• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Do we need a replacement for Trident?

#1
The press seem to be presenting the latest nuclear weapons issue as being solely about replacing trident, what do you think? Do we need a submarine based system? Could we get by with no nukes? Could we (as I think) have something a bit cheaper than 25 Billion? and could the RAF or the Army, have a role to play?

Ratcatcher
 
#2
Hmmm, do we need an expensive missile based delivery system? Do we need that reaction time? How about lobbing nukes back into iron bombs so the RAF can chuck them out the back of a herc. Deterrent on the cheap?
 
#3
personaly i think giving up the deterrent is stupid, especialy as the 'nuclear club' is growing,

but one day trident will be old and obsolete, and i dont like the fact that the system is so dependent on US support.

we might not need the numbers of warheads or yield we have now, but we should keep something.

mybe a 'super storm shadow' type cruise missile and sub tube launched system could fill the gap?
 
#4
Considering that the Trident sub's are'nt all that old I wonder how much it's cost for a re-fit or maybe we could develop our own Nukes instead of relying on the US.Considering that the Tornado GR1 was capable of carrying nukes,would it be too hard to adapt the Stormshadow Stand Off missile to have a warhead.Or just go back to Tornado as a Nuke platform
 
#5
I believe the choices to be discussed are renewal vs refitting the existing system of nuclear delivery.

As to Trident, I think that we will soon have to find the money for new aircraft
 
#6
Ratcatcher said:
The press seem to be presenting the latest nuclear weapons issue as being solely about replacing trident, what do you think? Do we need a submarine based system? I would say yes as this platform provides a delivery method that is the least vulnerable to a pre-emptive attack or subsequent counter measures. Most potential adversaries could neutralise an airborne delivery platform, GR 1, etc. Could we get by with no nukes? Not in the real world or unless we ramped up our conventional capacity to an extent that would be more expensive ultimately than new nukes and even then, it's a big risk. Could we (as I think) have something a bit cheaper than 25 Billion? Possibly, as DR S' says, by reducing numbers of warheads per missile. The ability to destroy the world only once or twice over is probably sufficient :D and could the RAF or the Army, have a role to play? Not unless we are reverting to using tactical warheads which I feel are more dangerous purely because they are more likely to be used and again, far more vulnuerable than something sitting at the bottom of the ocean

Ratcatcher
IMVHO
 
#7
Who exactly do we need to deter with them? Russia has our gas supply and
china makes everything we use.So hardly going to want to nuke their customer base.The other nuke countries hardly have spare warheads to point in our direction as they either have closer enemies or are threatining the great satan.Since the end of the cold war its been pointless imho.
 
#8
One way of saving money would be a simpler warhead system: IE only 1 warhead per missile, rather than the current multiple warheads. I guess that multiple warheads complicate the system, therefore making it more expensive, and were needed in the days of the Cold War when the maximum number of warheads were needed. Say the new boats carry 10 missiles (at a guess) then surely 10 warheads would be enough for todays world.
 
#9
A Trident or similar system is the best method of Nuclear deterent out there. Subs are very hard to detect and therefore neutalise, and with the current multiple warheads each sub has enough potential firepower to wipe out a continent.

As to age of trident, if I remember the papers correctly the cabinet is going to discuss about what happens in the mid '20s when both the current subs and trident are supposed to come to the end of their working lives. I think what was mentioned was, either get new subs and carry on using the current Trident system, get new subs and a new upgraded version of Trident, get new subs and a completely new system, get something not reliant on subs or go on the cheap and refit both Trident and the subs for another 30 years.
 
#10
spike7451 said:
Or just go back to Tornado as a Nuke platform
Sorry mate we're screwed on that option thanks to the short sighted ones who seem to be wrecking all the three services. :(
 
#11
Ratcatcher said:
The press seem to be presenting the latest nuclear weapons issue as being solely about replacing trident, what do you think? Do we need a submarine based system? Could we get by with no nukes? Could we (as I think) have something a bit cheaper than 25 Billion? and could the RAF or the Army, have a role to play?

