Govenment Urged To Not Replace Trident

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Infiltrator, Mar 5, 2012.

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. A new report from one of the many "thinktanks" has suggested that the Government should not replace Trident, but use the money to "revitalise" the Armed Forces.

    BBC News - Replacing Trident makes no sense, Centreforum argues

    It further suggests that the UK "retain" the ability to manuafacture nuclear weapons should we need to build them in the future....a sort of "fitted for but not with".

    I'll be the heretic here, I strongly believe that the Trident subs not be replaced, however, I do belive that we need a nuclear deterrent. My suggestion is, therefore, that the RN be releived of it's CAS policy when the current subs come to the end of their lives and we then move to a much cheaper, land based missile system.

    Let's be honest about it, the risks from a surprise first strike by one of the major powers has dimished significantly, to the point that our missile on the subs are, reportedly, detargetted. If that's the case, why not move to a land based system and save lots of the dosh?
     
  2. Guns

    Guns LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. The Royal Navy

    Of course when you choose the location for the missiles there will be no objection from anyone and the whole building process will be dead easy. Plus they will be so well camouflaged that no terrorist of tin pot nation will be able to find them and attach them. The US manage it, obviously they have a bit more space in the middle of their country so that they can build these things 100's of miles from anywhere.
     
  3. Because there's not all that much room in the UK to put missile silos.

    Because land based systems are vulnerable to first strike.

    Because moving to a land based system would mean a huge building project that probably wouldn't save all that much money.

    Because building a land based nuclear site would cause massive protests.

    Because land sites are vulnerable to terrorism and vandalism.
     
  4. Everybody knows where the Bank of England vaults are but nobody seems to have robbed them.
     
  5. That's because the ******* are empty. DUH. Even bank Robbers don't rob empty banks.
     
  6. The question is whether if the UK is annihilated by a nuclear attack the Captain & XO of our sub at sea would have the correct pre-written orders in the safe from the PM to launch our nukes and whether (knowing the World Service to be dead) he had the anger/conviction to do it and the right enemy location...

    A fair few ifs!
     
  7. while i agree that that is the current situation, can we be sure that that'll be the stuation in 40 years time when the next class of boats/missiles are still going to be in service?

    the problem with the other, cheaper delivery systems was always their vunerability - we couldn't possibly keep the location of silos secret, neither could we keep the location the base of whatever aircraft we used for an air deployed capability secret - so all we'd be doing is spending a fortune on a weapon that would get vapourised along with a large area of the british countryside.

    if you support the retention of nuclear weapons you are by definition someone who supports a defence posture based on countering the worst possible, or worst likely scenarios. to then say 'well i support keeping them, but nothing bad will happen' is just illogical.

    this idea that we could try and retain the capability to fabricate NW without actually having them is dumb - just ask the civil nuclear industry: the only people in the UK who have experience of playing a senior role in building a nuclear power station are either dead or long retired. we no longer have the capability, because we no longer have the people - hence we have to employ the French to do it for us.
     
  8. If I was the Captain, after the UK was vapourised, I would become a sort of Atomic Pirate, demanding tribute in exchange for not nuking people. Halfway between a Bond villain and a feudal lord.
     
    • Like Like x 3