Do we need a replacement for Trident?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Ratcatcher, Nov 26, 2006.

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. 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?

  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. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    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. 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. Sorry mate we're screwed on that option thanks to the short sighted ones who seem to be wrecking all the three services. :(
  11. 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

  12. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    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. Sweden is neutral. Iran doesnt have a nuclear weapon yet - but when they do you will be glad to have Trident.