Ratcatcher
Short answer, yes we do need to replace them, purely because with the amount of shite flying around at the moment and Iran developing nuclear weapons we need the deterrent.
I am no fan of nuclear weapons, I believe the world would be a much happier place without them. However they are here to stay so we need to keep that particular ace up our sleeve.

Also Ratcatcher, I am asking you nicely. Give me back my avatar. Thieving scrote. :x

Edd
 
#12
rockhoppercrab said:
spike7451 said:
Or just go back to Tornado as a Nuke platform
Sorry mate we're screwed on that option thanks to the short sighted ones who seem to be wrecking all the three services. :(
So I take it they removed the SWAC kit from the Tornado's on the GR4/A conversion then?We were still doing practice loads on the Sqn back in 92.
 
#13
The Trident D5 has a life of 25 years and with refurbishment can operate out to 2040. By then either the world will have seen nuclear war or the need for nuclear weapons would be obsolete. I am betting on armageddon
myself what with the penchant for 3d world states to own nuclear weapons.
 
#14
who are we going to deter from nuking us.
germany and sweden seem to have surived fairly well with out any nukes :?
 
#15
brighton hippy said:
who are we going to deter from nuking us.
germany and sweden seem to have surived fairly well with out any nukes :?
Sweden is neutral. Iran doesnt have a nuclear weapon yet - but when they do you will be glad to have Trident.
 
#16
Gen. tomahawk6 US Army Retd. said:
brighton hippy said:
who are we going to deter from nuking us.
germany and sweden seem to have surived fairly well with out any nukes :?
Sweden is neutral. Iran doesnt have a nuclear weapon yet - but when they do you will be glad to have Trident.
So if we become neutral like Sweden, we won't have to worry about forking out the $40billion then. Is that your argument?
 
#17
Gen. tomahawk6 US Army Retd. said:
The Trident D5 has a life of 25 years and with refurbishment can operate out to 2040. By then either the world will have seen nuclear war or the need for nuclear weapons would be obsolete. I am betting on armageddon myself what with the penchant for 3d world states to own nuclear weapons.
Even without the measly handful under the control of HMG, the world has enough atomic weopans to obliterate the Earth several times over. So, we might as well spend the $40 billion on having some fun for the next few years while we wait for the retired General's prophesy to come true. It seems such a waste of good beer money to be used in such a meaningless fit of pique... :x
 
#18
If you want to see Britain become irrelevent ,neutrality is certainly the way to go. Historically though neutrality has never been a British characteristic.
 
#19
Gen. tomahawk6 US Army Retd. said:
If you want to see Britain become irrelevent ,neutrality is certainly the way to go. Historically though neutrality has never been a British characteristic.
We're already irrelevant.

Unless playing poodle to a paranoid foreign semi-neo-fascist state is something to be proud of. :x
 
#20
Ratcatcher said:
The press seem to be presenting the latest nuclear weapons issue as being solely about replacing trident, what do you think? Do we need a submarine based system? Could we get by with no nukes? Could we (as I think) have something a bit cheaper than 25 Billion? and could the RAF or the Army, have a role to play?

Ratcatcher
The current perceived threat seems to be from very small scale attacks - single bombs delivered by terrorists. Possibly Uncle Kim sticking a bomb in a cargo plane and heading for Heathrow. Given the chaos following 7/7, it might be better to opt for a cheaper, less resiliant deterrant and spend the savings on civil defence.

Didn't the Soviet Union used to have land based ICBM launchers roaming the forrests of Siberia? While vulnerable to a massive, pre-emptive attack, they were better than the static minuteman silos and B52s favoured by the Americans and, I would think, a lot less costly than an SSBN fleet.

Having said that, who knows what the world will be like in 30 or 40 years time? Military dictatorships in Russia or China? Cold war with ICBM armed Arabs? Arnold Schwarzenegger in the White House? Perhaps we better get an order in with BAe now.
 

Latest Threads

Top