Replacing The Trident Defence System

[Ahleckz]

The cruise missiles would have to be sea based as you can't use them on land (legal reasons)

That's a major issue.

What are the legal reasons please, I haven't come across this in my studies.

 

[Luseac]

Our country simply does not have the ability to go toe to toe with a country like China, should they turn nasty, in a conventional military theatre.

Exactly, and our convential military ability is shrinking on a yearly basis. If ever there was a need for the Vanguard Class subs to fill the gap in a country which can no longer project power it is now.

 

[bigredshark]

You seem to be totally ignoring there defence and that people aren't going to attack us in the first place if we have them.

You seem to be imagining that Al Qaeda will care whether we have nuclear weapons if they obtain one and detonate it in London, they won't give a damn because know we're likely not insane enough to nuke another country in retaliation and if we are it'll just score them a biggest PR victory ever as we kill tens of thousands of muslims...

Now maybe a rogue state makes it a little more plausible (though I have to question which rogue state we're imagining obtaining nuclear weapons then choose to attack us rather than Russia or the US? Surely not having a totally stupid foreign policy guards against that?) but you still have to question whether we'd really nuke north korea or burma (as random examples) in retaliation.

Rogue states are usually countries run by despotic regimes, would be punish their blameless population with the horror of nuclear weapons rather than a surgical strike against their leaders? I think most of them are at least that rational...


AND - for either example cruise missiles would be as effective as ballistic ones. We don't need to retaliate within 20 minutes, it can take a day or two...

 

[Glaucus]

You seem to be imagining that Al Qaeda will care whether we have nuclear weapons if they obtain one and detonate it in London, they won't give a damn because know we're likely not insane enough to nuke another country in retaliation and if we are it'll just score them a biggest PR victory ever as we kill tens of thousands of muslims...

Now maybe a rogue state makes it a little more plausible (though I have to question which rogue state we're imagining obtaining nuclear weapons then choose to attack us rather than Russia or the US? Surely not having a totally stupid foreign policy guards against that?) but you still have to question whether we'd really nuke north korea or burma (as random examples) in retaliation.

.

Where did I say al qeada, Again you are thinking of present day, you have no idea how the world will look in 10-20 years when these things will roll of the production line. or 50 years out which will be in their service life.

A decent foreign policy does not save us from anything.
Again the fact we have nukes, means people wont attack us in the first place. it's a bit of a catch22, but it is something you should be able to understand. The fact we are unlikely to use them is neither here nor there. It is the threat of them which is the use and which gives us the best return.

As said if their is a massive war in the future, we have no armed forces. A few nukes against and armed forces front would be devastating and yes I could see us using them in that situation.

 

[Dave M]

You seem to be imagining that Al Qaeda will care whether we have nuclear weapons if they obtain one and detonate it in London, they won't give a damn because know we're likely not insane enough to nuke another country in retaliation and if we are it'll just score them a biggest PR victory ever as we kill tens of thousands of muslims...
..

Kill enough of them and it's a real victory.

Of course we wouldn't, but just saying, PR is only useful to a point.

 

[bigredshark]

Where did I say al qaeda, Again you are thinking of present day, you have no idea how the world will look in 10-20 years when these things will roll of the production line. or 50 years out which will be in their service life.z

A decent foreign policy does not save us from anything.
Again the fact we have nukes, means people wont attack us in the first place. it's a bit of a catch22, but it is something you should be able to understand.

You said a rogue state or group, that's the current example, future ones may have different motivations but their broad rationality and judgements and our morals and unwillingness to punish a country for the actions of a group probably won't have changed much...

No, you just think it's a catch 22, I disagree and nothing you've said has been in any way convincing to me.

And if the lifetime is 50 years then why are we replacing the current boats (vanguard launched in 92, commissioned in 93). It isn't the lead time as it was ordered and laid down in 86...their service life will be at best 30 years, same as both predecessor classes.

 

[skippy2421]

Its more than just about nuclear weapons...

Our country simply does not have the ability to go toe to toe with a country like China, should they turn nasty, in a conventional military theatre. If you look back at history or at human nature itself you would never say that could never happen. Infact we are blessed in that we live in a period of relative stability and calm, as resources become diminished this world is likely to come a much less stable place.

China (or whoever) is much less likely to mess with us if they know we have the capability to hurt them significantly back even tho its unlikely we would use them they aren't going to chance it.


The day we no longer need a police force then maybe we can start thinking of nuclear disarmament.

Nail on the head. I personally think we need to continue with our nuclear deterrant indefinitely or until a better alternative comes about (removing them all together is not a better alternative). As for the financial costs of this i would much rather my money goes into this, something that actually protects me, as opposed to some scheme to roll out ID cards or pump even more money into the EU.

 

[Tefal]

What are the legal reasons please, I haven't come across this in my studies.

one of the nuclear treaties says you can't have land based cruise missiles capable of a range of 500-5,000km.


It's why the USA puts them on ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty


hmm might just be the US/old soviet states, not sure if we're bound by it.

 

[meghatronic]

hmm might just be the US/old soviet states, not sure if we're bound by it.

NATO Double-Track Decision?

Either way, land based = inflexible. Especially in a tiny country like ours.

 

[Tefal]

NATO Double-Track Decision?

Either way, land based = inflexible. Especially in a tiny country like ours.

obviously you couldn't use land based cruise missiles from Britain they don't have the range (nor the survivability)...


But I don't think you could hit every where on earth in a reasonable time frame with only sea based cruise missiles.

Plus they are relatively easy to shoot down compared to the practically impossible MIRVs.


Not something you can afford with your nuclear deterrent.

 

[meghatronic]

obviously you couldn't use land based cruise missiles from Britain they don't have the range (nor the survivability)...

But I don't think you could hit every where on earth in a reasonable time frame with only sea based cruise missiles.

Plus they are relatively easy to shoot down compared to the practically impossible MIRVs.

Not something you can afford with your nuclear deterrent.

Indeed, I said this earlier.

Besides, the relatively low yield isn't much of a deterrent - and I'm not sure if cruise missile based systems would have multiple independent reentry vehicles. Seriously limiting their scope.