Jump to content

Trident - UK's Nuclear Defense - what to do with it?


Snake-Pit

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

We need to renew it as it is our only nuclear deterrent. In case of a nuclear strike against Britain, Britain would not be able to reciprocate.

Surely if someone did a nuclear attack on this little island there wouldn't be no one left to reciprocate.  Forgive my ignorance on nuclear matters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. "Defence"

2. Get it tae fuck. As in gone. Paying that amount of money for something which will likely only be used in an eventuality where we are all going to die anyway is insane. Owning a weapon specifically designed to commit indiscriminate genocide and then claiming you're somehow the "good guys" is obscene.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Len B'stard said:

Surely if someone did a nuclear attack on this little island there wouldn't be no one left to reciprocate.  Forgive my ignorance on nuclear matters.

It depends on the accuracy and spread of the detonation. Britain is a quite longitudinal country so you could conceive of a nuclear blast, say from the Russians, in the south of the country leaving the north relatively unscathed - or vice versa seeing the Russians may want to target the naval infrastructure in the north. Of course what you mention is a worst case scenario, of ''mutually assured destruction'' (MAD), and as we know from the cold war (e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis), merely the act of possessing the weapons averts nuclear war - seeing as each side knows, the minute they launch one, the other country will reciprocate leading to complete destruction for both parties. It is Dr Strangelove territory. And what if that happens, the procedure? It is the role of the new Prime Minister to write directives (Letters of Last Resort) directing the patrolling Vanguard-class submarine the methodology, in the event that the country is destroyed, the Prime Minister and monarchy killed. Quite scary? Then it would be retribution. I'm sure the dead millions wouldn't bat an eyelid if they had a voice.

(We do not know the detail however, and presumably there are a whole series of eventualities. There is probably a directive directing the submarine to enter the service of an ally. The submarine would in effect become Britain and the British government!)

This is certainly the most unstable world order since the cold war, and arguably, the second world war! What with Putin, North Korea, ISIS and an unstable Middle East, not to mention more unaccounted nuclear warheads than at any time, it is imperative that Britain renews Trident. We also have requirements from NATO, and need to be able to defend the Falklands in case of renewed Argentine aggression.

PS

Sorry, I did not realise you did not know the basics,

Trident is the nuclear weapon system on board four Vanguard-class submarines. At all times, right now infact, there is one on patrol clandestine, which would presumably survive the destruction of Great Britain and be capable of retribution (this is known as 'second strike' status).

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Graeme said:

1. "Defence"

2. Get it tae fuck. As in gone. Paying that amount of money for something which will likely only be used in an eventuality where we are all going to die anyway is insane. Owning a weapon specifically designed to commit indiscriminate genocide and then claiming you're somehow the "good guys" is obscene.

You are forgetting its role as a deterrent to war. The success of possessing nuclear weapons, thus cancelling out the enemy's weapons, is actually empirically tested by history: the Cold War never went beyond a proxy war because of MAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Snake-Pit said:

18 minutes ago...

 

MPs vote to renew Trident in the UK.

472 yays to 117 noes. 140/230 Labour MPs voted against their leader.

PS

Some SNP nutter asking the PM if she would press the trigger button.

Without batting an eyelid, ''yes''.

Beginning to like this Prime Minister. An arse kicker.

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

472 yays to 117 noes. 140/230 Labour MPs voted against their leader.

PS

Some SNP nutter asking the PM if she would press the trigger button.

Without batting an eyelid, ''yes''.

Beginning to like this Prime Minister. An arse kicker.

Well, not a lot of ambiguity there. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are forgetting its role as a deterrent to war. The success of possessing nuclear weapons, thus cancelling out the enemy's weapons, is actually empirically tested by history: the Cold War never went beyond a proxy war because of MAD.

Oh aye, I forgot that the 186 countries which don't possess nuclear weapons regularly get attacked by those that do... Silly me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Jeremy Corbyn's reminding the PM of her duties in regards to disarmament and endless this talk about real figures based on trends of no cap in spending.

I hate this Labour witch hunt against him on the back of Brexit.

I like the idea of this country not burdening other Nuclear allies with the responsibility of retaliating and deterring  any would be attacks on our behalf.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Graeme said:

Oh aye, I forgot that the 186 countries which don't possess nuclear weapons regularly get attacked by those that do... Silly me. 

How many of those 186 were at the front line of the cold war, commitments to NATO, permanency on the United Nations Security Council?

Rather naive view, ignoring the role of powers, or power vacuums whence there has been an evacuation by a power, and Britain's commitments to the nuclear umbrella - it would indeed be dishonourable to expect the Americans and French to assume Britain's share (and expect them to come to our aide if Britain is attacked!).

MAD has been proven empirically, hence the fact that there has not been a nuclear attack by a power since 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take our chances and scrap it. If we've got and we have to use it we will all probably be half melted and a bit fucked up, and if we don't have it and we get nuked we die but have at least saved 40 bill a year until doomsday. All I am saying, is give peace a chance :lol: sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

How many of those 186 were at the front line of the cold war, commitments to NATO, permanency on the United Nations Security Council?

