Trident.......yes or no

[yxee]

Oh don't be stupid it isn't the same at all. Also NATO members are bound by a treaty that says an attack on one is an attack on all, don't tell me you want to keep nuclear weapons on the offchance that the Americans won't honour their treaty obligations. And we haven't even mentioned the insanity of blowing up the world and poisoning it with fallout just to prove a point.

Turkey are in NATO. Would we fire nuclear bombs at a country that invaded Turkey?

A country will only use the deterrent if it itself is under direct threat.

Even if you disagree with me, are you certain enough to gamble our existence on it?

 

[daveinprague]

Yes.

With a psychotic dictator in the Kremlin who has already threatened to nuke Danish warships if they provide missile defence, then I'd rather the British had our nukes to deter nuclear attack, rather than rely on the resolve of a US President to provide that deterrence.

Calm down, he threatened Denmark that it would be targeted by Russian missiles, the same as all the other countries that are allies against Russia, have been over the years. Thankfully, none of our missiles are targeting Russia...who do **** all to us, as we are far more civilised and rarely go to war.

 

[glasfryn]

by the time we let our missiles go from submarines nearly everybody here will be dead or well on the way, and if not this and we are the first to strike within hours we will all be dead or well on the way
in this case its a no win situation

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Calm down, he threatened Denmark that it would be targeted by Russian missiles, the same as all the other countries that are allies against Russia, have been over the years. Thankfully, none of our missiles are targeting Russia...who do **** all to us, as we are far more civilised and rarely go to war.

He specifically threatened firing nuclear missiles at Danish warships. He did not specify if this was whether thay were at sea or in port.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

Note the source :

View attachment 64454

Each missile can carry 12 warheads, but are currently configured for 3.

48 warheads currently per sub.

I think that's wrong.

The defence spending review (from the government) recommended in 2010 reducing it to 40 warheads per sub, see page 8 of:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/62482/strategic-defence-security-review.pdf

Maybe they mean 3 nuclear warheads, as I think the subs might carry quite a few non-nuclear warheads.

Hypothetically speaking, as the patent shows below, the difference in numbers could be those that are 'dummy' warheads that sit within the missile, these have the same flight pattern as a 'real' warheads (or MIRV - multiple independently targetable vehicle) but are designed to confuse / waste targeting efforts of the enemy and support the successful delivery or 'real' warheads.

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4829905

 

[daveinprague]

He specifically threatened firing nuclear missiles at Danish warships. He did not specify if this was whether thay were at sea or in port.

You honestly believe that nuclear strikes against single ships are realistic? Come on man.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Oh don't be stupid it isn't the same at all. Also NATO members are bound by a treaty that says an attack on one is an attack on all, don't tell me you want to keep nuclear weapons on the offchance that the Americans won't honour their treaty obligations. And we haven't even mentioned the insanity of blowing up the world and poisoning it with fallout just to prove a point.

A defence "club" only works if people pay their way. Doesn't mean everyone pays the same as there are different circumstances for all but expecting the US to do all is not credible. Anyway regardless 2.2% of GDP is reasonable for a sovereign state to protect itself. I suspect I spend that much protecting my personal belongings and house.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

You honestly believe that nuclear strikes against single ships are realistic? Come on man.

Yes. Or Putin looks like a clueless idiot for threatening it.

 

[daveinprague]

Yes. Or Putin looks like a clueless idiot for threatening it.

Good point. One flaw in it. Putin didnt say it.

 

[glasfryn]

Good point. One flaw in it. Putin didnt say it.

I have just realised, if you live in Prague and nuclear war breaks out and we get hit, you might be the only Englishman alive and therefor King of England ....................................mind you it will be a bit of a dustbowl

 

[Thunder Bolt]

by the time we let our missiles go from submarines nearly everybody here will be dead or well on the way, and if not this and we are the first to strike within hours we will all be dead or well on the way
in this case its a no win situation

It's precisely because it's a no win situation, that it's a deterrent. I was well & truly in the Cold War, and who could forget the Cuban missile crisis?

 

[Mackenzie]

Yes.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Good point. One flaw in it. Putin didnt say it.

My mistake. It would make Putin's ambassador to Denmark the clueless idiot.

 

[daveinprague]

My mistake. It would make Putin's ambassador to Denmark the clueless idiot.

Quite. Probably not a military expert..
All countries that target Russia with missiles, and part of an allied force against Russia will obviously be targeted. Its daft to think they wouldnt be.

 

[daveinprague]

I have just realised, if you live in Prague and nuclear war breaks out and we get hit, you might be the only Englishman alive and therefor King of England ....................................mind you it will be a bit of a dustbowl

All the resident little Englanders on NSC consider the country is lost anyway. You see them whinging about the country daily.
Me King of England? That would thrill a few on NSC :-D

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Quite. Probably not a military expert..
All countries that target Russia with missiles, and part of an allied force against Russia will obviously be targeted. Its daft to think they wouldnt be.

Denmark is not targetting missiles at Russia. The nuclear threat was in response to Danish warships being tasked with shooting down INCOMING Russian missiles.

 

[glasfryn]

It's precisely because it's a no win situation, that it's a deterrent. I was well & truly in the Cold War, and who could forget the Cuban missile crisis?

yep I am sure if a nuclear war breaks out as I die I will be think well at least we made a strike against someone else and some American somewhere will be thinking of me/us
like bollocks they will
and that was because they were russian missiles,I doubt there would have been that fuss if they had been American missiles

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Rather spend the money on having properly funded conventional forces. People bang on about nuclear weapons maintaining the peace...what peace? There has been Korea, Falklands , two Iraq wars, Afghanistan plus all the terror related stuff. None of those countries/groups were concerned about British Nuclear weapons. So in effect we have paid billions on Polaris/Trident for precisely zilch.

As for Russia, do you honestly think Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea/Eastern part of its country even if Ukraine had nuclear weapons? What would Ukraine do, blow Moscow to kingdom come? It wouldn't. But what would have made Russia think twice is if Ukraine had stronger conventional forces to give Putin a bit of a hiding from the start. If Russia has ideas of invading Poland/Baltics or even the UK its conventional forces that would stop him, and currently the west is weak on that score.

Replacing Trident means we have 4 nuclear subs, but conventional forces down to reserves .

The bottom line is Nuclear weapons are such hideous weapons - the end of all of us - that they simply cannot be used. For that reason alone I wouldn't replace

 

[-gully-]

I thought we were keeping them so Bruce Willis can blow up massive asteroids on his weekends off away from the wife.

 

[daveinprague]

Denmark is not targetting missiles at Russia. The nuclear threat was in response to Danish warships being tasked with shooting down INCOMING Russian missiles.

Yes, as part of an allied package against them. I dont think there is any circumstances that would exclude them from being attacked if they are part of a group of nations that is militarily against Russia. If youre shooting down their missiles, youre part of the enemy..