Replacing The Trident Defence System

[Glaucus]

Its not a deterrent if we wouldnt use it.

We would though if needed, Especially with current government in power.
But that's the thing , because we have them, the chances of needing to use them is absolutely tiny.

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?

Yes.
It's not so much of a problem know we have America and Europe. But can you say what is going to happen in 10, 25, 50, 100 or 500 years time.
Like a condom, better to have one and not need it. Than to not have it and need it.
If you are not protected by nukes you can be blackmailed.
Do you think we would have gone to war with Afghan or Iraq if they had nukes.

 

[sniffy]

Do we need nuclear weapons?

Yes. Defence is #1 dude; always has been and always will be.

 

[mollymoo]

MAD only works if both sides launch simultaneously, if not then the side that launchs 1st has a greater advantage.

Unless you still have lauch capability after a nuclear attack hence the subs.

 

[flat-6]

Pouring resources into Trident's replacement on a 'what if' basis for 20 years down the line might be a ligitimate argument if we had limitless money. As it is it will be hugely expensive - £65bn over 20 years. Shouldn't we put that money into stuff that actually kills our population e.g. Cancer and Influenza?

Also, the official line is 'we would only use nuclear weapons in self defence'. This thus means that from a decent co-ordinated nuclear attack, this would be after the destruction of all major connurbations in the country. I.e. everyone is dead. Why would we then kill the civilians in another country, who presumably have a crazy tyranical government in power?

 

[Glaucus]

Shouldn't we put that money into stuff that actually kills our population e.g. Cancer and Influenza?
?

No,
If you think like that we might as well get rid of all our armed forces then. As the UK is not likely to be invaded in the next 10 years.
These things have lead times of decades, they can not be built over night.

Also, the official line is 'we would only use nuclear weapons in self defence'. This thus means that from a decent co-ordinated nuclear attack, this would be after the destruction of all major connurbations in the country. I.e. everyone is dead. Why would we then kill the civilians in another country, who presumably have a crazy tyranical government in power?

That's why MAD works. You don't get to that point in the first place it's a DETERRENT, that's the whole point of them, You are also ignoring black mail. do what we want or we will bomb you. If you did get to the point where they were launched. You still do it as not everyone in the Uk would be dead. The government would be safe and allies would likely be safe as well. The world could rebuild. Self defence can also be done before impact. Rockets are not instant (meaning you can launch before destruction) and with America pressing on with Air plane laser interceptors for rockets, it gives even more options.

 

[Col_M]

The long and short of it is we need them.

They may seem pretty damn useless to some people in the current political situation but we don't know what will happen 10, 20 or 30+ years down the road. The fact is anything could happen and you have to prepare for the worst. If we disarm and something kicks off in the future where we need the threat of nuclear retaliation we're up **** creek without a paddle as you can't just make or buy them in a few weeks, months or even years.

 

[flat-6]

No,
If you think like that we might as well get rid of all our armed forces then. As the UK is not likely to be invaded in the next 10 years.
These things have lead times of decades, they can not be built over night.

That is a totally crazy leap of faith argument.

 

[sim0n]

At what point does the u.k government decide that nukes must be used?

 

[mattheman]

That's the point of the subs. They are hidden and manoeuvrable and is extremely unlikely to get taken out in any attack. which means we can launch after being hit. Ensuring MAD stands. If we had silos. If they took them out before we could launch, MAD would not exist. Which is why one is always on patrol.

to put our counter attack dependent on one sub is madness.

 

[Glaucus]

That is a totally crazy leap of faith argument.

That is your argument, you said there is no reason for them, I just pointed out at the moment there is no real reason for armed forces either.

to put our counter attack dependent on one sub is madness.

No, it is enough for MAD to work. Also we have 4 subs. If the risk increased they would be sent out on patrol as soon as possible.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

how would it be useless?

Because it isn't deterring and it isn't protecting. Obviously?!

 

[Rroff]

Pouring resources into Trident's replacement on a 'what if' basis for 20 years down the line might be a ligitimate argument if we had limitless money. As it is it will be hugely expensive - £65bn over 20 years. Shouldn't we put that money into stuff that actually kills our population e.g. Cancer and Influenza?

Also, the official line is 'we would only use nuclear weapons in self defence'. This thus means that from a decent co-ordinated nuclear attack, this would be after the destruction of all major connurbations in the country. I.e. everyone is dead. Why would we then kill the civilians in another country, who presumably have a crazy tyranical government in power?

People have become used to the semi-stable environment we live in - because for most of their lives its been like this... this period of relative safety and civility is a tiny fraction of our rather blood thirsty history - if you think we have really moved away from that... your quite naive.

 

[meghatronic]

Its cost is negligible.

Remember the size of the bank bailouts....

 

[Glaucus]

Because it isn't deterring and it isn't protecting. Obviously?!

but it's doing both.
Would we of attacked irag and Afghanistan if they had nukes? Of course we wouldn't. Nukes do not just defend against nukes. They defend against all military and blackmail.

People have become used to the semi-stable environment we live in - because for most of their lives its been like this... this period of relative safety and civility is a tiny fraction of our rather blood thirsty history - if you think we have really moved away from that... your quite naive.

exactly look at WW1 war to end all wars. that lasted a long time. The world changes and it can change very fast.

Military projects of all types have a very long lead time.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

but it's doing both.

In the scenario I described, should a detonation occur, then it has done neither.

 

[matt_fsr]

to put our counter attack dependent on one sub is madness.

Why? This is all we can afford right now, and it still gives us that all important "bargaining chip" on the world stage. It still has 48 warheads with which to act as deterrant.

It's 1 more nuclear attack sub than most nations have!

 

[Glaucus]

In the scenario I described, should a detonation occur, then it has done neither.

It does both. It only does nothing if terrorists can hide behind governments. We have already shown that is not the case.

It's 1 more nuclear attack sub than most nations have!

it's4 atm but with 3 in docks/repaired at anyone time. But if there was a real risk they would set sale as fast as possible. If in dry dock that could be weeks or months. Which is why we have the redundancies.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

but it's doing both.
Would we of attacked irag and Afghanistan if they had nukes? Of course we wouldn't. Nukes do not just defend against nukes. They defend against all military and blackmail.

Except they don't. Did our Nukes stop the Royal Navy crews being kidnapped last year by Iran? Or our Armed Forces being blown up on a daily basis? Your argument is complete nonsense - give it up!

No-one will use nuclear weapons, because the consequences are unfathomable. So how are they a deterrent? The World is a very different place from the polarised situation we had following WW2 - nothing is clear cut.

 

[scorza]

Its cost is negligible.

Remember the size of the bank bailouts....

Yeah but remember that the same banks that we bailed out are now saying "Thanks for saving us, but it looks like you've over-stretched yourselves by doing so, therefore we're not going to lend you any more money and charge you more interest on the money we've already lent you, thus making it more likely that you won't be able to pay us back!".

 

[The Mad Rapper]

It does both. It only does nothing if terrorists can hide behind governments. We have already shown that is not the case.

I'm getting frustrated now, arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall - it's not getting through.

I give up