given that the UK is one of the top 3 most hated nations in the world with the US and Israel we would be very foolish to give up a strategic nuclear deterrent.

As for comparing Australia, well how illegal wars has Australia joined in with?

Something I think has been alluded to but not mentioned so far is the timescales involved in this. There's a long lead time between deciding you want Trident 2 and actually getting it, and once you've got it, you've got it for around 30 years.

but dont we have to get the americans to service trident?
...
its a national shame that we make so many things for making people die in different ways and then sell them to some of the most unscrupulous users of such weapons; saudi, israel, kazahkstan, china and in the past iraq and so on

The idea that we don't want to rely on foreign nations to supply our weapons is what leads to us selling weapons to others. If we manufactured them solely for our own use, they would be hugely expensive, so the government exports kit in order to spread the development costs. The defence business is really a very strange one.

Personally, I'd be quite happy for us to buy gear from the Americans, as they do it a lot more cheaply than we manage to.

As for comparing Australia, well how illegal wars has Australia joined in with?

I'm fairly sure Australia has sent troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. Most of NATO have, but we're the only ones who've really put a lot of troops there for a long time.

John Knott didn't think that we'd need an amphibious force but we all know how that turned out back in the '80s.

I will say again, the deterrent may prove useful to deter the threat of interstate warfare. I do not know if it will stop someone attacking but neither do you.

I don't think that anyone has called it an empty threat, if things got that bad that nuclear war was on the cards, the world will be divided and i'm confident we'd position ourselves so that we could use it (the threat of it or actual hardware) if necessary.

Perhaps if Kuwait had nuclear weapons, Saddam wouldn't have invaded...

At the time the US had recently supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war up until the point he looked like he would win when they withdrew intelligence support and stopped providing weapons. Saddam probably didn't expect a US response.

But if he had perceived that the US were protecting Kuwait perhaps the nuclear threat would have stopped him.

What's the point. I can't understand why a little island nation deeply in debt with lots of more pressing uses for 90bn are buying a new missile system.

It seems mad to me.

On Austrailia, from the Australian

"British nuclear expert Stephen Ludlam to head Australian Submarine Corporation - A LEADING British expert in nuclear engineering technology, Stephen Ludlam, has been appointed the new head of the Australian Submarine Corporation.

Mr Ludlam, 56, currently president of Rolls Royce Submarines, was selected after a global search for the new head of Australia's only government-owned prime defence contractor, ASC said today."

So does TJ think the aussies are going to remain non-nuclear?

Folk are going on about the long timescales involved in development and upkeep of a strategic nuclear weapon system. How about we use that same timescale to re-position ourselves as a nation by ducking out of all these overseas operations and mending relationships instead?

Carbis - isn't that just nuclear powered submarines?

I like the argument that because we are hated we need more nukes - how about rather than cementing our position as a hated country we try a differenct approach?

I [i]think[/i] the only "proper" war against a serious military power that the MOD frets about still is Russia. [Someone please correct me if we still have a plan for thrashing Jerry]

Russia might quite conceivably take a gamble on annexing Estonia. Estonia is a member of NATO and a Russian attack on it would require a military response from us.

Russia will not even consider attacking Estonia if it believes in the probability of a serious military response from NATO. So maintaining a proper military deterrent has some importance in guaranteeing the security of the Eastern approaches to Europe still. The Russian military regularly war-games operations in the Baltic, this is not an idle point entirely.

Of course, the principal guarantor of European military security through NATO is the US. At present, it just about suits US strategic interests to guarantee the security of a whole continent despite the fact that many European countries do not invest in their own defence and do not hae credible armed forces. This raises the question of whether however the US could necessarily always be persuaded to guarantee European security if everyone in Europe stopped bothering and simply relied on the US. My guess is that frustration in the US military, the inability to conduct joint exercises or integrate other people's forces, a couple of right-wing isolationist administrations and a budget freeze and you'd find NATO had largely collapsed as a result of US indiifference. So proper spending on defence (even at our very low level) may be seen as leveraging the much greater US capability. Looked at like that, it's rather good value.

I think that's a reasonable argument for high defence spending. I'm not convinced it gets you over the line on Trident. But I think the point of that is that it stands behind conventional force, and limits the scope of conventional warfare. We aren't deterring Iran or North Korea with this stuff, we're underwriting our ability to fight conventional wars. It remains the case that any country with this capacity is immune to conventional wars that threaten its territory (that's why ****stan has it, and why Iran wants it).

