Do we need a new Trident?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Sir_Sidney_Ruff_Diamond, Nov 1, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Neu Arbeit - in the face of stiff backbench opposition is gearing itself up for a fight over the future of our 'independent' nuclear deterrent. With a price tag of £20bn is this simply a waste of money which could be better spent on investing into the wider armed services. Housing and facilities infrastructure, new kit you name it.

    I am not a namby tree hugger but as the deterrent is independent in name only ie. we buy it all from the Septics would not use it without their permission and that the times have changed why exactly do we need it anymore?

    The days of 3 Shock Army motoring over the hill are long gone in every conflict we enter into now overwhelming superiority on the air and the ground are always guaranteed - far more then the traditional 3:1.

    As it has been publically stated that we would not go to war without being part of some US coalition surely being under their nuclear umbrella is a given. Nuclear deterrents are so 70's lets have the cash I say!
  2. Hmmm, despite what they've said to date I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the decision has been made to plump for a little bucket of sunshine on the tip of our existing Tomahawk capability.

    We have the ability to maintain them ourselves, and there's no requirement for specialised missile boats. But this is all pure speculation on my part you understand :wink:
  3. N Korea, India, Pakistan.... even the French have them, The Iranians want them, the only decision we should be making is where we target them... Tehran or the centre of the other empire of evil.... Paris?
  4. Yes but they can't deliver them to us and we can take out any of their sites using conventional but still devastating munitions whenever we want.

    So my question still stands. Why do we need Trident or a replacement?
  5. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    The world is NOT a safer place since the end of the Cold War, and any Government that abandons the nuclear deterrent now is taking a very, very foolish risk with all our lives.

    And yes, we can operate it entirely separate from the US. It is independent, no matter what CND and the other well-meaners think.

    Finally, if anyone thinks that any money saved from not replacing Trident would be spent on defence, then wake up now.
  6. We need them to keep the military industrial complex ticking over. Providing the subs etc are gonna be built somewhere like Tyneside and providing we let it be known that any act of WMD terrorism will end up with a 30 Megaton Airburst over the capital of any country linked to the terrorists (Especially Paris) then i'm all for keeping our status as a major world power as opposed to the 3rd world status that we are being dragged into.
  7. Not YET they can't, but we'd be foolish to imagine that it's long time before they can. The need for a nuclear deterent is self evident from the history of the weapon itself. The only occasion (I'm counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki as one) nuclear weapons have been employed was when only one state possessed them and was assured there could be no comparable retaliation.

    The Genie won't go back in the bottle so we're stuck with having to possess them.
  8. Question, Are the dictators of the world more or less likely to develop and use nuclear weapons if we (the democratic nations) give them up?

    Answer, They are much more likely. It would instantly make him(her) the most powerful man in the world.

    We need to maintain the situation, where if a tin-pot dictator develops a nuke, he is far to scared to use it. MAD - It works.

    I would support a reduction in number of warheads / yield if the weapons had greater "bunker busting" capability. Just so the dictators of the world KNOW that we can get to THEM personally if they use nukes.

    SC. (a uk civvie)
  9. I'd agree, it's ludicrous to even contemplate giving up our ulimate weapon whilst the Irans of the world are not only developing them, but have the mentality to use them. Lets face it, even the most rabid anti western mullah is never in too much of a hurry to reach paradise, they are happy to let the gullible idiots who become suicide bombers do that. talking of which, it must be a bit of a bummer when they end up in Allahs garden surrounded by virgins and those virgins turn out to be the other big butch bearded members of the Taliban etc...
  10. Is it not the case that we could do the job with conventional weapons. The price of Trident and its possible successor is eye-wateringly large IMHOP. And knowing the curretn government I am sure £20bn is a very conservative estimate. I am sure that if a successor is agreed then it will be wrapped up in some dodgy PFI/PPP deal which will hugely inflate this figure, just look at any current big procurement deal.

    We can be incredibly destructive and targeted without the instant sunshine option.

    Also comparing modern dictators to Japan is not really correct. The Japs were quite happy to die for the Emperor. Most current dictatorships support would fade away far quicker. Saddam had a nuclear proof bunker fat good it did him.

    It needs political will and an effective military.
  11. Yes, replace Trident with something even bigger, leerier, shinier, scarier and more destructive. Period.

    Like the Iranians are going to see us giving up the deterrent as anything other than surrender, and who knows how long the "Special Relationship" (chuckles) is going to last?

  12. Yes, replace Trident with something even bigger, leerier, shinier, scarier and more destructive. Period

    Vegetius.... welcome to the dark side old chum!

    For the record, the Japanese were going to execute 100,000 POW's had we invaded, once they realised we were being serious they got the hint.

    For the record, Bomber Harris is one of my heroes!
  13. No buy weapons we can use tomahawks with ebola or plague (Its ok its organic :lol: ) warheads or persistent nerve
    cheaper nastier .
  14. How about a spaced based platform that uses light to destroy things? I call it a "Laser" and we could blackmail the UN for One Meeeeeleeeooon Dollars??
  15. I was trying to be sensible with this thread, but.......