Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

    Votes: 250 26.3%
  • Total voters
    951
the_r_sole said:
If the nukes are flying we are dead anyway - you can't retaliate when you are dead.
If we have a useful navy, we would have a useful navy that could protect the waters around this island
I can't see the point in spending billions on something designed specifically not to be used, can we not just tell people we have them!?
Surely technology is advancing quickly and it would be better to invest in diversifying defences rather than relying on a deterrent which really spells the end if it's ever needed
Click to expand...

What's the use in protecting waters when a nuke can just bomb the boats right out of the sea/get past them and bomb cities?

Good luck fooling intelligence agencies that we have nukes as well - one misstep and all the cost of keeping it secret that we wouldn't have them is out of the window.

If you ever need to use that navy against a major world power, then you're going to be using the nukes anyway.
 
Tephnos said:
What's the point of an advanced navy when nukes will destroy it anyway, and we have no retaliation to stop it?



For:

No world wars since nukes
Nukes are never meant to be used, so they're working
MAD means no nuclear states will ever war with each other as there's no benefit to any kind of nuclear war
Political power in times of major world crisis

Against:

...Save money?
Click to expand...

Not quite true.

There was a Third World War, indeed, it is still ongoing.

It has to date killed tens of millions and blighted the lives of Billions.

But it was/is mostly fought in the third world so nobody noticed
 
This apparently happened before the vote on renewing Trident.

According to the BBC the missile was unarmed but a malfunction caused the missile to head for America, the sub was 200 miles of the coast of the USA.

Theresa May was asked 4 times this morning on the Andrew Marr show if she knew about this before the vote last year, she wouldnt answer.

What kind of damage would it have done if it had hit somewhere in America albeit unarmed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38708823
 
Last edited:
Unarmed pretty much nothing unless really really unlucky - worst case you'd basically have the equivalent of a fully loaded HGV coming at you at a few 1000 mph but with the way the boosters work unlikely to go like that even if it did go into level flight towards the US. Though "headed" towards the US they are designed to boost out of the Earth's atmosphere and then launch the re-entry vehicles at the target so as amusing as it is in reality it didn't get anywhere close to hitting the US.

Quite concerning though - at this point a test failure of the missile itself assuming correct procedures by the crew, etc. really shouldn't happen.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Unarmed pretty much nothing unless really really unlucky - worst case you'd basically have the equivalent of a fully loaded HGV coming at you at a few 1000 mph but with the way the boosters work unlikely to go like that even if it did go into level flight towards the US. Though "headed" towards the US they are designed to boost out of the Earth's atmosphere and then launch the re-entry vehicles at the target so as amusing as it is in reality it didn't get anywhere close to hitting the US.

Quite concerning though - at this point a test failure of the missile itself assuming correct procedures by the crew, etc. really shouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, i wonder what would be being reported if it was lets say North Korea that had done this, again accidently.

CaptainRAVE said:
None because it was unarmed?
Click to expand...

Regardless, it is the bigger picture, like i said above, what if this was NK or Iran and not the UK that had done this?

Also, being kept quiet is pretty wrong imo, it could have been a different outcome when the vote took place.
 
Last edited:
I certainly imagine the press would make the most of it heh - would be interesting if NK or somewhere did launch and then the re-entry vehicles veered off towards US interests - would the US be forced to pre-emptively counter launch incase they were fully armed warheads?

Even with the Trident malfunction I imagine there were a few tense moments lol.
 
Rroff said:
I imagine they'd be fully in the know - even so I can imagine the conversation.
Click to expand...
beachBOYken said:
Would the US not have been notified of UK missile test's before this took place, considering it was near the US?
Click to expand...

I was thinking that, i would imagine the USA would have systems that could have detected a launch, the sub was 200 mile off the US coast.

I wonder what the conversation was between the chaps in the sub that realised it was heading to the US and what the conversation in the US was when they detected it coming at them :eek:
 
Rroff said:
Quite concerning though - at this point a test failure of the missile itself assuming correct procedures by the crew, etc. really shouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

It will always happen, even when there is total quality in fields like space there are failures
 
Bear said:
It will always happen, even when there is total quality in fields like space there are failures
Click to expand...

I know nothing is perfect not sure I'm really conveying how I mean it - but an actual concerning failure of reliability shouldn't really happen at this point in the development cycle if it was as made out.
 
So, what happened is a missile had a malfunction, went the wrong way and then the fail safe systems did their job and nothing came of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom