Trident replacement/senior military figures

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Yokel, Apr 21, 2010.

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. What's all this about senior military figures speaking out about the future deterrent? It isn't in the Telegraph....
     
  2. Been all over the radio here in BFBS land, Cordingley and a couple of other retirees saying that if Trident is replaced the Army will suffer. Followed by a very smug sounding Nick Clegg, do these clowns really want Broon in for another five?

    Personally I always get the feeling that whenever any senior figure starts suggesting cuts to one of the other services it just creates the impression in the public's consciousness that there is still room for cuts in any of them.

    Can't afford to replace Trident and have a modern, capable well equipped Army? Cut the welfare and foreign aid budgets, simple.
     
  3. They've said it before, and no doubt they'll say it again.

    If you're going to run a nuclear deterrent (and frankly unless someone can prove there will be no threat to the UK for the next 50+ years I think we should) then the only credible minimum deterrent is provided by 4 SSBNs carrying the Trident replacement. Land-launched missiles are vulnerable to first strike. Cruise missiles and bombers can be shot down. SLBMs, launched from an undetected submarine will work.
     
  4. To me the argument is a lot simpler than the keep/scrap Trident sound bite.

    Its do we want to remain a Nuclear Power?
     
  5. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    That's if you assume that complete mutually assured destruction - or something close to it - is the only outcome with deterrent effect. I suspect I would be deterred from launching an attack by the thought that one or two air-dropped, cruise missile or land launched nukes might get through to a few of my cities; but then I don't rule an expansionist nuclear power.
     
  6. What about a tomahawk style delivery system with low yield warheads, so deliver to selected targets from Submarines.

    I would hazard a guess that would be significantly cheaper than new trident missles and boats, allowing us to retain a nuclear strike capability.

    I suspect the days of being able to Nuke a superpower out of existence are long gone, in favour of a more surgical approach so to speak
     
  7. Undoubtedly, but no-one in this election (apart from the complete wack jobs) is advocating complete disarmament. Even the Lib Dems are talking (although strangely not committing) about a non-SSBN replacement.

    But, and anyone who's operated at the levels these have, knows that it's the sound bite for the proles that counts. And today's soundbite is that £35bn pounds can be saved from the Defence budget. Top timing fellas :roll:
     
  8. Thing is there is no realistic nuclear threat to the UK at the moment.
    even Iran we'd be at best 3rd on there target list.
    nuclear terrorism is not going to be stopped by a SLBM.

    as a bribe to keep the spams engaged in Europe during the cold war fair enough now there's no credible threat to the UK or likely to be one.
     
  9. I thought this was a poll to see whether to get rid of Trident or Senior Figures.

    So many polls going on i am getting confused :oops:

    I was surprised at Nick (son of Blair) Cleggs statement about 17 Brigadiers for each Bde mind, hence why i thought this was a poll.

    Personally i think we need a nuke deterent, what type is beyond me.
     
  10. If we lose our nuclear deterent what reason do we have to keep our seat on the U.N?
     
  11. To be honest if you had asked me this question even 5 years ago I would have said the deterent was essential, but my opinion is changing. I think we need a serious appraisal of what the real threats that demand a nuclear response really are. It's not Imadinnerjacket, even if he had the weapons how does he deliver them and in reality is he really going to be that conserned about a counterstrike, inshallah. Very much the same applies to Kim Il Sung. Closer to home we have India and Pakistan who probably are not a threat to us unless the Taliban get Pakistan and then will they worry about a counterstrike. Then there are the Israelis, agressive little troublemakers but even they would realise that Uncle Sam would be more than pissed of if they did something like that, so not really a threat. Frogs, well probably not. The US even if some of their more Strangelove like character would probabl;y draw the line a sending us some instant suncshine no matter how bad our weather is. That leaves the Russians, one really has to ask the question is what difference do we make.
     
  12. On the other hand, what messages would we be sending?
     
  13. Cruise missiles would not survive (in any credible numbers) any IADS compiled of double digit SAMs. You would have to launch hundreds of them to swamp the defences

    As to your last point - Trident D5 does have low yield warheads -the sub strategic option (never been disclosed but guessed at several 10's of kT). This replaced the WE-177 low yield option and the Lance tactical nuke.

    We have de-fanged our SSBN's quite a lot - they do not deploy with anything like the full compliment of warhead and yield options.
     
  14. So you propose we base our deterrent on a low flying sub-sonic delivery system? We may as well dig out a couple of Lanacster bombers!