ARmy Rumour SErvice

**CivvyPete** · 22-03-2012, 18:18

The trouble is, such ideas are bandied around by people who've grown up in a world where Britain being invaded by a foreign army is absolutely unthinkable, and wars are fought in far off sandy places. But you only have to look at the carnage in the former Yugoslavia to realise wars can still happen in Europe. I know it looks like one big number on a balance sheet, but ballistic missile submarines are a bargain when you consider the amount that would have to be spent on conventional forces to achieve that sort of deterrence value. We'd need half a dozen aircraft carriers for starters . . . . WITH operational aircraft on them. And lots of tanks. A shitload of artillery. Tens of thousands more infantry. Yeah, I know, some people here won't see that as a bad thing, but my point is, going the non nuclear route is not going to be a money saving options. Because the French and the Germans are our allies now, right. And the Russians are just going to sit on their gas wealth and not want to press their influence wider..... Invading Britain is inconceivable - until somebody conceives of doing it.

**DeltaDog** · 22-03-2012, 19:38

Let's stop pretending that the anti-Trident argument has anything to do with cost. Cost may well be the chosen vehicle, but ideology is the driver. The people arguing against Trident dislike it because it's mean and nasty and doesn't fit with their fluffy ****ing rainbows and fondue kumbaya view of the world.

Having established that the cost (when stated yearly, rather than over its lifetime) is negligible, let's get on with the real discussion. It is morally repugnant for us to have a nuclear deterrent?

**1001Tossers** · 22-03-2012, 19:43

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

Let's stop pretending that the anti-Trident argument has anything to do with cost. Cost may well be the chosen vehicle, but ideology is the driver. The people arguing against Trident dislike it because it's mean and nasty and doesn't fit with their fluffy ****ing rainbows and fondue kumbaya view of the world.

Having established that the cost (when stated yearly, rather than over its lifetime) is negligible, let's get on with the real discussion. It is morally repugnant for us to have a nuclear deterrent?

can you get Fondue Kumbaya in waitrose?

**saladin** · 22-03-2012, 20:04

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

, let's get on with the real discussion. Exactly who is it deterring ?

Fixed that for you - 'cos it sure as hell will not deter the sort of fundamentalist nutcases we are up against at the moment. It might deter "rational" old-style nationalistic politicians - but I'm not sure we are facing too many of them right now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. As for actually using the kit - on what ? Most of our likley opponents are so widely disperesed in such utter shit-holes that the f'ing missile would probably cost more than the damage it created. Trident is NOTHING to do with Defence. Its a political gesture that allows us to pretend to still be a major player in global politics. Willy Waving, nothing more.

**DeltaDog** · 22-03-2012, 20:22

Originally Posted by saladin

Fixed that for you - 'cos it sure as hell will not deter the sort of fundamentalist nutcases we are up against at the moment.

Trident won't protect us from nutters who blow themselves up on Tube trains. It will, however, act as an extremely strong deterrent against any conventional/nuclear attack on the UK.

Originally Posted by saladin

It might deter "rational" old-style nationalistic politicians - but I'm not sure we are facing too many of them right now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

"Not sure" is exactly the point. You aren't sure what we're going to be facing in the foreseeable future, and neither am I, and neither is the government. I'm not sure that I'm going to crash on the way home, but I'm still going to put my seatbelt on.

You seem to be missing the point that the reason the political landscape looks the way it does is precisely because of nuclear deterrents. It's the reason we haven't had a third world war.

**Pyianno** · 22-03-2012, 20:52

Personally I'm against nuclear weapons in principle...

... but if the French have it then we must ****ing well have it too!

**Sixty** · 22-03-2012, 21:00

If I may distil this down to the (heavens forfend) facts:

It's something we'd never use.
It deters no one.
It enables willy-waving on the international stage. Nothing else.

Saladin, above^ is entirely correct. It's political grandstanding and nothing more. Unless someone seriously wishes to argue that the UK position maintains world peace more exclusively than other European nations who seem to muddle along without it and yet, bizarrely!, aren't that****ed about deterring imminent destruction.

**DrStealth** · 22-03-2012, 21:16

i'm all for the deterrent (and a truly British one), but surely we can do it with without the uber expensive, can only be launched with our 'allies' permission, Trident SLBM?

say tube and air launched cruise missiles that use existing missiles and launch systems, and built in the UK. is that too much to ask for?

we should be developing our own supersonic missiles systems ANYWAY. why not have the nuclear option.

**Sixty** · 22-03-2012, 21:20

Originally Posted by DrStealth

i'm all for the deterrent (and a truly British one)

Why?

Serious question.

**Pyianno** · 22-03-2012, 21:21

Originally Posted by DrStealth

i'm all for the deterrent (and a truly British one), but surely we can do it with without the uber expensive, can only be launched with our 'allies' permission, Trident SLBM?

say tube and air launched cruise missiles that use existing missiles and launch systems, and built in the UK. is that too much to ask for?

we should be developing our own supersonic missiles systems ANYWAY. why not have the nuclear option.

As part of the 'lease' agreement with the Americans we are "allowed" to launch Trident without consuting the Americans where "the United Kingdom's vital interests are at stake". "Vital Interests" is not defined, however!

We did attempt to develop our own land-based deterrent. As virtually always happens with British things, it ran over budget, behind of schedule and was eventually abandoned.

Was it Macmillan who reached a gentlemen's agreement with De Gaulle to develop an anglo-french deterrent, only to renege when offered Polaris by the US?

Also, on a side note, what degree of control do the US have over our Trident? I know there is a dual-lock missile guidance system, but can they 'disable' the star-sight system without us knowing?