Our territory is not threatened at all in the forseeable future, because Europe has been built into a massive, economically integrated area of peace and security. But to make that work its borders have to be guaranteed. Enlargement has taken Europe's borders up against some places which aren't themselves safe from their neighbours. Making Europe work for these countries and ultimately for us involves guaranteeing their security.

Don't know. Post already too long. I think that's how the argument runs anyway. It's not fundamentally about facing down mad mullahs inTehran with maniacal plans for world annihilation.

Can't we just give nukes to everyone? According to the pro-lobby, that would guarantee world peace.

Best contribution yet BigDummy (IMHO of course)

I buy the argument entirely that we need credible military forces - just as you state does that make the case for serious nukes?

Myself I'd like to see the money spent on nukes split half to healthcare and social care and half to conventional forces

Druidh - don't you understand - johnny foreigner cannot be trusted with big bangs - especially if he is of the darker hue variety or has funny religious beliefs.

This raises the question of whether however the US could necessarily always be persuaded to guarantee European security if everyone in Europe stopped bothering and simply relied on the US. My guess is that frustration in the US military, the inability to conduct joint exercises or integrate other people's forces, a couple of right-wing isolationist administrations and a budget freeze and you'd find NATO had largely collapsed as a result of US indiifference. So proper spending on defence (even at our very low level) may be seen as leveraging the much greater US capability. Looked at like that, it's rather good value.

The only sensible argument in favour so far. I'm still not convinced it's worth it though personally.

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

Can't you just picture the scene...

[i]Excuse me Mr Krushchev, are we going to bomb america or what[/i]

[i]Not now Sergie, can't you see I'm watching the Brady Bunch"[/i]

BigDummy:

I don’t see Russia annexing Estonia...not anymore. Because of the way that Estonian country is split (30% Russian minority that were forcibly sent there in WWII to quell Estonian nationalism – They speak Russian, watch Russian media, go to Russian schools i.e. haven’t integrated into ESTONIAN society) that would be the ideal place to annex. However, Estonia’s inclusion into Nato has made that too big of a gamble. My guess is that if they were to make a territorial advancement, it would be a former eastern bloc country that does not belong to NATO. Ukraine, maybe.

Also, I believe your statement of US security. It’s been noted with countries like Czech Republic that once they join NATO, the membership costs are so high that they have to make sacrifices in the infrastructure of their own military which lessens it’s capacity and capability. Also in this respect, high defence spending is an interesting point. 70% of the budget of the US military is spent on wages. Seems pretty insane, doesn’t it? Finland as a country with a conscript army spends roughly 30% on wages. I’m not sure how much of the GDP US spends on their military, but I’m guessing that it’s a lot. OK, their army is probably the best in the world in terms of technology – but the quality of training in the average military base leaves a lot to be desired. I know that Finland’s defence budget is 1.3% of the GDP. There’s a great economic argument for national service.

My main deterrence argument is again, about Finland. If you consider that 80-90% of our males are trained as reserve soldiers (meaning they can operate and maintain a rifle, operate in small units, know the basics how to be a soldier) it basically means that any country coming to invade needs to prepare for a long and bitterly fought guerrilla war (and that’s IF they manage to occupy the country). In fact, this was one of the reasons that Stalin chose not to attack Finland for the third time...he knew that he couldn’t easily take over Finland. There’s a deterrence argument for a conscript army.

Finally, we need to consider the types of people that a conscript army will bring in. Everybody. You’ll have construction workers next to engineers. Doctors next bus drivers. The US military is going through a massive problem with recruitment because the army is seen as a last resort for people with no options. Which is why you’ve got mainly minorities from poor backgrounds joining and idiots who might struggle to get a high school degree. In a conscript army, everyone serves. This means that you get people of high intelligence in positions which require high levels of intelligence and people’s civil jobs are being used to the effect that will benefit the army – as well as the individual in question. I knew a neurosurgeon in the army – he was a recruit at the same time as me. After the initial training period he was immediately promoted to Lieutenant 2nd class and started working in the military hospital along with the other doctors. And that’s his wartime post.

