Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

    Votes: 250 26.3%
  • Total voters
    951
Wouldn't it have been to our advantage to publicly declare the ending of Trident, but develop and operate a new nuclear arsenal in secret. That way if some country tries anything we can be like "a-ha, thought you could fool us? have a nuke why don't you".
 
norm said:
Wouldn't it have been to our advantage to publicly declare the ending of Trident, but develop and operate a new nuclear arsenal in secret. That way if some country tries anything we can be like "a-ha, thought you could fool us? have a nuke why don't you".
Click to expand...

No because then you lose all the advantages of having nukes.

Namely no one starts in the first place
 
Dunks said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine

Astute class, the attack submarines started construction from 2001 and were in service from 2010.

Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
Click to expand...

ahhhh yeah that's it.

sorry, i was there thinking i could have sworn i remmber them being built on the news.

vaungrads apprently been around sicne 93, so yeah that makes more sense
 
Rroff said:
Oh come on if you are going to troll you have to try better than that.

(the false false equivalence in your argument is obvious to a child)
Click to expand...

what is so 'trolling' about this - it is a fact.. US/UK say nuclear are a deterrent.. yet 9/11 etc all happened.

Secondly its not as if all the countries without nuclear weapons are being bombed?
 
Rroff said:
What he is saying is the equivalent of we should get rid of our anti-aircraft weapons as we haven't used them in awhile and they didn't stop some nutter going on a stabbing spree in a train station or whatever the latest terrorist incident in the UK was. Combined with first post of a new account its obviously trolling.
Click to expand...

just because you have decided i was trolling - doesnt make it true. whether it be my first post or second post.. at least the guy you posted had the courtesy of replying instead of bashing me!
 
ubersonic said:
Do you remember WW3? When the USSR steamrolled into France, all the British soldiers stationed in West Germany died in the first 48hrs*, and a stalemate/truce was only made possible after the Americans/Canadians arrived to help us/France turn the tide?

No me neither, that's because of nuclear deterrents.
Click to expand...

You might be right, but we live in an era where we know that if nuclear weapons were used, we would all be dead - so no one, not even North Korea would be stupid enough to do this.

Secondly, if that is the case why haven't the other countries who were invaded also stockpiled nuclear weapons - and if there was this fear of being invaded, all countries should have one too..
 
Tefal said:
how come the subs need renewing i thoguht they where fairly new?

has some new exploit againsty thier technology turned up or soemthing?

or is it the reactors are at end of life and are non replaceable?
Click to expand...

astute class are the new ones and attack subs, trident is the old Vanguard SSBN and hence needs a replacement in the Dreadnoughtss
 
Tefal said:
No because then you lose all the advantages of having nukes.

Namely no one starts in the first place
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case simply keep up the pretence that Trident is still sound and working, but don't spend any more money on it, 40bn saved.
 
rainbowGuy said:
what is so 'trolling' about this - it is a fact.. US/UK say nuclear are a deterrent.. yet 9/11 etc all happened.

Secondly its not as if all the countries without nuclear weapons are being bombed?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to honey coat it - even a child could see the false equivalency between things that would deter terrorist attacks and the relevancy of nuclear weapons (and their deterrent purpose).

rainbowGuy said:
You might be right, but we live in an era where we know that if nuclear weapons were used, we would all be dead - so no one, not even North Korea would be stupid enough to do this.

Secondly, if that is the case why haven't the other countries who were invaded also stockpiled nuclear weapons - and if there was this fear of being invaded, all countries should have one too..
Click to expand...

Even if things did escalate to a nuclear exchange its unlikely we'd see a scenario of super power trading nuke for nuke with another super power. If NK utilised nuclear weapons the most likely outcome would be a large number of countries pile on and cruise missile the **** out of their military capabilities followed likely by China putting boots on the ground a very secondary possibility is tactical use of nuclear devices to disable their hardened facilities/area denial to render them less able to operate.

Despite nuclear weapons being incredibly powerful and scary these days modern and even semi-modern nuclear devices especially in airbust configuration are relatively low fallout wise and most "nuclear winter" scenarios are based against the worst (old) possible type of nuclear bomb, used in the worst possible way against targets that are all 100% perfect for causing massive burn off - the reality is that even in a large scale exchange between super powers a large number of them will be utilised against military targets that are typically in more remote areas and by their nature often more arid terrain. Sure a LOT of people are going to die but also a LOT of people are going to survive.

More atmosphere nuclear weapon tests have been carried out over the years than we have nuclear devices currently in our arsenal and nuclear disasters like Chernobyl have pumped the equivalent of 100s of nuclear weapon detonations worth of radiation (and other heavy metal pollution, etc.) into the environment every hour at the peak of the disasters.

More countries would love to have nuclear weapons for defensive purposes but developing a nuclear weapon program is easier said than done and countries that do have them don't exactly tend to like to share. (There are also more complicated reasons beyond the scope of a post here).

norm said:
Well if that's the case simply keep up the pretence that Trident is still sound and working, but don't spend any more money on it, 40bn saved.
Click to expand...

Problem is the cost and effort required to convincingly pretend any aspect like that just doesn't make it worth doing versus just doing the real thing.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
I'm sure Russia would be fooled by a few blow up submersibles and some trucks with big nuclear signs on them.
Click to expand...

Yup just like that us unmaned submwrsible was doing nocean mapping and not trying to catch the chinese boomer leaving port :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom