Home Forums Chat Forum Trident submarines without the missiles

  • This topic has 295 replies, 67 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by paton.
Viewing 40 posts - 241 through 280 (of 296 total)
  • Trident submarines without the missiles
  • Solo
    Free Member

    scotroutes – Member

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

    Not quite, the reasoning is flawed. Invasion by means of deploying conventional military assets where there wasn’t previously. Is and will be met with a similar deployment of conventional assets to repel the invasion, etc, etc.

    If someone decides to send us a nuke, then they can rest assured, that we can send one back! Well, so long as have them.

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    Not quite, the reasoning is flawed. Invasion by means of deploying conventional military resource where is wasn’t previously. Is and will be met with a similar deployment of conventional assets to repel the invasion, etc, etc.
    If someone decides to send us a nuke, then they can rest assured, that we can send one back! Well, so long as have them.[/quote]So – nukes are only a deterrence against a nuclear attack. Back to my other question then; what it was had been the Shetlands or the Western Isles? Or what of it had been all of the Highlands/Scotland etc. You’re saying that we would never deploy nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear invasion force. That implies that the Russians (as an example) could roll into the UK and we (and none of our allies) would threaten nuclear retaliation?

    dazh
    Full Member

    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.

    I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but doesn’t that pretty much invalidate everything else you say? 🙂

    ninfan
    Free Member

    So – nukes are only a deterrence against a nuclear attack. Back to my other question then; what it was had been the Shetlands or the Western Isles? Or what of it had been all of the Highlands/Scotland etc. You’re saying that we would never deploy nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear invasion force. That implies that the Russians (as an example) could roll into the UK and we (and none of our allies) would threaten nuclear retaliation?

    You understand the concept of escalation?

    As (repeatedly) pointed out, nobody has ever suggested the response to an attacking or invading force would be immediate use of nuclear weapons. The classic scenario for use of nuclear weapons in an east-v-west scenario (or indeed a India-v-Pakistan, north-v-south Korea etc. Scenario) is where a large scale conventional confrontation descends into either threatened collapse (whereby the side about to lose uses nuclear or chemical weapons as a last ditch effort to neutralise enemy forces) or stalemate (where the attacking forces have run out of steam and resort to chemical or nuclear attack to break the stalemate by neutralising defending forces) – this would be an escalation from conventional warfare to nuclear. Retaining a nuclear capability ourselves is not only the deterrent against escalation to nuclear confrontation – it is a strong argument that the inevitability of escalation from conventional to nuclear has prevented either side in the major “cold” wars from engaging in the risky business of large scale conventional “hot” warfare (forget your minor territorial squabbles).

    (I have delibaretly included chemical weapons above, as soviet doctrine for conventional warfare very much included the use of chemical weapons, whereas NATO doctrine would almost inevitably seen the use of large scale chemical bombardment that led to massive loss of life as a serious escalation that may draw a proportionate nuclear response)

    Note the use of words like escalation & proportionate – this is where your black and white ‘we would never’ argument falls down.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    The classic scenario for use of nuclear weapons in an east-v-west scenario (or indeed a India-v-Pakistan, north-v-south Korea etc. Scenario) is where a large scale conventional confrontation descends into either threatened collapse (whereby the side about to lose uses nuclear or chemical weapons as a last ditch effort to neutralise enemy forces) or stalemate (where the attacking forces have run out of steam and resort to chemical or nuclear attack to break the stalemate by neutralising defending forces) – this would be an escalation from conventional warfare to nuclear.

    An excellent explanation of why we dont need a constantly deployed force in order to deliver weapons at any time- we just need weapons we could deploy after escalation

    Thanks you for taking the time to do this and explaining why we dont really need the subs

    Pawsy_Bear
    Free Member

    I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but doesn’t that pretty much invalidate everything else you say?

    nope, I’m not against coalition’s. I’d hope for a good stronger government with a majority to get policies through. It was if you like a form of PR, I take your point. More voters got represented. Just think a lot of the minority parties getting seats just confuse and slow down the process of good government without adding any value as well adding a huge administrative and financial burden.

    Way OT sorry

    ninfan
    Free Member

    An excellent explanation of why we dont need a constantly deployed force in order to deliver weapons at any time- we just need weapons we could deploy after escalation
    Thanks you for taking the time to do this and explaining why we dont really need the subs

    thats an oxymoron – the only way we can guarantee having weapons we can deploy after escalation is through having them constantly deployable (or for “deployable” in a submarine sense, read it as “widely dispersed in unknown locations underwater making decapitation essentially impossible)

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Well now you have changed your account and altered your view that is another excellent post. I will forgive the complete reversal of opinion as its you and its what you do to just keep arguing

    PFFttt to consistency eh

    ninfan
    Free Member

    @ junky – Have just Edited the above to clarify between deployed and deployable

    Your own argument that “we just need weapons we could deploy after escalation” underlines everything, and is exactly why trident works.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    that argument was yours not mine and no it does not support your view that we need them for instant deployment as your whole argument was about escalation

    you know this but you wont back down as we were and why I rarely bother. Waste of a good mind IMHO.

