Replacing The Trident Defence System

[Glaucus]

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!

ever heard of measured response.

That was in no shape or form a big military offensive against the UK.

We aren't going to launch nukes against Afghanistan we are trying to help them and defend their country against internal and external conflict. Again that is not a large military offensive.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

ever heard of measured response.

That was in no shape or form a big military offensive against the UK.

And with what military are we going to do that? You must have seen the news yesterday - our Country is bankrupt. We cannot afford the military we have now, so it'll either be changed in some way to produce savings, or we'll have to throw our hat into the ring with our European neighbours.

 

[Strife212]

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'?

Extremely effective. No one cares about what strategic benefit it would have, it just puts the other side off launching if they think they are gonna get wiped off the map themselves afterwards.

 

[Glaucus]

And with what military are we going to do that? You must have seen the news yesterday - our Country is bankrupt. We cannot afford the military we have now, so it'll either be changed in some way to produce savings, or we'll have to throw our hat into the ring with our European neighbours.

Military to do what?
An offensive AGAINST us.
The pot of money is massive. Cut's can and will be made in many many areas.

 

[n111ck]

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.

Nuclear material is actually quite easy to trace from its original source and by extension which country it belonged too. Presumably though the govt of that country would say it was stolen.

I think its ultimately unlikely a terrorist group could or would ever detonate a nuclear weapon in a built up area as it wouldnt help their cause and would likely see every nation on earth stamp out that group by any means necessary and with full public support.

As for the delay in launch capability that would surely just be down to the fact that the sub is not on alert as the chances of a nuclear war in the current climate is low unlike during the Cold War where we could launch in a few hours.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Military to do what?
An offensive AGAINST us.
The pot of money is massive. Cut's can and will be made in many many areas.

Military to carry out the 'measured response'.

 

[Glaucus]

Military to carry out the 'measured response'.

That we have and will maintain.

You think kidnapping a few sailors or Afghanistan is in the league where nukes are useful. You seem to be totally missing the point of nukes and what they are for.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

The pot of money is massive. Cut's can and will be made in many many areas.

It really isn't.

The Armed Forces are absolutely ran ragged. They have been overcommitted since 2003, they have not got the equipment to perform the tasks they need, they have not got the men to do what is required - soldiers are leaving in droves. Cuts probably can be made, but there is no fat to be trimmed, that went a long time ago.

I'm not intentionally being rude, but I am not really sure you understand the realities of this...

 

[The Mad Rapper]

That we have and will maintain.

You think kidnapping a few sailors or Afghanistan is in the league where nukes are useful. You seem to be totally missing the point of nukes and what they are for.

I'm not sure I like your tone. I've served 14 years in the Army - don't make the mistake of preaching to me about any aspect of military life. I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.

Keep this on track please.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not sure I like your tone. .

Tone of what. You were the one that suggested nukes did not work due to Afghanistan and Iran. I pointed out that is not what they are for and how silly that idea is.

Yes forces are understaffed and equipped. However we still have the capability for measured response for most situations. Albeit at more risk to the soldiers. But size of armed forces is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[flat-6]

You think kidnapping a few sailors or Afghanistan is in the league where nukes are useful. You seem to be totally missing the point of nukes and what they are for.

Ok well what scenario can you describe where we fire a nuclear warhead? Don't say its for deterrent, because its only a deterrent if you'd use it.

 

[stockhausen]

... [Nuclear weapons] are the ultimate security. ...

A view shared by the good people of Iran and North Korea

 

[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.

 

[Glaucus]

Ok well what scenario can you describe where we fire a nuclear warhead? Don't say its for deterrent, because its only a deterrent if you'd use it.

It is a deterrent. the hole point of them is a deterrent.

You need to think of it from the other side. If we did not have them what could happen.
We could be overrun are armed forces are small and we could not defend are borders agaisnt someone liek america or china.

Or a state could blackmail us. Surrender or do x,y,z or we will bomb your cities.

and more important, with out nukes. Countries will go to war with us with out thinking twice as we have no means of keeping them in check.
Assume they had a problem with us in Afghanistan. At the moment they are not going to send military in to fight us. without nukes that removes a safety layer and they could involve themselfs in it.

A view shared by the good people of Iran and North Korea

Yep most certainly is. However our security comes first and as such we don't want them to have it. Fair not really, but sensible from Our point of view most certainly.

 

[sim0n]

If they are a deterrent why the development of u.s. anti-missile shield?

 

[scorza]

If they are a deterrent why the development of u.s. anti-missile shield?

Because MAD only works if the main players are not mad - like a certain leader of North Korea might well be.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Tone of what.

Your tone where you suggested I had no idea what a deterrent is for.

You stated 'They defend against all military and blackmail.' - I simply gave you two examples to illustrate that you're wrong.

 

[Glaucus]

If they are a deterrent why the development of u.s. anti-missile shield?

In case deterrent isn't enough. Just because they are a deterrent does not mean it'll never happen. It just makes the chance of it happening extremely small.

The American research isn't just IBCM, they have portable ones for ground to ground rockets and air to ground ones for fighter planes, in development.

You stated 'They defend against all military and blackmail.' - I simply gave you two examples to illustrate that you're wrong.

and also used the term large offensive against us several times.

 

[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.

 

[Glaucus]

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

It looks like we are keeping the missiles it is the subs we need. If that cost is right just buy more vanguards. Although I don't know what goverment has planned. Are they trying to add extra roles to the new craft?

The Vanguard submarines which carry the Trident D5 missiles were built with a 25-year life expectancy. Plans have been announced to replace the four vessels as they reach the age of 25 (possibly to be extended to 30) years. Trident's D5 missiles, leased from the USA, are expected to continue in service until at least 2042 following an upgrade. Costs are uncertain, depending on whether the replacement programme buys four completely new-design craft (probably £20bn[citation needed]), modifies the design of the Astute SSN to carry four D5 missiles (uncertain), or simply acquires four new Vanguard class submarines (probably less than £8bn[citation needed]).