Tyger - I hope you're right about Estonia of course. But I'm not sure I view (for example) the purchase of Mistral assault ships by Russia with any huge degree of joy or lightness of heart.

Quite agreed that NATO is a deterrent too IF one believes in a credible NATO response. That does need to be maintained.

The conscription is an interesting side-point. Can Finland maintain expeditionary forces abroad at all? I'm not at all hostile to the UK increasing spending on a better reserve, but I suspect a modern democracy can't possibly field conscripted armies abroad in anything that looks like a discretionary war. I don't think any country with a conscripted army has any troops doing anything very useful in Afghanistan, and selling the idea that British conscripts should dfefend Ukraine would be a tough sell politically (as it would presumably be in Finland?)

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle ]precautionary principal[/url].

we [i]don't know[/i] if trident will provide any additional security. however, there is a [i]chance[/i] that it will. and therefore, one would come to the conclusion, that you would keep it.

as per the precautionary principal,

the burden of proof that it is not harmful [to remove trident] falls on those who advocate taking the action.

imo.

There is no point in having an empty threat - if you threaten with something you have to be prepared to use it.

The only people who have threatened to use these weapons against us were the Soviets. So our deterrent worked rather well don't you think?

As for today, a number of countries want to get in on the act and become part of the nuclear club and as such become join the five permanent members of the UN security council. Having this weapon currently is about political clout on the world stage. Rumour has it Brazil is now in the process of developing weapons grade plutonium. Who are Brazil's enemies?

Proliferation is going to continue and more and more countries will acquire the technology, and history has taught us that there are no friends in international relations, only nations with common interests, in other words todays ally, tomorrows foe.

The cold war is over, a mere blip in Human history, and the nations of the world are returning to history, which doesn't bode well. We pay money to insure ourselves against so many things that might or might not happen in the future, but I don't see anyone not getting car insurance purely on the basis that no one has crashed into them so far.

So if you feel nows the time to abandon trident...

As for Cruise missiles being used for delivery 😆

One of the many duties of a new Prime minister is to write letters to the SSBN commanders giving them permission to fire those weapons in the event that the UK is destroyed by such weapons. There are no launch codes or permission to fire from the Americans.

Trident is the delivery system, the warheads are of UK design manufactured at AWE.

The conscription is an interesting side-point. Can Finland maintain expeditionary forces abroad at all? I'm not at all hostile to the UK increasing spending on a better reserve, but I suspect a modern democracy can't possibly field conscripted armies abroad in anything that looks like a discretionary war.

A conscript army would work for Finland who are largely interested in defence of their own nation only, but you wouldn't want a conscript soldier fighting alongside you who didn't want to be there.

Hungry monkey - I am not sure the precautionary principle really applies but if it does then the burdon of proof surely falls on those that want to get this new bomb?

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action.

Teh people taking the action are those who want the new bomb surely.

Your argument is about on a par with protecting railway lines from elephants with newspaper as in my earlier post.

so - the only conclusion I can come to is that ther is no logical reason for having nukes except for macho posturing and to get a seat on the security council?

No one has come up with anything else that hangs together with any logic that I can see.

No one has come up with anything else that hangs together with any logic that I can see.

There are logical reasons for having them as a few here have pointed out, it's just your logic is clouded by your ideals.

El-bent - if the logic holds true for the UK, surely it's the same for everyone else?

you see, TJ, i would go the other way. we have a trident system, and we want to renew it.
the opposition wants to remove it. there is a suspected risk of removing trident (as we may, or may not have less clout/protection/safety etc etc etc), however there is no scientific basis for this. we do know, though, that having trident has not resulted in us having to defend ourselves from others.
and as such, there is ciscumstantial evidence that it does work.

keeping trident maintains the status quo, whereas removing it is a change in actions.

as a fwe have said, we don't know what will happen in the future. [i]if[/i] trident is an effective deterrent, then i have no issue with us keeping it.

Where El bent - really I cannot see anything that has been offered that is logical and coherent. The only thing is that apparently it deterred the USSR in the past ( no evidence let alone proof) so it will deter unspecified threats from unspecified enemies in the future.

Can you lay out your logical case for nukes in simple terms I can understand?

