I wouldn't be so sure. No doubt Trident is a finicky beast and old so parts are needing replaced constantly and maintenance is a regular occurrence. I doubt we'd have more than six months, maybe at the utmost a couple of years of working deterrent before they're practically unusable.
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
In theory - we've kind of under-invested in that lately though which isn't a good idea IMO given how much of a strength it is. For instance our only true modern long range (primarily anti-air but also capable of other roles) missile/defence platform is that on the Type 45s of which we have way too limited a number - madness IMO that we don't have better capabilities to defend against long range missiles, etc. which could be used to attack our airforces on the ground and so on.
Are you talking about the subs or the missiles? the stocks of missiles "should" be enough even with the maintenance schedule required to develop a replacement.
The UK military is incredibly low on numbers, the equipment we have is top notch but we have no where near enough of it to defend the UK mainland against a large force. Back at the start of WW2 we had the largest Navy in the world and a huge army, it's nothing like that today.
Soldato
Honestly, I'm not sure what Corbyn's views on MAD actually are. He deliberately dodges the questions but Labour already committed to renewing Trident, no? I'm thinking he may just be avoiding the 'yes' answer because he's trying pretty hard to attract the youth vote, and he'd lose most of it instantly if he said anything like that. The naive youth weren't around during the cold war so they just see nukes as nothing but a killing tool, they don't care for any tactical capabilities having them gives us.
I may just be giving him too much credit, though.
I may just be giving him too much credit, though.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,073
Long time since is read up on this but i believe they are on a 2+? year rotation before they are swapped out with the reserve stockpile to have maintenance or be rebuilt
His own views on it are pretty clear - but he doesn't have enough support within the party for his views. You can tell he is struggling with it every time the subject is brought up.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,073
I agree once a significantly large enemy force is on British soil then its probably over, they will have already wiped out navy and air power to get to that point and our army would not be sufficient especially without backup from navy/air power etc
It would be easy to trivialise it but we already have significant experience and R&D with missile tech and nuclear weapons development and we wouldn't have to develop and build the whole system from scratch subs and all.
The Wikipedia article has some interesting info. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine especially his bit.
Beginning in the late 1960s, the United Kingdom operated four Resolution-class submarines, each armed with sixteen US-built UGM-27 Polaris missiles. The Polaris missile was supplied to Britain following the terms of the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement. This nuclear deterrent system was known as the UK Polaris programme. In the early 1980s the British government began studies examining options for replacing the Resolution-class submarines and its Polaris missiles, both of which would be approaching the end of their service lives within little over a decade.[7] On the 24 January 1980, the House of Commons backed government policy, by 308 votes to 52, to retain an independent nuclear deterrent.[7] Options that were examined included:[7]
- A British designed and built ballistic missile; Although Britain had no capability in this field since the 1960s, it was considered to "not be impossible". However, it would come at the cost of being very expensive, would be full of uncertainty and would not be available within the required time period. Thus the option was considered "unattractive".[7]
Interesting hyperbolic statement, are you saying the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are going to move the clock closer to midnight if Corbyn is Elected, as they did when Trump came to power?
If they do, they haven't got loads to play with, as it's at 2min 30 seconds to Midnight (just 30 seconds further than it's worst position of 2mins to midnight in 1953)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
I was going to add a note about how we've gone to the French for long range missile tech lately i.e. Aster but I think this belies the capabilities we do have if it came to it - we've done plenty of research into missile tech since and have significant civilian knowledge base in rocket, etc. tech its just largely been more cost effective to use off the shelf already working systems. We haven't been entirely idle on that front in the last 50 odd years. As I said it kind of trivialises it a bit but if push came to shove I think we are capable of it.
This is what worries me about Brexit - if we don't start pouring resources into our own research and development capabilities (not just military) again we are going to be in a sorry state and there is a lot of reluctance to put money there. We have/had a lot of talent - some of the best in the world in the UK but increasingly they've been taking that abroad.
I don't think he is trying to attract the youth vote, he's genuinely a die hard pacifist who would have serious moral issues with having to issue orders for any form of military action
A worrying trait in a prime minister - sooner or later if you put yourself in that position you are likely going to have to make personal sacrifices of ideology/morals, etc. (not just over military issues) for the good of the country and I don't think Corbyn has it in him to do that.
What is it they say? Walk softly (and talk softly) but carry a big stick? I have no doubt that if push came to shove he would approve military action, but he would do all he could to avoid that option. And that's no bad thing to me as military action and boots on the ground should always be a last resort.
Caporegime
When you vote do you guys seriously take Into consideration if the elected prime minister will be forced to launch a nuclear attack, after we receive our 4 Min warning.
Are you mentally ill?
Are you mentally ill?
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
He compromised on his EU and Trident beliefs for the good of the party/country so I don't know why you think he wouldn't do the same when it comes to defense (especially when he's already stated he'll increase defense spending) or any other issue.
Your statement just smacks of hyperbole imho.
Soldato
Oh no, that damn stick is going to haunt me forever in this thread.
- Status