Replacing The Trident Defence System

[antijoke]

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.

 

[antijoke]

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

 

[antijoke]

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'?

 

[antijoke]

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?

 

[antijoke]

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

 

[antijoke]

Whoever gave it them?


They wouldn't be able to make one by themselves.

And how would we go about finding out who they bought it from?

 

[antijoke]

So the consensus so far is nukes are good for deterrant purposes. This I understand. But can the cost really be justified? Is there any alternative at all? Or is it subs or nothing?

It's probably very simple.

How simple would it really be to trace back to where the bomb was bought from? I'm assuming it's not as simple as made out in the world of Hollywood.

 

[antijoke]

So if the UK ditched the nuclear weapons program tomorrow, do you think it would open up the possibility of increased aggression towards the UK?

 

[antijoke]

Regarding the cost of other platforms it's very interesting to read about the development and costs of the B2 bomber.

The total "military construction" cost related to the program was projected to be US$553.6 million in 1997 dollars. The cost to procure each B-2 was US$737 million in 1997 dollars based only on a fleet cost of US$15.48 billion.[3] The procurement cost per aircraft as detailed in General Accounting Office (GAO) reports, which include spare parts and software support, was $929 million per aircraft in 1997 dollars.

The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion in 1997 dollars. This includes development, procurement, facilities, construction, and spare parts. The total program cost averaged US$2.13 billion per aircraft.

 

[antijoke]

Also found another interesting quote on Wiki about Trident.

However, the US are extending the life of their Trident submarines to 30–40 years and Professor Richard Garwin, a US nuclear weapons expert and advisor to three US presidents, has advised British MPs that the same could be done in the UK saving £5 billion and allowing time for a rethink of British nuclear strategy.

So why have we dismissed this advice? considering the current state of our state finances.

 

[antijoke]

Do you release how heavy a nuclear bomb/reactor would be on a plane? They amount of "lead" needed for sheilding would be to much for it to fly effectively. Thats why we use subs and can have nuclear reactors to power our ships, the stuff weighs less in water or is it less mass? I always get the confused.

Hmmmmm.