    PS thanks for saying about the edit.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    it does not support your view that we need them for instant deployment as your whole argument was about escalation

    and you well know that ‘instant deployment’ isn’t what I said.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Whichever side you fall (ignoring tabloid hysteria) Corbyn has opened up the debate about Nukes, better than it ever would have been

    http://theconversation.com/explainer-why-jeremy-corbyns-third-way-for-trident-actually-makes-sense-53343

    Solo
    Free Member

    kimbers – Member

    Whichever side you fall (ignoring tabloid hysteria) Corbyn has opened up the debate about Nukes, better than it ever would have been

    Needlessly! Come on, I’m sure there’s other, more significant issues of the day, that could use some useful consideration/debate.

    Have any of your noticed the state of the MTB industry?
    🙄

    vxrob
    Free Member

    quiet alot of miss information about submarines on here but then thats not surprising. having a deployable submarine thats actually alongside is no cheaper than having it at sea.

    dazh
    Full Member

    quiet alot of miss information about submarines

    You mean all the armchair generals and sealords on here have got it all wrong?

    Klunk
    Free Member
    mickmcd
    Free Member

    Russians hacked it whilst captain of boat was being pissed on I reckon.

    gobuchul
    Free Member

    A non-story. A high tech piece of kit malfunctions during a test.

    That’s the point of “testing”.

    maxtorque
    Full Member

    Even less of a story than that, as the accepted miss fire rate for an ICBM is about 20%, because they sit unused for years, and aren’t tested much (because of costs) and ultimately, if one misses, we’ve got another 30 in the back of the boat, each of which has the capability of erasing a large city off the face of the earth………

    gobuchul
    Free Member

    each of which has the capability of erasing aseveral large citycities off the face of the earth………

    FTFY

    legend
    Free Member

    Poor wee missile was just trying to do its best and fix the Trump situation for us 🙁

    nickc
    Full Member

    A high tech piece of kit malfunctions during a test.

    That’s the point of “testing”.

    which is fine if it’s a new radio, more of a problem if it’s a weapon with the destructive power of a small sun, going entirely the wrong way isn’t really a “malfunction”.

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    If it’s such a non-story why was May so evasive in her answer to Andrew Marr?

    Klunk
    Free Member

    If it’s such a non-story why was May so evasive in her answer to Andrew Marr?

    it is odd, for sure, in some ways makes the case for upgrading 😕

    legend
    Free Member

    which is fine if it’s a new radio, more of a problem if it’s a weapon with the destructive power of a small sun, going entirely the wrong way isn’t really a “malfunction”.

    You do realise the test missiles don’t have warheads in them?

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    What goes on in the military is generally subject to the official secrets act, this includes a missile going off track on a test. As above this is the perfect demonstration that the kit needs updating. The delay in doing so during 2010-15 Coalition has a cost in functionality and increased risk.

    nickc
    Full Member

    You do realise the test missiles don’t have warheads in them?

    no shit Sherlock, I think we can all pretty much agree that the most basic thing that ANY weapon from a catapult to a nuclear tipped missile has to be to achieve is that it goes where you point it, no?

    I mean that’s a pretty fundamental cock up! Great! We **** daren’t use the damned thing ‘cos it might hit us! I don’t think that’s what they meant when they said it’s a deterrent 😆

    I think Corbyn’s unarmed subs might actually be safer…

    What goes on in the military is generally subject to the official secrets act

    especially so when it’s a bloody embarrassing cock up like your missile doesn’t go where you aimed it…

    maxtorque
    Full Member

    Do you think the designers of the missile might have thought about just such an eventuality, and included suitable safeguards, or perhaps the firers just have to sit around and watch as the missile veers out of control and explodes some kittens or something?? 😆

    cheekyboy
    Free Member

    Who really gives a shit whether it works or not ? ……….anyone ?

    Klunk
    Free Member

    Who really gives a shit whether it works or not ? ……….anyone ?

    wanna buy a bridge ?

    Klunk
    Free Member

    tell everyone we have one of these 😉

    piemonster
    Free Member

    If it’s such a non-story why was May so evasive in her answer to Andrew Marr?

    Because if the weapons aren’t 100% reliable it would be a very poor political outcome even if it is militarily acceptable.

    cheekyboy
    Free Member

    Because if the weapons aren’t 100% reliable it would be a very poor political outcome even if it is militarily acceptable.

    Do you really think that they could say it was 100% reliable ?

    If they did would you believe them ?

    piemonster
    Free Member

    Do you really think that they could say it was 100% reliable ?

    I think theyd rather not say.

    If they did would you believe them ?

    Not personally, I think it’d be almost absurd. But some seemed shocked at it not apparently being the case.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    First failure in over 160 launches isn’t it?

    nickc
    Full Member

    First failure in over 160 launches isn’t it?

    No

    ninfan
    Free Member

    Hmm, you’re relying on pre-service development testing?

    Sunnyvale, Calif., Nov. 10, 2015 – The U.S. Navy conducted successful test flights Nov. 7 and 9 of two Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missiles built by Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT). The world’s most reliable large ballistic missile, the D5 missile has achieved a total of 157 successful test flights since design completion in 1989.

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/november/missile-space-trident.html

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    That story is from 1989 .. so no failures since in 160 launches ? (EDIT: I see ninfan has the answer)

    Nothing is 100% reliable, missiles included. Not every gps guided bomb lands in the targeted place.

    As I said even more reason to crack on with the new ones. We’ve already wasted 5 years at least.

    kilo
    Full Member

    We’ve already wasted 5 years at least.

    Or either five years where the present system has fulfilled its role or not been needed so no waste

Viewing 40 posts - 241 through 280 (of 296 total)

The topic ‘Trident submarines without the missiles’ is closed to new replies.