Trident submarines without the missiles

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

So if they did not have nues you really think ourthe wests response would have been to nuke russia as a response and ONLY the deterrent that stopped us.

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…

MOOT 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.

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.
[/quote]

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.

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 😉

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.

They knew we had a deterrent, it just didn’t deter them
They perhaps thought we had no non-nuclear retaliation though.

Imagine it was the Shetlands or the Western Isles instead. Do you think nuclear weapons would have been deployed?

Ok, we’re agreeing. They thought we wouldn’t use it so it didn’t deter them. Not much bloody use then!

scotroutes.

pawsy bear sends

•Emergency Action Message (EAM)!

Just asked my mate about the Falklands issue & nukes (he was down that way, at that point, Royal Marines)
‘Never in a million years would the UK have used nukes for the sake of the Falklands, didn’t warrant it’ was his reply.

I suggest you check:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/dec/06/military.freedomofinformation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE.177
Royal Marines have nothing to do with nuclear weapons unless their guarding them.

Certainly agree we wouldn’t of used them, I was just surprised we had any even on the RFAs. Given it was SOP to sail with them on board you’d have thought someone would have had them unloaded but guess there wasn’t the time.

Royal Marines have nothing to do with nuclear weapons unless their guarding them.

As in…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Escort_Group_(Ministry_of_Defence_Police)

Yeah, we already know that.

My post was simply my mate’s thoughts on the subject.

if JC keeps up like this, he won’t get a seat on the company board.

Yup and Margret Beckets report doesn’t shy away from the issues. Not least of which is the change in social population towards more pensioners.

Labour needs to change radically. It needs to win votes and for that you have to drop the idological policies for ones people will vote for. I saw this is comment JC as simply another own goal. I had some respect for his principled stands up to now only to see him throw it all away.

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

That isn’t much of a deterrent unless we know you will actually follow through. I mean, if it’s only for show then the ongoing threat of retaliation is a bit of a mute point.

Labour needs to change radically. It needs to win votes and for that you have to drop the idological policies for ones people will vote for.

Which (from my perspective, YMMV) is what Blair did and it worked well for him.

If we had PR, both Labour and the Tories could split and you would end up with two broadly centrist parties from the moderates, then the Corbyn left and kipper Tory’s. Most people would probably vote for the centre-right or centre-left parties but there are probably enough on the further left and further right to carry some sway. It could work quite well, but will never happen under FPTP.

If we had PR, both Labour and the Tories could split and you would end up with two broadly centrist parties from the moderates, then the Corbyn left and kipper Tory’s. Most people would probably vote for the centre-right or centre-left parties but there are probably enough on the further left and further right to carry some sway. It could work quite well, but will never happen under FPTP.

Sounds pretty much like what we have now? Plus ca change and all that…

not in favour of PR, I’d rather have strong government of whatever flavour. Cant see that PR governments are better. Whilst we can look to other countries where it has worked or failed it doesn’t mean its right for this country. No two countries are the same. Why do we need PR, aren’t the Liberia’s the natural home of centralist voters?

I was in favour of the coalition for the Liberals I thought it would give them a chance, after years in the wilderness, to be part of the decision making process and deliver their polices.

The British public thought otherwise. I thought any chance of getting your policies delivered would have been good. The alternative was to never deliver anything for your supporters. But it wasn’t seen like that.

I didn’t vote liberal BTW. Id suggest most centralists wouldn’t either.

Sounds pretty much like what we have now?

Well yeah if you dont count the number of parties and you ignore the two major ones splitting then yes it is just like now 😕

you ignore the two major ones splitting

What do you think the creation of the SDP and UKIP were?