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.
-
Trident submarines without the missiles
-
SoloFree 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.
scotroutesFull MemberNot 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?dazhFull MemberI 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? 🙂
ninfanFree MemberSo – 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.
JunkyardFree MemberThe 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_BearFree MemberI 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
ninfanFree MemberAn 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 substhats 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)
JunkyardFree MemberWell 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
ninfanFree 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.
JunkyardFree Memberthat 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.
ninfanFree Memberit 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.
kimbersFull MemberWhichever side you fall (ignoring tabloid hysteria) Corbyn has opened up the debate about Nukes, better than it ever would have been
SoloFree Memberkimbers – 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?
🙄vxrobFree Memberquiet 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.
dazhFull Memberquiet alot of miss information about submarines
You mean all the armchair generals and sealords on here have got it all wrong?
mickmcdFree MemberRussians hacked it whilst captain of boat was being pissed on I reckon.
gobuchulFree MemberA non-story. A high tech piece of kit malfunctions during a test.
That’s the point of “testing”.
maxtorqueFull MemberEven 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………
gobuchulFree Membereach of which has the capability of erasing
aseveral largecitycities off the face of the earth………FTFY
legendFree MemberPoor wee missile was just trying to do its best and fix the Trump situation for us 🙁
nickcFull MemberA 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”.
scotroutesFull MemberIf it’s such a non-story why was May so evasive in her answer to Andrew Marr?
KlunkFree MemberIf 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 😕
legendFree Memberwhich 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?
jambalayaFree MemberWhat 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.
nickcFull MemberYou 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…
maxtorqueFull MemberDo 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?? 😆
cheekyboyFree MemberWho really gives a shit whether it works or not ? ……….anyone ?
KlunkFree MemberWho really gives a shit whether it works or not ? ……….anyone ?
wanna buy a bridge ?
piemonsterFree MemberIf 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.
cheekyboyFree MemberBecause 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 ?
piemonsterFree MemberDo 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.
ninfanFree MemberHmm, 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
jambalayaFree MemberThat 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.
kiloFull MemberWe’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
The topic ‘Trident submarines without the missiles’ is closed to new replies.