Who knows what would have happened with the likes of Estonia, etc. unfortunately we don't really know for sure how it otherwise would have played out.
EDIT: Though that is more a wider perspective including the US.
Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
Who knows what would have happened with the likes of Estonia, etc. unfortunately we don't really know for sure how it otherwise would have played out.
EDIT: Though that is more a wider perspective including the US.
I'm saying yes due to an old job at a secure location directly involved with Trident.
In this day and age, it's still needed. We as a race are a LONG way away from peace to the point weapons of mass destruction are not needed.
In this day and age, it's still needed. We as a race are a LONG way away from peace to the point weapons of mass destruction are not needed.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 325
- Location
- Edinburgh, Scotland
Scrap them. The world doesn't need doomsday weapons.
The second one of those things is fired in anger, the whole world is screwed - it doesn't matter if we have them in our armoury as with nukes it's kill and be killed and oh, hello WWIII.
The second one of those things is fired in anger, the whole world is screwed - it doesn't matter if we have them in our armoury as with nukes it's kill and be killed and oh, hello WWIII.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
And this is basically the crux of my point. You are taking a popularised idea and making a decision based on little more than a high-level concept. Like Brexit, the devil is in the detail which can undermine the whole strategy - detail that you and many others refuse to engage with or understand.
No it's not hard to understand the question but there's so much more you need to know to make a properly considered decision. Like what are the alternatives? Why do we want a nuclear deterrent? Is it to make us safer? Does it achieve those goals in the current and likely future global geopolitical environment? Does this undermine the whole point of trying to keep us safe?
Their say should be to elect someone or a party who can represent their values and beliefs but can also learn all of the specifics of a particular issue or debate. Direct democracy is pretty flawed for any but the most trivial issues.
I'm not really clear what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that Russia might invade Estonia and our nukes would stop that happening?
The UK has played a sizeable role in supporting those countries independence (though it plays into a bigger narrative involving NATO, etc.) but I doubt Russia would have taken us half as seriously with purely conventional forces to back it up but no one can really know for sure how alternatively it would have played out.
Suspended
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
The National penis extension plan. It supposedly will cost £31Bn but as everyone knows with Govt. contracts that means at least £80Bn. All this for four subs that can quite easily be taken out. A bit like Japanese aircraft carriers of the last war. Waste of money. Posturing on the world stage. A bit like the young man who buys a pit bull or similar to pretend to look tough.
Estonia became independent against the backdrop of the collapse of the USSR. I don't think there was really much chance of military involvement from Russia at that time and I don't believe that the UK's nuclear capability made any real difference.
But, in any case, I'm interested in the future: what do you think Russia will do, that they wouldn't otherwise do, if we stop having nukes?
He's probably saying that if NATO didn't have the very real ability to make future Russian annexation of sovereign nations prohibitively expensive then Russia would be considerably emboldened.
Which is their true worth, in the geopolitical balance of power.
Perhaps we can not renew Trident, outsource our national security and the security of Europe to the US. I'm sure they will unquestionably leap to our defense under all possible scenarios .
It is somewhat an open question at this point - Russia's expansion efforts seem to be more focused towards the arctic at the moment, while undoubtedly over the last couple of years and ongoing future programs are making Russia (more) ready for war (more than just reactionary measures to NATO movements) that doesn't necessarily mean that war involving Russia in either imminent or inevitable or that Russia would be the aggressor but not something we can ignore either. (Its possible they would be emboldened to act with less consideration towards how we'd react and in ways increasingly more counter productive to us like Stolly said).
They have considerably upped their probing of the UK both in terms of what goes on in the air and general intelligence but that doesn't necessarily mean anything either.
I'm more concerned with the wider context - the UK has a history of punching above our weight and that legacy isn't just going away our military capabilities are as much part of why some entities play nice with us as is the economic convenience - there isn't a lot of real love for this country in some parts.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
All we were asked about is the high level concept. If someone asks me whether I want a car or an ice-cream van for my daily commute, I don't need to think about the complexity of making revenue selling ice-cream on the side of to offset my costs. I want a car and that is that.
And I don't refuse to engage with anything, thank you.
And most of those points can and have been reduced to a fairly easy to digest format by the media. We're not discussing rocket science here, the general public can and do broadly understand what i being discussed.
Although it is true you select a representative, you do so on the basis of the manifesto that stand for, which is typically decided by their party. Those manifestos include decisions which by your standard are far beyond the understand of the general public.
I agree with you that Russian behaviour of late has been, to put it mildly, extremely troubling. However, I don't see our nuclear weapons are having any impact or are likely to have any impact in the future. Russia's economy is sinking under sanctions as it is and I frankly doubt their capability to deal with the economic consequences of any serious military engagement in Eastern Europe beyond Little Green Men troublemaking in a non-EU/non-NATO country.
I cannot see any scenario under which the UK would deploy its nuclear arsenal over a conflict in Eastern Europe in any case. Instead, our conventional military strength, combined with that of our allies in Europe and beyond is much more significant. That being the case, I do not see how dropping our independent nuclear force would change matters.
Do you think that our nuclear capability is a significant factor here? Britain is one of only a few countries that is capable of projecting significant military power anywhere on the globe. That depends on Trident but on our conventional military strength and here a extra 5% to spend would have more impact that a weapon we will never deploy.
Sometimes this is what has actually driven countries to war i.e. Japan out of desperation.
IMO that nuclear deterrent has more impact than an extra 5% on conventional capabilities as it will always be on the mind of any nation state that would act against us either directly or indirectly.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
Well the PM has just said in no uncertain terms that she would be willing to press the button and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
You could almost see murder in her eyes.
She had to say that. Or its no deterrent.
She could have been a little less enthusiastic
she almost looked eager to press the button.She could have been a little less enthusiastic
Her response should be ezekiel 25:17