Rather naive view, ignoring the role of powers, or power vacuums whence there has been an evacuation by a power, and Britain's commitments to the nuclear umbrella - it would indeed be dishonourable to expect the Americans and French to assume Britain's share (and expect them to come to our aide if Britain is attacked!).

MAD has been proven empirically, hence the fact that there has not been a nuclear attack by a power since 1945.

You mean the cold war which has been over for nearly 30 years? Nuclear war isn't even considered a Tier 1 threat on the National Risk Register. You could argue that there's just as much empirical evidence for not having nuclear weapons preventing a nuclear attack considering that none of those 186 have been attacked either despite not having the threat of retaliation. 

I don't really give a damn about "Britain's commitments to the nuclear umbrella", I disagree with having them on principle. I want to be part of a society which does not use the threat of incinerating hundreds of thousands of men, women and children as part of its international relations strategy.

You're a self-confessed hater of politicians, which surely must mean that you don't expect to be held responsible for every decision your government makes? Do you accept responsibility for Tony Blair's decisions? Because a nuclear war would hold an entire population to the highest possible account for the decisions their government takes, including a huge percentage of people who aren't even old enough to vote. Doesn't that offend you? I know compassion isn't your strong suit, but still...

If the Union was worth remaining in, then the fact that 94.1 % of Scotland's representatives voted against Trident renewal would have been taken seriously as a reason for not keeping the weapons in this country anymore. Theresa May might believe that being inflexible is a sign of strength, but inflexible things have a tendency to snap, the more hardline she is, the more people up here are going to support independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Graeme said:

You mean the cold war which has been over for nearly 30 years? Nuclear war isn't even considered a Tier 1 threat on the National Risk Register. You could argue that there's just as much empirical evidence for not having nuclear weapons preventing a nuclear attack considering that none of those 186 have been attacked either despite not having the threat of retaliation. 

I disagree. Russia has over 7,000 warheads and has elevated her ballistic operations recently. (She has also commenced work on an equivalent of the American's x-37B, in which case we would be all held to ransom whatever we do!)  North Korea's nuclear operations are expanding dramatically, she openly, after stockpiling raw material for years, declaring the possession of such in 2009. Multiple seismic disturbances, indicating that she has been detonating subterranean hydrogen bombs, have been recorded. Recently she has been firing off ballistics into space.

She has also been selling ballistics to the Iranians for years.

There is no reason to envision a sudden decrease in a nuclear threat - infact quite the reverse. Following the annexation of the Crimea, some analysts envision a second Cold War, or at least a mini Cold War (you could argue, we are already there now!).

Your latter point is incredibly ignorant of history. Ask yourself why countries without nuclear deterrents, under the protection of NATO and the general Anglo-American-Franco umbrella (this includes countries like Japan and Australia), were not attacked? Because NATO possessed members, possessing nuclear weapons, thus counteracting the Warsaw Pact's acquirement of those same weapons. MAD ensued as did a cold war and not nuclear oblivion.

41 minutes ago, Graeme said:

I don't really give a damn about "Britain's commitments to the nuclear umbrella",

Well I hope you understand the time held notion of honouring commitments?

Britain's commitments also come with the security of the United States and France; do you expect this to be honoured with the same eagerness, if we evacuate from Trident and leave a big gaping hole in their (and our) defensive plans?

It would be the equivalent of the BEF evacuating the Trenches before, say the Somme, thus leaving the French to her mercy at Verdun!

41 minutes ago, Graeme said:

You're a self-confessed hater of politicians, which surely must mean that you don't expect to be held responsible for every decision your government makes? Do you accept responsibility for Tony Blair's decisions? Because a nuclear war would hold an entire population to the highest possible account for the decisions their government takes, including a huge percentage of people who aren't even old enough to vote. Doesn't that offend you? I know compassion isn't your strong suit, but still...

You do not know anything about me to make such a statement!

I disagreed with the Iraq war at the time. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with your government on this, along with the 117 Members of Parliament who voted against it. We often disagree with our politicians and you are entitled to do so. You are stating your opinions now, aren't you?

41 minutes ago, Graeme said:

If the Union was worth remaining in, then the fact that 94.1 % of Scotland's representatives voted against Trident renewal would have been taken seriously as a reason for not keeping the weapons in this country anymore. Theresa May might believe that being inflexible is a sign of strength, but inflexible things have a tendency to snap, the more hardline she is, the more people up here are going to support independence.

Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, an United Kingdom which Scotland voted to remain united with recently. Her motion has the support of 472 Members of the Commons. The rest is school yard temper tantrums. 

PS

Who is that SNP member, a little bearded bloke, who speaks incredibly fast in undecipherable monochrome Scottish? Even his fellow party members looked at him amusingly, like ''here he goes again?''. He spoke for about ten minutes and I do not believe a single person understood a word he said!

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trident is but one scheme in place for delivering and housing the UK's nuclear payload... I think, had Trident've been scrapped; some silo somewhere would have been armed instead, so on that note - I'm glad that Successor has been voted in.

Edited by Snake-Pit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Snake-Pit said:

From my understanding, it wasn't a vote on nuclear warheads, but, where to put them; In the end it's thought that hiding them at sea is best, for us.

Default argument really seeing that Trident is the only operational system, and its renewal is what was being motioned!

The UK is the only nuclear power with one operational system - we have done more than the other four to decommission these weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...