Replacing The Trident Defence System

Tefal · 4 Feb 2010 at 23:34

Efour2 said:
just curious how many Terrorist leaders and dictators do you know to make that statement Acid?

And "any more that the rest" of us like a suicide bomber or an ordered Kamikaze pilot ?

No suicide bomber has ever been a terrorist leader or dictator though.

They're the ones still alive and living off the money raised for the cause not the ones dying.

. Id rather see the money invested into society and enlightenment

I never knew you could buy enlightenment.

meghatronic · 4 Feb 2010 at 23:34

EDIT - sorry, I can't be bothered.

Bakedgoods · 14 Apr 2010 at 18:52

Bump - Just wanted to bring this up in light of the election and see where people's heads are.

Luseac · 14 Apr 2010 at 18:55

Seems the Lib Dems are the only 'credible' party proposing not to renew trident. No surprise there then. I, on the other hand, figure that seeing as our navy fleet has been cut by a fifth under Labour the Vanguards are the only power projection tool we truly retain and it continues to remain the ultimate insurance policy against rogue states and nuclear blackmail. Who can see where Russia/China/Iran/North Korea will be in 20 years time? Personally, i'd rather not take the risk.

chriscpritchard · 14 Apr 2010 at 19:15

lucasade1 said:
Seems the Lib Dems are the only 'credible' party proposing not to renew trident. No surprise there then. I, on the other hand, figure that seeing as our navy fleet has been cut by a fifth under Labour the Vanguards are the only power projection tool we truly retain and it continues to remain the ultimate insurance policy against rogue states and nuclear blackmail. Who can see where Russia/China/Iran/North Korea will be in 20 years time? Personally, i'd rather not take the risk.

We're actually proposing that there not be a "like for like replacement" and that investigations occur to decide the best way forward!

Luseac · 14 Apr 2010 at 19:37

brainiac ghost said:
We're actually proposing that there not be a "like for like replacement" and that investigations occur to decide the best way forward!

So at the moment there is one Vanguard on patrol at any one time with (IIRC) a rather pathetic launch time of circa 48 hrs. What would be any likely outcome of a Lib Dem governments decision? 1 sub? <5 warheads? I think it's pretty likely you can read "we will rule out a like-for-like replacement of trident" as "we don't really want any nuclear weapons" Whilst it's an admirable position to take, it's the wrong one. Especially considering how they also don't seem to support the RAF and won't order any more Eurofighters, can't see them wanting both QE carriers either. Not the sort of defence policy I would like to see in operation.

chriscpritchard · 14 Apr 2010 at 19:50

lucasade1 said:
So at the moment there is one Vanguard on patrol at any one time with (IIRC) a rather pathetic launch time of circa 48 hrs. What would be any likely outcome of a Lib Dem governments decision? 1 sub? <5 warheads? I think it's pretty likely you can read "we will rule out a like-for-like replacement of trident" as "we don't really want any nuclear weapons" Whilst it's an admirable position to take, it's the wrong one. Especially considering how they also don't seem to support the RAF and won't order any more Eurofighters, can't see them wanting both QE carriers either. Not the sort of defence policy I would like to see in operation.

I don't know, that would depend on the outcome of any investigations/reports.

Rroff · 14 Apr 2010 at 19:53

The best way forward, whatever the cost, is that the UK retains a credible nuclear arsenal.

Unfortunatly the majority of the population these days it seems have been lulled into a false sense of security due to the short span of their lives and experience during a period of relative calm and civility compared to the grand scheme of things.

Human nature has not changed, just been constrained... never ever forget that.

Eddietop · 14 Apr 2010 at 19:53

Money would be better spent on other military equipment that we actually need, like choppers, vehicles and troop equipment.

Dolph · 14 Apr 2010 at 19:58

Military spending has a much higher fiscal multiplier than most other types of government spending. Cuts to balance the budget are much better achieved using low multiplier activities than attacking military spending.

PermaBanned · 14 Apr 2010 at 19:59

They shouldn't be there if there's any intention of using them. And if there isn't then what's the point?

We're beyond the need for this sort of warfare.