Nothing to do with my ideals

Edit - hungry monkey - that is coherent on the precautionary principle.

hungry monkey - Member

as a fwe have said, we don't know what will happen in the future. if trident is an effective deterrent, then i have no issue with us keeping it.

If it's such a great deterrent, why can't we just give them to other countries too?

[i]macho posturing and to get a seat on the security council[/i]

If you think that (a) having the ability to prevent any rational actor seriously threatening you; and (b) being a member of the single most important supra-national body in world history aren't issues with any relevance for policy, then of course it's totally pointless having it. Those are pretty chunky policy decisions however.

Ultimately at root this is an argument not about the specific weaponry but about the global strategic positioning of the UK - in fact and aspirationally. The argument about what happens to our global influence and prosperity if we deliberately give up our nuclear weapons is I suspect quite a hard one - I've not read anything on the point.

El-bent - if the logic holds true for the UK, surely it's the same for everyone else?

In a word, yes.

Can you lay out your logical case for nukes in simple terms I can understand?

Have already. And you can understand fully, I won't insult you and call you stupid.

And it is about your ideals.

elbent -Sorry - I see no [i]logical[/i] case made by you or anyone else.

Lots of unproven assumptions and projections into the future from insufficient data. Unless there is something I have missed its really a circular argument you have made.

Its the same "logic" as my point about elephants and railway lines or pirates and global warming.

Thats really my point - it is not a logical argument - its a faith based one.

Trident... thats one of those toasting fork thingys isn't it?

You would burn your fingers trying to make toast without one.

too much to read in this thread but in the first page several people asked "who is to for" well maybe no one at the minute but it once did during the cold war then times changed......the point being times changed so they will again. maybe in a good way but maybe not and personally i wouldn't trust the americans to come to our rescue, have they ever done it before? the second world war wasn't exactly a favour was it.

Thats really my point - it is not a logical argument - its a faith based one.

That's ok, I understand where you are coming from. Logic doesn't exist there. 😉

Can you lay out your logical case for nukes in simple terms I can understand?

Better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them......

Ok - My understanding of the pro argument is this:

The Russians did not cross the Rhine. We had nukes so the nukes deterred them from doing so. This proves that nuclear deterrence works therefore we need nukes to deter future threats to us or our allies.

Is that about right?

So - the proposition that the Russians were deterred by our nukes is an unproven assumption with no evidence to support it. There clearly could be many other reasons why they didn't.

Even if it were true than there is no way to extrapolate that future unspecified threats would be deterred by us having nukes. We do not know the nature of these future unspecified threats but it would seem likley that they would be a very different nature to the Russians - mad mullahs anyone? Wopuld the sort of people who use suicide bombers be deterred by threats? Is our conventional threat not great enough anyway - we did rather lay waste to Iraq.

So - unless anyone can come up with a case for Nukes that is not full of logical holes in teh form of unproven assumptions and extrapolations without any justification I consider the logical case for the utility of nukes demolished.

So - unless anyone can come up with a case for Nukes that is not full of logical holes in teh form of unproven assumptions and extrapolations without any justification I consider the logical case for the utility of nukes demolished.

As someone pointed out earlier, we have hairy balls, not crystal ones.

Until you can see into the future, all planning for the future is going to involve some level of assumption and extrapolation.

By your logic, you'd never go to the shops and buy a week's food because that involves assuming that you won't get knocked down by a bus before you get a chance to eat it, and you'd never go to work because you have to assume that your employer won't go bust before payday. You wouldn't even breathe because that's making the assumption that the atmosphere is still there.

What you are postulating, is in effect, an argument against any and every possible course of action available to anyone on the planet.

Not really tron - I am using debating tactics I accept but I really can see no logical reason for the nukes and nothing that anyone has posted on this thread gives any logical reason for having them.

Of course planning for the future must involve assumption and extrapolation - but this can be reasonable logical and likely. It is likely I will live to eat the food I buy.

Do you wear your cycle helmet all the time just incase the sky falls on your head?

I think the bigger question is as yet unasked!

If we're going to get a new and updated version of the sub-based nuclear deterrent, are we going to use the old one for something worthwhile, or just go for the boring option and dismantle it?

I suppose we could do what everyone else does with their 2nd hand crap, and stick it on Ebay.

Not really tron - I am using debating tactics I accept but I really can see no logical reason for the nukes and nothing that anyone has posted on this thread gives any logical reason for having them.

