Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
It makes mad sense.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 526
do we have the ability to shoot a nuke from the sky?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Well, if they could, and there were definite asymmetry to the situation, then it'd make more sense to pound away gently a la Japan. Arguably there's less chance of total annihilation and greater incentive to activate under such conditions, given you still wanted something out of the people you were striking.
Sensible choice. Que the SNP moaning......
The problem with the SNP is that they are making a lot of English, Welsh and Northern Irish people think, "well **** off, then if you don't like it" as a knee-jerk reaction.
In reality, I doubt the SNP, despite their HoP representation, reflect the majority of the Scottish people on this issue. All of the Scots working down in England that I know hate the nationalist Agenda that Sturgeon is pushing, and I'm sure that the majority of those living in Scotland, being a naturally savvy, intelligent and pragmatic group of people aren't buying her BS.
I'd be extremely disappointed if I was wrong about that. The UK is definitely better as a single unit and the idea of Scotland "staying" in the EU raises a lot of uncomfortable questions and issues which I think the SNP are glossing over.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Is there a reason why we persist with a conceptual defence of three or four subs, instead of a land based banks of missile systems instead?
To hide under the water for that stealthy approach to MAD?
To hide under the water for that stealthy approach to MAD?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
The problem with the SNP is that they are making a lot of English, Welsh and Northern Irish people think, "well **** off, then if you don't like it" as a knee-jerk reaction.
In reality, I doubt the SNP, despite their HoP representation, reflect the majority of the Scottish people on this issue. All of the Scots working down in England that I know hate the nationalist Agenda that Sturgeon is pushing, and I'm sure that the majority of those living in Scotland, being a naturally savvy, intelligent and pragmatic group of people aren't buying her BS.
I'd be extremely disappointed if I was wrong about that. The UK is definitely better as a single unit and the idea of Scotland "staying" in the EU raises a lot of uncomfortable questions and issues which I think the SNP are glossing over.
Of course it does. But sitting on a broadly unionist side of the divide here too, albeit a rather depressed one, I hope we won't have to test the arguments and the resolve of the Scottish people quite so soon; frankly, the SNP pushed into a corner by Brexit can be more vocal, effective and honest. The same trick we pulled at the eleventh hour two years ago won't work again.
The economic argument remains potent, but as the EU referendum illustrated it won't be enough if the situation becomes bad enough in Scotland, and Brexiters will only get the same high octane, emotionally charged lines of attack back that they used for a few cheap points to top it all off. Short of dumb luck and full federal settlement, only total mass delusion would indicate certain victory in such a scenario.
Your deterrent must survive long enough to be effective and be hard to locate and neutralise. Particularly on an island this favours an at sea solution.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Do the french have a similar solution? Or is their solution land based?
I assume the us russians and chinese have land and sea based systems?
I assume the us russians and chinese have land and sea based systems?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,223
Yes they do. I believe the Russians also have a mobile train based system?
My biggest concern with trident is that they could easily counter it (surely it can't be that difficult to track and we know that the Russians have been lurking off Scotland). They could neutralise it without us even knowing. Good thing we have the US on our side.
Absolutely not.
What is the point of mutual destruction? Why the civilians have to die a horrible death in flames, die from severe cancer those away from the blasts, or impose to the rest of the planet nuclear winter?
Those who claim "I will use nuclear weapons" on any side, they are not better than Hitler. And that includes the Americans having used them twice already.
Arrogance is what will destroy the human race.
Have conversional war and if you lose you lose. The human race hasn't come to extinction for losing wars over the last 5,000 years.
What is the point of mutual destruction? Why the civilians have to die a horrible death in flames, die from severe cancer those away from the blasts, or impose to the rest of the planet nuclear winter?
Those who claim "I will use nuclear weapons" on any side, they are not better than Hitler. And that includes the Americans having used them twice already.
Arrogance is what will destroy the human race.
Have conversional war and if you lose you lose. The human race hasn't come to extinction for losing wars over the last 5,000 years.
Last edited:
18k Mach 24
Nope, we can only launch from down where it's wetter, and life is much better, under the sea.
The point of Mad is that no one dies. Nobody wins a nuclear war so no one starts one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,161
The thing is the warhead is designed to withstand re-entry into the atmosphere at way fast speeds the energy it is withstanding is probably orders of magnitude greater than what could be usefully brought to bear against it as it re-enters.
Lasers have been proven to work against the missiles however by causing a mechanical shock to a highly stressed component. But you have to be near at the time of launch to stand a chance of this working.
The American interceptor missile was aiming to take out the war head but the trick is getting the warhead and not the decoys it releases on re-entry. Also the window for a successful hit and such massive closing speeds is tiny.
They proved that Patriot couldn't hit Skuds at much slower closing speeds because the detect to detonate time for the explosive was so short you couldn't even set the charge off in the window needed to hit it.
Laser might however become useful missile defence for non-ICBM's particularly for warships. A supersonic cruise missile can probably be blinded or damaged sufficiently at tolerable ranges by a lasers to be useful.