Replacing The Trident Defence System

antijoke · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:16

So I heard on the radio last night about how an idea is being thrown around at the the moment of merging the three armed forces to one, and then it went on to mention the cost of replacing the Trident System at tens of billions of pounds.

And it got me thinking about what the good people of OcUK think about this subject?

Do we need nuclear weapons? Would they be effective? Should we look at other nuclear defence ideas? What would happen legally if one was launched with the various treaties involved?

Some information about Trident

Will be interesting hearing the thoughts and ideas from everyone.

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:19

anticonscience said:
Do we need nuclear weapons? Would they be effective?What would happen legally if one was launched with the various treaties involved?
.

Yes, yes, nothing.

What other nuclear defence ideas? I don't get what you mean.

They are the ultimate security. We do not know what will happen in 1 years time let alone 30 years time. You do not know who you allies will be, or what the world will look like. As long as we have nukes we are protected and have a big voice on the world stage.
The trident has already been extended as far as it can, to try and extend it futher will just eat up more money than replacing it.

Nukes have been invented they are here to stay. Nuclear dissarmement is a pipe dream in a hippi world and will never happen. (unless a similar bomb is designed without the radiation). Rogue states and groups will always be trying to build or source such weaponry and you do not need a rocket for delivery.

mollymoo · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:23

anticonscience said:
Do we need nuclear weapons? Would they be effective? Should we look at other nuclear defence ideas? What would happen legally if one was launched with the various treaties involved?

[

Yes as an effective deterrent. Yes as an effective deterrent. Not sure what you mean

antijoke · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:27

I was thinking along the lines of another platform other than submarines.

scorza · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:28

I guess by alternative nuclear defence ideas he's talking about cheaper but less effective delivery methods i.e. planes, land/ship based ballistic missiles.

Given that it seems we can't afford an effective military any more I'd have to say these ought to be looked at as serious alternatives to replacing Trident, or even giving up our nukes altogether.

asakura797 · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:30

IMO nuclear weapons are designed for security and to satisfy the human need for destruction

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:32

anticonscience said:
I was thinking along the lines of another platform other than submarines.

Planes get shot down. Silos are fixed location and can be targeted. Only sensible option is subs.

antijoke · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:32

According to the BBC article:

Only one submarine is on patrol at any one time, it needs several days notice to fire, its warheads have been reduced to 48 and are no longer pre-targeted.

Just what is the point in having them as a detterant? Assuming we got attacked on a nuclear level, how effective is a counterstrike going to be after 'several days'?

Darg · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:33

All you need is to redeploy that big **** off artillery piece you had during the war that could drop shells on paris. tbh if the world does go to pot and the nukes are flying then does it make much difference who you lob them at?

If we're all going to die anyway I'd say getting the first shot off at paris would be a good last move.

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:34

anticonscience said:
Just what is the point in having them as a detterant? Assuming we got attacked on a nuclear level, how effective is a counterstrike going to be after 'several days'?

It's not ideal but it's a deterrent most of all. The assurance of MAD is actually a good principle. It doesn't really make any difference if they have 48hours to live after they attack us. They will be launched and destroyed. So they wont launch in the first place, or attack us in a major military offensive.

Darg said:
tbh if the world does go to pot and the nukes are flying then does it make much difference who you lob them at?

It's a deterrent so we don't get to that point. It also stops invasions of UK assets. You better think twice about launching any major offences against us, if we lose we have nukes to back up our armed forces.

Cosimo · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:36

Yes (deterrent), Yes (deterrent), current platform suits our military capabilities, nothing but someone would get obliterated and understand the message.

starfighter · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:37

We need it, you can't uninvent the nuke so there is always a risk of someone else getting one, atleast if we have one they will think twice before using it.

If a shared European project was cheaper I would go for that. We are unlikely to go to war with anyone in the EU.

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:38

starfighter said:
If a shared European project was cheaper I would go for that. We are unlikely to go to war with anyone in the EU.

So sure? the world can and does change a lot. How about in 50, 100, 500 years time?
These things take a lot of expertise and time to build. If you dissarm the chances are you will never get it back. If the world then goes to pot, then what. Our armed forces are tiny.

_ST · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:38

We need these as a detterant end of.

craptakular · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:42

anticonscience said:
According to the BBC article:

Just what is the point in having them as a detterant? Assuming we got attacked on a nuclear level, how effective is a counterstrike going to be after 'several days'?

very effective when aimed at cities and large military bases.

Last time I checked you cannot move cities and how would the enemy know what city would be nuked? It's not like we would say we will nuke city X a week next tuesday.

The Mad Rapper · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:48

AcidHell2 said:
As long as we have nukes we are protected and have a big voice on the world stage.

How are we protected exactly? Muslim extremists could detonate a stolen nuclear warhead in an ISO container in the middle of London - our deterrent would be useless in that scenario.

The reality is that all it assures is that we may be able to cause damage to a potential aggressor if the need arises. I do not agree it affords any protection.

antijoke · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:49

Oxy said:
very effective when aimed at cities and large military bases.

Last time I checked you cannot move cities and how would the enemy know what city would be nuked? It's not like we would say we will nuke city X a week next tuesday.

Conversly, if say Al Qaeda detonated a nuclear bomb on UK soil, who/where exactly would you fire one of our nukes?

And on the front of providing protection, it didn't provide any for America back in 9/11/01 did it?

Glaucus · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:50

The Mad Rapper said:
How are we protected exactly? Muslim extremists could detonate a stolen nuclear warhead in an ISO container in the middle of London - our deterrent would be useless in that scenario.

anticonscience said:
Conversly, if say Al Qaeda detonated a nuclear bomb on UK soil, who/where exactly would you fire one of our nukes?

how would it be useless?
As we have shown with Afghanistan it is not safe for terrorists to hide behind countries and countries to finance and allow terrorism.
They know we would retaliate the deterrent remains.
Say Iran gave terrorists a nuke. They are not simple to make. it would almost certainly need government backing.

wozencl · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:52

Al Qaeda are unlikely to come into possession of a conventional nuclear weapon the risk they pose is a "dirty bomb".

antijoke · 4 Feb 2010 at 14:52

So if Al Qaeda detonated a nuclear weapon on UK soil/against UK assets your idea would be to bomb Afghanistan? :eek: