But that's the problem the big stick has been invented and there is no way you can guarantee people or states will not acquire or build them. Get out a hippie dream land and into the real world.
MAD works and works well, we need nukes.
Replacing The Trident Defence System
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
But that's the problem the big stick has been invented and there is no way you can guarantee people or states will not acquire or build them. Get out a hippie dream land and into the real world.
MAD works and works well, we need nukes.
How does us unilaterally giving up our nuclear deterrant mean that nobody has a big stick?
So have I in the vast majority of cases, the few times I've had to physically involve myself in something, it has been to defend someone else who can't (or, on one occasion, wouldn't).
You can't really compare your own personal experiences with the people around you to the world stage where leaders and influential people have many different ways of thinking and rationalising their decisions - the biggest problem by far being greed, if they wanted something we had and were prepared to attack, no amount of telling them they don't need it or they'd have to pay for it is going to stop them from sending troops.
Moreover, if you take away everybody's sticks, somebody will just start just throwing stones at everyone.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
I've posted my thoughts elsewhere - in brief, replacing trident is lunacy on cost grounds, £2bn a year for 20 years on something we'll likely never use, don't want to ever use and that can't do anything else in the meantime.
What would make sense is keeping building smaller tactical weapons (maintains the AWE skills to build warheads) which can arm cruise missiles (clones of US W80 warheads basically). That means we can use Astute class attack submarines in a limited deterrent role (yes, very limited, but still a deterrent). So the navy might get some more Astute class boats, which are actually useful for other things and we save some money.
A full blown ballistic missile defence with continuous at sea patrols is a bit of a luxury in my mind seeing as the cold war ended 20 years ago.
What would make sense is keeping building smaller tactical weapons (maintains the AWE skills to build warheads) which can arm cruise missiles (clones of US W80 warheads basically). That means we can use Astute class attack submarines in a limited deterrent role (yes, very limited, but still a deterrent). So the navy might get some more Astute class boats, which are actually useful for other things and we save some money.
A full blown ballistic missile defence with continuous at sea patrols is a bit of a luxury in my mind seeing as the cold war ended 20 years ago.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
The bank bailout was almost £1trillion - in a matter of weeks. Trident is a tiny £2bn a year. I'm just putting that out there. NHS budget is around £100bn. So... you know.... just saying.
I think you miss the point of a deterrent... a limited deterrent doesn't exist. Either it works or it doesn't.
The cold war might have ended, but who knows what's round the corner? Do you know the next five Russian presidents? Neither do we.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
And where do you think they'll be taking this £2bn from?
Of course that is all well and good, but when you have corrupt supply contracts what is the point in doing that?
But with regard to Trident we need to keep it. It is a deterrent but also it gives us a permanent seat on the UN Security council
Kimbie
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
WTF kind of question is that? From down the sofa?
I could save this country billions overnight. £65bn EU, £27bn Scottish Government, £15bn Northern Ireland Executive, £12bn Welsh Assembly.. shall I go on?
That's not even removing waste from departments. £2bn is pocket change for such a necessary commodity.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
But if it was anything else at all it'd be a scandal. £2bn a year for something we don't and never will use?
That aside, nuclear armed cruise missiles would still be a fairly reasonable deterrent, maybe not for Russia but to be honest we aren't going to have a war with russia which escalates to anywhere near that level on our own.
In fact I strongly suspect that one of the reasons we keep the weapons is that we'd risk loosing our security council seat otherwise . Basically we're indirectly renting it for £2bn a year. In those terms is it good value? Maybe, depends if you think we should still consider ourselves a superpower...
That aside, nuclear armed cruise missiles would still be a fairly reasonable deterrent, maybe not for Russia but to be honest we aren't going to have a war with russia which escalates to anywhere near that level on our own.
In fact I strongly suspect that one of the reasons we keep the weapons is that we'd risk loosing our security council seat otherwise . Basically we're indirectly renting it for £2bn a year. In those terms is it good value? Maybe, depends if you think we should still consider ourselves a superpower...
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,623
- Location
- LU7
Quoted this as it pretty much explains what I think. We will never live in a nuclear free world, unless its possible to design a destructive bomb with the epicentre power of a nuke but without the fallout radiation.
And it doesn't surprise me that designing and implementing Trident II, for want of a better description, is going to be cheaper than extending Trident even longer.
The cruise missiles would have to be sea based as you can't use them on land (legal reasons), which reduces their effectiveness, and systems that can shoot down cruise missiles exist and are not that hard for a nuclear nation to get.
While that's not an issue for a conventional missile (costly and the target lives but not major), but giving your enemy an intact and highly advanced tactical nuclear warhead?
That's a major issue.
Just because we don't launch doesn't mean we don't use it. we are using it as the strength and security is their every day and the international stage, states, groups and individuals know this.
So yes we are using it and getting a return.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
I think you should be a good sport and send your crystal ball to whitehall. If you have 100% proof we'll never need to use nuclear weapons, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
Don't get me wrong, I wish they could be uninvented. But they can't. They're here to stay, so we need them.
You might want to look at the cost of cruise missiles too
. Millions a piece, for a significantly lesser threat.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
I was hardly being serious - but I was highlighting how much waste goes on. £2bn is nothing really, given the return.
I do however, tangentially, fail to see why local income taxes don't pay for effectively regional governments though. For example, why do I pay for Holyrood?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
That's just what we're saying though. It's £2bn on something that will, essentially, give no return.
It does though, security every day. as well as being a member of international stages.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
If the current system works so well then why do you want to pump money into something that's doing nothing? If it aint broke don't fix it.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
Well a couple of ex ministers from the cold war era have spoken about it (as has one prime minister I believe) and said that, the question of using them would only have come up if we'd been attacked first and in that case, with millions dead, they'd likely not have killed millions more just for spite.
Depends on the whim of the current government but we don't do first strike (on one apart from the US really does) and I'd hope if we were attacked (and deterrence had failed) we wouldn't retaliate and kills millions just for the sake of it.
Basically, if we're even in the position to actually need to launch nuclear weapons then actually having them doesn't matter a damn because it'd just be pointless revenge...
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 5,172
- Location
- Barrow-In-Furness
Do you realise how old the Trident class subs are? They will not last forever