• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Trident replacement/senior military figures

#3
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.
 
#4
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.
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#5
the_meffed_crusader said:
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.
To me the argument is a lot simpler than the keep/scrap Trident sound bite.

Its do we want to remain a Nuclear Power?
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#6
P2000 said:
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.
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.
 
#7
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
 
#8
fozzy said:
the_meffed_crusader said:
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.
To me the argument is a lot simpler than the keep/scrap Trident sound bite.

Its do we want to remain a Nuclear Power?
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:
 
#9
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.
 
#10
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.
 
#12
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.
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#14
zippy483 said:
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
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.
 
#15
zippy483 said:
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
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!
 
#16
brighton hippy said:
Thing is there is no realistic nuclear threat to the UK at the moment.
Yeah sure sign a deal with Russia, how many of their remaining missiles are still programed to arrive over GB plc

Even Iran we'd be at best 3rd on there target list.
1st Israel
2nd GB plc (are we not we closer than USA)
3rd USA


Nuclear terrorism is not going to be stopped by a SLBM.
Nope, however keeping the deterrent, shows that we still have the willpower to use it.

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.
Wait out
 
#17
Yokel said:
On the other hand, what messages would we be sending?
The real question is, can their be a world without Nuclear weapons?

Until that is agreed on and everybody complies then countries have to assume the worst and arm themselves accordingly. As long as one country has a nuclear arsenal then the enemies of that country will strive to match.

The delivery system is irrelevant as technology to make sure your weapons can get through and theirs don't never remains static and will always be expensive.
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#18
rickshaw-major said:
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!
Quite. You have to ask if nuclear tipped sub-sonic cruise missiles are so good - why don't the French use them in their deterrent?

I did hear talk of a hypersonic stealth cruise missile being mooted as the next deterrent, but the development costs would probably mean it was cheaper to stick with Trident D-5. We bought into the D-5 programme back in the 1980's - it was essentially a joint development (OK the US paid more, but teh UK did stump up a proportion of the development money)
 
#19
I believe one of the issues is people seem to question its use to prevent an attack against us, a simple solution is to give a certain country a large dose of instant sunshine and see if they attack us back. When it emerges the entire country is one large glass factory the point will be proven that Trident is indeed effective, and we won't even have to pay to dismantle them.
 
#20
vampireuk said:
I believe one of the issues is people seem to question its use to prevent an attack against us, a simple solution is to give a certain country a large dose of instant sunshine and see if they attack us back. When it emerges the entire country is one large glass factory the point will be proven that Trident is indeed effective, and we won't even have to pay to dismantle them.
Or worry about COIN
 

Latest Threads

New Posts