To those of you saying we need it to scare nations that might become hostile or a threat in the future, what you're suggesting is an arms race. Sure, they don't lead to wars, do they?

Luseac · 14 Apr 2010 at 20:00

Eddietop said:
Money would be better spent on other military equipment that we actually need, like choppers, vehicles and troop equipment.

Ahhh yes, the tired old "Helicopters and body armour" line that has resulted in the U.K having a smaller Navy than France for the first time in 300 years. We can't go on throwing cash at troops at the expense of the other forces. We will be out of Afganistan (hopefully) this decade. Then what? We're left without a nuclear deterrant, a navy that has shrunk by a fifth in the last 10 years but a **** load of helicopters, great.

Dolph · 14 Apr 2010 at 20:01

Superewza said:
They shouldn't be there if there's any intention of using them. And if there isn't then what's the point?

We're beyond the need for this sort of warfare.

To those of you saying we need it to scare nations that might become hostile or a threat in the future, what you're suggesting is an arms race. Sure, they don't lead to wars, do they?

No, what is being suggested by those people is the same thing that prevented significant conflict throughout the latter part of the last century.

The MAD principle may be unpleasant, but it works.

PermaBanned · 14 Apr 2010 at 20:04

Dolph said:
No, what is being suggested by those people is the same thing that prevented significant conflict throughout the latter part of the last century.

The MAD principle may be unpleasant, but it works.

It has worked. So far. Do you want to prevent conflict through fear or through peace?

Dolph · 14 Apr 2010 at 20:06

Superewza said:
It has worked. So far. Do you want to prevent conflict through fear or through peace?

I'd prefer peace, but I'd prefer to prevent conflict more than I'd prefer to restrict myself to the ideal of peace.

Walk softly, be friendly but carry a big stick is a much more rounded way of looking at life.

Rroff · 14 Apr 2010 at 20:09

Dolph said:
No, what is being suggested by those people is the same thing that prevented significant conflict throughout the latter part of the last century.

The MAD principle may be unpleasant, but it works.

If it wasn't for the build up of nuclear weapons in the decades proceeding the end of WW2 a very realistic scenario is the USSR pushing out through europe and parts of asia - much of western europe would probably be a DMZ at best more likely no mans land and we'd probably all be living our lives overshadowed by the fear of the next soviet push.

Rroff · 14 Apr 2010 at 20:10

Superewza said:
It has worked. So far. Do you want to prevent conflict through fear or through peace?

You ONLY every get peace through being ready for war - human nature prevents any other course.

PermaBanned · 14 Apr 2010 at 20:16

Dolph said:
I'd prefer peace, but I'd prefer to prevent conflict more than I'd prefer to restrict myself to the ideal of peace.

Walk softly, be friendly but carry a big stick is a much more rounded way of looking at life.

What that does is make people hate you. Eventually these people get together and you're stuffed. If nobody has a big stick then it's not going to happen.

On a personal level i've always managed to avoid conflict by using intelligence and reasoning.

meghatronic · 14 Apr 2010 at 20:20

Superewza said:
What that does is make people hate you. Eventually these people get together and you're stuffed. If nobody has a big stick then it's not going to happen.

On a personal level i've always managed to avoid conflict by using intelligence and reasoning.

I have a cop friend in the US, I wish I had the money to fly you to him for the weekend. He can take you round PCP haunts, see if you can reason with them. A good analogy for NK, Iran etc....

Personally, I'd like a big stick

Luseac · 14 Apr 2010 at 20:22

Superewza said:
On a personal level i've always managed to avoid conflict by using intelligence and reasoning.

And that's where your problem lies. Do you think the likes of Robert Mugabe are full of intelligence and reasoning? No, so it is better to make sure Great Britain doesn't become a victim of any dictators ego trip, knowing they would be vapourised were they to mount an attack is a first rate way of doing that.

Suuuree it would be lovely to live in a nuclear free world, but we don't, and there are a lot of nasty people out there, many of whom are in office or have aspirations to be in office.

This is of course ignoring the huge political and international weight that being a responsible nuclear power gifts the United Kingdom.

Replacing The Trident Defence System

Capodecina