Do we need a new Trident?

#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:
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#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?
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#5
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.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#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
Sir_Sidney_Ruff_Diamond said:
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?
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)
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#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?

V!
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#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 .
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#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??
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#16
Sorry about the joke... I mean 20 Beeelllliion Dollars.... then we could afford new nukes at no cost to the taxpayer. Of course Paris would be rendered a smoking ruin as an example but then again, I'm a little late for that by the looks of things. Of course we need new nukes, how else will we deal with the impending civil war?
 
#17
Sir_Sidney_Ruff_Diamond said:
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.
£20bn - cheap IMO. Compare it to the RAF's future tanker capability soming in at a sweet £135bn (and thats with PFI). Makes 2xCVF at £3-4bn seem cheap - even if the airgroup will take that too £10bn.

Sir_Sidney_Ruff_Diamond said:
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 US may maintain it in their stockpile, but there is no dual-key policy for its use. That'd be like asking the US to grant us permission to use the Hurcules or C17s, both of which require extensive US support. Or how about you Landie? That's built by a US owned company. Sure not going to ask Uncle Sam if we can use them next time we need to go off on our own.

Sir_Sidney_Ruff_Diamond said:
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!
'We do not forsee operations outside the NATO air umbrella' (sic) - used when carriers were being decommissioned from RN - then came the Falklands.

'We do not foresee a major tank battles' (sic) - used as USSR disintegrated and a reason to cut back on BAOR tank regiments - then cam GW1.

If we can't forsee what's going to happen in 5 years, why are we throwing away something that we can't rebuild in a hurry - we're talking decades of lead time here - that we may need in 10,20 or 30 years? By the standards of some goverment expenditure, £20bn is a snip.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
DBL - Good points, every one. the currnet deterrent costs around 3% of the Defence Budget - not a lot really, and ours costs a small fraction of what the French spend on theirs (because we are pals with the Yanks).

Money bloody well spent, IMHO. When the mad Mullahs have their nuclear capability, and when the NK Great Leader has ICBMs, do you think anything less than a nuclear threat will keep them in their box? Dream on!
 
#19
Sir_Sidney_Ruff_Diamond said:
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?

www.fas.org (no relation obviously...) said:
The Shahab-6 is expected to have a range of 5,470-5,500 and 5,632-6,200 kilometers with a 1,000-750-500 kilogram warhead. This range capability will depend on the number of stages used in the launch vehicle and their performance.

December 1996 news reports claimed that Iran is developing a 3,500-mile (5,632 kilometers) range missile called Shahab-6 that would be capable of reaching Europe.

Oct. 1, 1998, The Washington Times, "Israeli, Prime Minister Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu said, "Iran is developing the Shahab-4 which can reach well into Europe, and the Shahab-5 and 6, which (will have the capacity) to reach the Eastern Seaboard (of the United States)".
There's a very scary diagram at "Shahab-6 and Taepo Dong 2 ranges", which shows where they probably could put stuff...
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#20
Maybe we could replace the nuclear warheads with environmentally friendy diversity outreach workers. We could fire them at the Mad Mullahs who would then give up their evil plans of world dominance. Mind you nuclear weapons cost less than the diversity industry so lets stick with the enriched uranium ...
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top