Trident.......yes or no

glasfryn · Apr 9, 2015

simple question do we need a nuclear deterent

IMHO why do we need a deterent to protect America because it certainly will not protect us, its just their early warning system ..........if they want this they they should pay for it.

just think of all the things we could use that money on?

Hampster Gull · Apr 9, 2015

Yes. Defence is critical. I remember when the Cold War ended and the feel good factor that the world was at peace. Didn't last long.

yxee · Apr 9, 2015

National defence is one of the undisputable objectives of a sovereign government.

Almost everything else is a luxury compared to it, whether we like it or not. I feel like my tax money is wasted on a lot of things, but national security is not one of those things.

Recent geopolitical events tell us that wars of conquest are still real, we are not yet living in some utopian age where diplomacy alone is enough to defend us from enemies.

Hotchilidog · Apr 9, 2015

No. Utterly pointless waste of money. However both Lab and Con will keep it for vanity reasons.

Of course the smart thing is get rid and stop paying for it, but pretend we still have it, as we are never going to use it.

Blue Valkyrie · Apr 9, 2015

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.

Westdene Seagull · Apr 9, 2015

I sit on the fence on this one - I don't understand why we can't keep what we've got rather than renew it ?

Also, maybe someone can explain to me, why each sub carries 16 missiles but only 3 warheads ? What are they meant to do once three have been fired ?

Hotchilidog · Apr 9, 2015

Westdene Seagull said:
I sit on the fence on this one - I don't understand why we can't keep what we've got rather than renew it ?

Also, maybe someone can explain to me, why each sub carries 16 missiles but only 3 warheads ? What are they meant to do once three have been fired ?

The decision to renew will just make some defence contractors even richer. That's the point of renewing. Greasing the wheels. It's nothing to do with national defence.

Fungus · Apr 9, 2015

yxee · Apr 9, 2015

Westdene Seagull said:
Also, maybe someone can explain to me, why each sub carries 16 missiles but only 3 warheads ? What are they meant to do once three have been fired ?

That doesn't sound right. You usually have more warheads than missiles since each missile is capable of delivering more than one warhead. It is not public what each sub carries, but I think those numbers are wrong.

Brovion · Apr 9, 2015

No.

Even leaving aside the fact that the money could be spent elsewhere (although just throwing it at the current NHS would be almost as bad) if you assume it's ring-fenced defence spending it would be be better spent on weapons for the type of wars we'll be fighting in the future, not on the one that we didn't fight forty years ago.

In much the same way as a football team has forwards and defenders so the NATO 'team' can have different types of player. Let the Americans handle the nuclear stuff and we'll do other roles. We're hardly likely to launch our little rockets without consulting with them anyway, so it'll never be an 'independent' deterrent.

Westdene Seagull · Apr 9, 2015

yxee said:
That doesn't sound right. You usually have more warheads than missiles since each missile is capable of delivering more than one warhead. It is not public what each sub carries, but I think those numbers are wrong.

Note the source :

Mr Bridger · Apr 9, 2015

Yes , world full of nutters who want nothing more than to get rid of the western way of life.

Crocodile Dundee had it sussed "thats not a knife....................this is a knife! "

yxee · Apr 9, 2015

Brovion said:
No.

Even leaving aside the fact that the money could be spent elsewhere (although just throwing it at the current NHS would be almost as bad) if you assume it's ring-fenced defence spending it would be be better spent on weapons for the type of wars we'll be fighting in the future, not on the one that we didn't fight forty years ago.

In much the same way as a football team has forwards and defenders so the NATO 'team' can have different types of player. Let the Americans handle the nuclear stuff and we'll do other roles. We're hardly likely to launch our little rockets without consulting with them anyway.

That's like saying we don't need a goalkeeper because there's one in Lewis. America will not use their nuclear deterrent if the UK is invaded, so our effective deterrent is nonexistent. The argument is invalid.

8ace · Apr 9, 2015

They might cost a lot actually having to fight a conventional war costs a f*ck load more.
So maybe they save money in the long run :shrug:

Blue Valkyrie · Apr 9, 2015

Westdene Seagull said:
Note the source :

View attachment 64454

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

48 warheads currently per sub.

Hampster Gull · Apr 9, 2015

According to SIPRI in 2014 we spent 2.2% of our GDP on defence related spend. Same as France, Uganda and Vietnam. Much less than the U.S. and Russia of course. More then countries like Germany and Japan who are more reticent post WWII. Anyway, feels about right to me

WATFORD zero · Apr 9, 2015

Mr Bridger said:
Yes , world full of nutters who want nothing more than to get rid of the western way of life.

Crocodile Dundee had it sussed "thats not a knife....................this is a knife! "

USA and Russia have Chainsaws, France and China have meat cleavers and we are turning up with a penknife. Still, makes me feel safe :facepalm:

yxee · Apr 9, 2015

Westdene Seagull said:
Note the source :

View attachment 64454

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.

Kuipers Supporters Club · Apr 9, 2015

Yes - it's no surprise that the worlds major nuclear powers (NPT signatories) haven't gone directly to war with each other since 1945.

We would never use them - but they act as such a deterrent. I honestly think Russia would not have invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine if they hadn't given up their weapons by 1996.

Brovion · Apr 9, 2015

yxee said:
That's like saying we don't need a goalkeeper because there's one in Lewis. America will not use their nuclear deterrent if the UK is invaded, so our effective deterrent is nonexistent. The argument is invalid.

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.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Trident.......yes or no

cleaning up cat sick

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Not seen such Bravery!

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

Sound of the suburbs

Well-known member

Banned

Not seen such Bravery!

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page