You are using debating tactics. What you always want is proof. And in the real world proof is very hard to come by.

That's shown by just how narrow most academic research questions are, and how few papers actually produce proof of anything. Or a simple look through old market research reports - despite experts spending a lot of time and money on them, they don't predict the future.

But of course, you already know this. You know that proof cannot be provided for the majority of things, even things which are accepted by society at large, and even used in the creation of technology, are still only theories, not actually proven. Indeed, you seem to regularly demand proof on subjects which are still matters of debate for field experts.

You use this simple tactic to close down arguments and declare yourself proven correct.

Tron - On this one I would accept an argument that was not full of logical holes. Even evidence short of proof would do.

However no one has given anything but assumptions and extrapolations that do not hang together logically and no one has produced a shred of evidence.

Its not difficult is it? Make a logical case with at least some evidence to back it up. Instead all I see is massive logical fallacies and tautology.

Edit - loads of circular argument as well.

So why have these weapons then? If there is no logical argument for having them, why do so have them and want them?

Macho posturing el bent? Different countries have different needs. I don't think there is a credible threat against the UK that could be deterred now.

the trouble is the pro arguments are very much the 'politics of fear'

which is not a very nice way to live

So what is your proof/reasoning that a deterrent is of no value?

You've been very quiet on this and spent most of the time attempting to pick holes in people's logic/reasoned arguments. Your defence for abolishing it has been notably lacking, apart from "we can't afford it" and "money is better spent elsewhere".

Your "proof" of using previous conflicts as evidence it doesn't work is based purely on conjecture, as is me saying we've not been nuked yet so it must work.

Look, we need the damned things because we had an empire, and now we don't. We won the world cup 40 odd years ago, and we've kicked a few smaller nations around. We still like to think that we're important.

If we don't have nukes, the French will make fun of us at the UN and European parliament. It'll be just like that episode of Flight of the Conchords where Murray gets in the lift with the Aussies and they ask if he's got NZ's mineral exports for the year in his pocket.

And we can't have that, so we need an independent nuclear deterrent. OK? 😆

Macho posturing el bent?

That's the best you've got?

elbent - its the only reason I can see for wanting them ( I wasn't accusing you of macho posturing)

Mintman. Its up to those who want to have nukes to make the case for having them.

Tron well said!

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

I [i]think[/i] this thread became a pointless farce filled with lightweight tosh at the point that TJ got away with describing a doctrine of strategic deterrence as "macho posturing".

This is roughly the equivalent in terms of insight and analysis as calling for the abolition of the NHS because it is do-gooder bollocks that doesn't abolish human mortality. 🙂

Mintman. Its up to those who want to have nukes to make the case for having them

Well that is where you are wrong. It is up to us to argue to keep them (which we have) and for you to argue to remove them (which you haven't). Since the pro-lobby is arguing for the status quo (albeit with an update to the system), I would suggest that the against-lobby has the greater challenge in front of them.

You claimed you were using debating tactics in this thread and you clearly are not. Simply rebutting the pro-lobby argument without providing a counter-argument is not even close to debating; anyone can say "that's a rubbish argument"; it is the counter argument that adds value and that is clearly lacking.

So the pro-group are putting forward arguments but you do not; hardly an informed debate is it.

Waste of money, end of. Split the difference between public healthcare and conventional forces.

Either that, or use the Trident budget to build a ****-off massive trebuchet - just for laughs.

[i]It'll be just like that episode of Flight of the Conchords where Murray gets in the lift with the Aussies and they ask if he's got NZ's mineral exports for the year in his pocket.[/i]

thats my favourite episode

I think I have understood why we need Trident:

[i]We don't believe anyone loves us enough to defend us against a nuclear threat, so we have to defend ourselves.[/i]

From BBC website

The US state department says there "will definitely be consequences" for North Korea following the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

The North is facing international condemnation after investigators blamed it for the sinking of the ship, in which 46 sailors died.

Pyongyang has rejected the claim as a "fabrication" and [u]threatened war[/u] if sanctions were imposed.

can some people not see why we would need trident?

flatfish - Member
From BBC website
The US state department says there "will definitely be consequences" for North Korea following the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.
The North is facing international condemnation after investigators blamed it for the sinking of the ship, in which 46 sailors died.

