My question is... was the missile still under warrenty? Clearly not fit for purpose.
Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
My question is... was the missile still under warrenty? Clearly not fit for purpose.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,426
- Location
- Derbyshire
Renew.
The Trident fleet allow the UK to be a global force despite our small size.
Even if the UK is totally obliterated in an attack, somewhere in the world is submarine prepared to retaliate.
At our current level of technology, it is the ultimate hidden deterrant and I personally think it would be niave to think we don't need it.
People don't seem to understand that nuclear submarines refers to the propulsion system.
Just look at the lives saved when HMS Conquerer sank the Belgrano in the Falklands. Never underestimate the power of stealth.
The whole Argentinian fleet would not come of of port for the rest of the conflict. The few hundred who died on the Belgrano would have been a fraction of that from an actual attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano_(C-4)
The Trident fleet allow the UK to be a global force despite our small size.
Even if the UK is totally obliterated in an attack, somewhere in the world is submarine prepared to retaliate.
At our current level of technology, it is the ultimate hidden deterrant and I personally think it would be niave to think we don't need it.
People don't seem to understand that nuclear submarines refers to the propulsion system.
Just look at the lives saved when HMS Conquerer sank the Belgrano in the Falklands. Never underestimate the power of stealth.
The whole Argentinian fleet would not come of of port for the rest of the conflict. The few hundred who died on the Belgrano would have been a fraction of that from an actual attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano_(C-4)
Last edited:
Well that and the fact that no-one actually wants to.
Couple of things....
Firstly the current debate is about renewing the boats not the missiles.
Secondly the trident system is mature and reliable. This doesn't have to mean every single launch needs to be successful. They are the same missiles used on US boats, we share a common pool. If there were a design problem which effected an unacceptable amount of launches we'd know by now.
Firstly the current debate is about renewing the boats not the missiles.
Secondly the trident system is mature and reliable. This doesn't have to mean every single launch needs to be successful. They are the same missiles used on US boats, we share a common pool. If there were a design problem which effected an unacceptable amount of launches we'd know by now.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 2,316
Renew is not the same as replace.
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
The test will have been carried out at the US Navy's Autec Ranges about 180 miles south West of Florida, so they will have been aware as the test will have had to be arranged with the US Navy.
Unlikely, except maybe by the US, as they would have needed knowledge of the exact launch coordinates and time in advance to intercept or interfer that early on.
The Russians have some interesting ewar tech in development but its current effective range is within 100s of meters.
You have to look at the bigger picture with this. If you got rid of the nukes, could we defend the country with our now tiny army? Probably not. It may end up costing us MORE without them in the long run since alternatives would have to be paid for. A country with nukes can never be backed in to a corner, no matter how small their forces are.
Nukes are actually not a very good battlefield weapon. You cant do precision strikes, you risk poisoning your own forces and you can't get enemies hiding underground (in the way bunker buster weapons can).
Nukes are actually not a very good battlefield weapon. You cant do precision strikes, you risk poisoning your own forces and you can't get enemies hiding underground (in the way bunker buster weapons can).
Last edited:
Now, personally i have issue with this idea of retaliation, why condemn the species to total death because your tiny part of it lost?
That's mentally insane.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 4,245
- Location
- Inverkip
Yeah, I'm sure the likes of Sweden and Norway are desperate to park a few subs in the fjords. Nope.
Unarmed or not, if it went off course, as it did, its still going to cause a lot of damage or deaths coming down in a populated area. I don't know what they weigh, lets assume quarter of a ton, it will be coming down out of the sky at speed even without rocket motor working, that's a lot of kinetic energy.
Thankfully it never, but testing just 200 miles from an allied country, and yes I'm sure the Americans were aware too, and with that off course heading apparently towards the US ... well, questions should be answered IMHO, not swept under the carpet, though I'm sure (hope) the powers that be are taking this fault seriously.
Read on the news this morning, this was initially hushed up and happened prior to the renewal being approved.
Not precision weapons?
ICBM's are quite precise, sure the warhead itself is a bit wobbly no doubt but its hardly going miss its intended target.
A small tactical nuclear weapon could wipe out a US/UK/Chinese interdiction base for example, leaving everything else mostly untouched (Modern nukes are much less radioactive). It's is much better than attempting to whip something out with tonnes of cruises missiles and probably fail.
The whole idea is that it doesn't come to that.
Depending on configuration they have more like the mass of a (laden) lorry than a car - potentially could cause some damage if it came down in a residential area - in early flight they boost out of the atmosphere rather than level flight like a plane so shouldn't come in like a plane due to the design and rocket motors they don't really do level flight.
Last edited:
I think he means precise in the sense that they wipe out vast areas and not precise targeted objects, like buildings.
Landmass and concentration of population dictates that we'd lose any nuclear exchange against most other countries easily anyway, if nuclear arms are only as a deterrent then any smart government would simply pretend like Israel are rumoured to be doing - nobody is really certain if they have nukes or not but it's enough of a deterrent that they claim they do.
Russia always wins a Nuclear war just on how much land it has, however most people would call Siberia a bit **** in comparison to Western Oblasts.
Saying that, however global warming will likely make Siberia an extremely good area to build upon.
Saying that, however global warming will likely make Siberia an extremely good area to build upon.