Pyongyang has rejected the claim as a "fabrication" and threatened war if sanctions were imposed.
can some people not see why we would need trident?

Nope. What are you suggesting? We'd nuke N Korea?

when they start chucking nukes about we send a few buckets of sunshine back their way.
i didn't suggest starting anything.

I got pretty bored with this thread after a while(largely due to TJ demanding impossible answers, but I guess he knew that) 😉 , but a couple of points to add. There are 3 people onboard a bomber at any time who know exactly where the boat is and where its going to be (apart from changes due to having to get into a launch position, which aren't known until as necessary) also somebody mentioned that those onboard knew they were dead the minute they launched, well I can tell you having spent many years onboard I never felt that that was the case.

As for reasons for having trident? never gave it a thought it was just a job.

Do you know what? Talking is cheaper than fighting every time. Pretty much every conflict ends with the participants sitting around a table and talking. So how about we invest in some more tables and give the rest of it a miss?

Berm Bandit - Member
Do you know what? Talking is cheaper than fighting every time. Pretty much every conflict ends with the participants sitting around a table and talking. So how about we invest in some more tables and give the rest of it a miss?

Becuase you may need a stick and/or carrot to get them to the afore mentioned table.

Best stick is economic sanctions best carrot is not economic sannctions.

We don't need it it is just showing off. Apparently we have the worlds 5th largest defense budget which seems a bit mad...

joolsburger - Member
Best stick is economic sanctions best carrot is not economic sannctions.

Economic sanctions don't (and never have) work against North Korea. They export little to nothing and care litle if their people starve while defying the rest of the world.

We don't need it it is just showing off. Apparently we have the worlds 5th largest defense budget which seems a bit mad...

...Not when you consider that we have the 6th largest economy.

Ok lets try it another way.

Anyone know what the current spend on the Afgahn war is ? (all in ?) [url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece ]the times online [/url] suggests that it might be as much as £2,500,000,000,000 the population of Afgahnistan is about 29 million. So in essence we could give them about £86,000 per person to improve their lot, in return for nailing any Al Qaeda type nasty ****, and at the same time save the lives of several hundred troops, for the same money. Halve that, and you.saved a huge amount and still been able to give every man woman and child £43,000 each.

Are you seriously telling me that what we are doing makes finacial, political or moral sense, when we all know that it won't get sorted by force of arms, much less by the possession of Trident??

There is a reason why Germany and Japan have two of the strongest economies in the world, and you don't have to look too far past the bit where they haven't spent the last 65 years funding a mahoosive standing military force.

Economic sanctions don't (and never have) work against North Korea

Presumably that "don't care doesn't hurt" attitude is why they are threatening war if sanctions are imposed then?

There are 3 people onboard a bomber at any time who know exactly where the boat is and where its going to be (apart from changes due to having to get into a launch position, which aren't known until as necessary) also somebody mentioned that those onboard knew they were dead the minute they launched, well I can tell you having spent many years onboard I never felt that that was the case.

Not sure if you're talking about bomber aircraft or subs here, but certainly bomber aircraft crews didn't have a big chance of making it back. Lots of issues with flash blindness and there being no runway to land on once you got home...

There is a reason why Germany and Japan have two of the strongest economies in the world, and you don't have to look too far past the bit where they haven't spent the last 65 years funding a mahoosive standing military force.

The Japanese economy is distinctly unhealthy.

So how will us having trident or its replacement make any difference to North Korea?

I have been accused of being illogical and asking impossible questions but they are only impossible because there is no answer

The questions are

Who are we deterring by having this?
What does it deter them from?
Why would conventional forces not do as well?

We aren't going to be nuking anyone anytime soon or for that matter, ever.

I'm all for the armed forces but only when they are used for stuff we should be involved in. I'm given to understand that they are a bit short of stuff they actually need but have all the nukes they want.

90 Billion over 10 years would cover half the total deficit including public sector pensions. if we scrapped trident the worst case, 30 billion of that gets spent on incremental expenses (scapping the old stuff, paying fines to exisiting contractors and suppliers etc etc ) That's still around a third of the deficit. Can't we do that and then buy some nukes if we have a few spare pounds then..

I sppoose we could go and see Ocean finance, consolidate all our debts into one monthly payment and still have enough left over for some new tridents or would that be completely mad?

The Japanese economy is distinctly unhealthy.

Compared to what over the last 65 years precisely?

Compared to what over the last 65 years precisely?

Compared to say, the Japanese economy pre 1990.

So you are suggesting comparing the Japense economy from 1945 to date with the Japanese economy from 1925 to 1990? I suspect you may well still find that it has generally been one of the top performers during both of those periods.

Your point caller?

Trident might be the thing that makes North Korea listen to the Western World.... Or is it...?

The continuous at sea deterrent might be the one reason that America would get involved in any EU driven action, after all, its the one thing we can offer America (militarily anyway)... Or is it...?

Who are we deterring by having this?
What does it deter them from?
Why would conventional forces not do as well?

a. Impossible to answer because no-one (that I know anyway) can predict the future and you know this so again, it's a silly question.

B. Extreme violence against the UK and her territories but anymore detail is impossible because, again, we cannot predict the future.

C. They can't be inserted into a country at a speed that means they are almost 100% likely to hit their target.

Why have weapons? deterrent to countries like China who will invade any weaker country based on their past 60 yrs.

It's 'insurance'. I believe this country is relatively civilised, some countries who are capable of producing & delivering a nuclear weapon or are working on such projects are not (IMO) as civilised as ourselves. I also believe that some smaller countries such as Iran/NK would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons without much provocation.
I'm no expert, It's just my thought.

Ok mintman - we certainly will never agree and I ain't buying a single one of your arguments but:
1) - we have a policy of no first use of nukes - so we can only use them against other nuke owner - this used to be the USSR was the country they were aimed against but I suppose we have to add France, USA, Israel, India and ****stan and China to the list. Thats the lot isn't it? Iran and North Korea in the future maybe.

B) -Who realistically is going to threaten these islands? again - the policy is no first use - so we are not going to be able to use them against realistic threats to us ( Mad mullahs etc) Who in this day and age is going to invade the UK anyway? The whole doctrine was about the USSR

3) The deterrent effect of the firestorm over Baghdad is as big surely - and we can use exactly the same delivery systems for conventional weapons as Nukes.

Zaskar - would we nuke China if they invaded say laos? No first use doctrine remeber. Thats a major change from previous doctrine

When countries such as Australia and New Zealand, Argentina and so on can be safe without them and without any Nuclear umbrella at all then why are we so different that we need them?

I've got a hunch that we have differing opinions on this matter but that's why it's good to discuss these things. You say we'll never agree but you've yet to put forward an argument to sway me. Even in your most recent post you expect me to state who might attack the UK which remains an impossible question to answer.

As an aside, the delivery system for Trident is completely unlike conventional systems. Delivering it like a conventional missile will dramatically reduce it's ability to hit it's target unhindered.

You say that non-nuclear countries are safe but how do you know this?just because they've not been attacked yet doesn't mean they won't be. Would we have reclaimed the Falklands if Argentina had possessed a nuclear deterrent?

If we stick to the doctrine of "no first use" then we can only use them against other nuke owning countries after they have let off a nuke and I think I got the full list. I don't see any of them as a threat now or in the future to these islands - maybe to their neighbours but not to us. Why would they?

I am very doubtful the concept of deterrence would work with zealots anyway.

My point about the delivery system is we could use the trident missiles with conventional warheads - How many in each sub? 40 or so IIRC - and payload? Half a tonne? Dunno really. Enough to flatten any capital city even with conventional explosives I would have thought.

You say about the Falklands but our Nukes did not stop argentina capturing the Falklands.

I simply cannot see a role for them in the post cold war world. I cannot see a credible enemy who would be deterred by them. Credible enemies are hard to see - why would Iran want to invade the UK? Current doctrine would not allow us to use them in defence of a third country - and anyway Israel has its own and they are the most likely target.

I was very sceptical of them in the cold war - nothing that anyone has said since makes any sense to me as a case for having them now in a post cold war world

Rogue states or religious zealots would not be deterred, we couldn't use them against no nuclear states anyway, other countries don't feel the need and many have no nuke umbrella such as Argentina or Chile or NZ

If we ever use them, we all die.
Why not just spend £1Bn [i]pretending[/i] we have an updated system.

For that money, it could be made pretty convincing.