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

[Gracii Guns]

Cleaned the belly section of this thread up.

I say we don't renew our nuclear warheads because I'm a lefty-liberal-idealist-communist.

[DieselDaisy]

40 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

Cleaned the belly section of this thread up.

I say we don't renew our nuclear warheads because I'm a lefty-liberal-idealist-communist.

You cannot be that hard-left Gracii seeing as you found yourself marching on behalf of the European Union haha!

[Snake-Pit]

Wouldn't be safer and less vulnerable to store UK's nukes in space?

 

I wonder if UK now has space money since Brexit? 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Snake-Pit said:

Wouldn't be safer and less vulnerable to store UK's nukes in space?

 

I wonder if UK now has space money since Brexit? 

We cannot even afford a tug boat - don't be so silly.

[Snake-Pit]

2% of our GDP is being spent on our defense of which 13% of that 2% of GDP is going to Successor.

 

Once we start talking trillions, then do I worry.

 

Is there any money in space exploration? (as well as tactical advantage); Ronald Reagan was on to something with his warhead blocking program of his called Star Wars, but I think space is a safe place to put nukes fore they'd be harder to get and just as easy to deploy (if need be). call it 'Death From Above' for all I care. I think the only reason why Britain doesn't have a space program is because the UK's mindset doesn't feel the need for one.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Snake-Pit

[DieselDaisy]

6 hours ago, Snake-Pit said:

2% of our GDP is being spent on our defense of which 13% of that 2% of GDP is going to Successor.

 

Once we start talking trillions, then do I worry.

 

Is there any money in space exploration? (as well as tactical advantage); Ronald Reagan was on to something with his warhead blocking program of his called Star Wars, but I think space is a safe place to put nukes fore they'd be harder to get and just as easy to deploy (if need be). call it 'Death From Above' for all I care. I think the only reason why Britain doesn't have a space program is because the UK's mindset doesn't feel the need for one.

We simply don't have the money - heck, even the Americans don't have the money for space exploration anymore! Do you know how much these things cost? 1.2 billion to build a space shuttle - £400 million just to launch that said shuttle. Now consider the fact that we are already bickering about the circa £30 million for Successor?

British space operations are conducted through the European Space Agency (nothing to do with the EU) which is how Tim Peake boarded the International Space Station.

[Graeme]

On 20/07/2016 at 1:46 AM, DieselDaisy said:

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.

So, do we need nuclear weapons or don't we? You claim that the countries which don't have nuclear weapons are protected by coalitions of those that do. Therefore, paradoxically, you argue that other countries without nuclear capabilities have no cause to fear but at the same time for the UK to give up its nuclear arsenal would instantly render it wide open to violent coercion or attack.

Why is the UK exceptional in these circumstances? Especially since the UK's nuclear arsenal is tiny in comparison to the U.S. and it can't actually be fired without U.S. government authorisation anyway, so it is, in effect a small extension of the U.S. nuclear arsenal with the bill footed by the UK government (check it, those are the facts). Would the UK be much less safe if it returned responsibility for those warheads to the U.S.? I really don't think so.

On 20/07/2016 at 1:46 AM, DieselDaisy said:

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!

What about Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which commits the UK to elimination of its nuclear arsenal and has 190 signatories? When does that commitment get honoured? Or does the UK government only honour commitments which are convenient to its futile attempts to remain relevant on the world stage?

On 20/07/2016 at 1:46 AM, DieselDaisy said:

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?

Nah, you're right. It could all be a persona, in real life you might adhere to "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all", and not admire Sarah Palin...

Right, but you've ignored the crux of what I said, we all disagree with our governments but in the event of a nuclear strike, we potentially stand to be *incinerated* because of a government decision. I don't hold you to account for the Iraq war, I too disagreed with it, but if there had been a nuclear retaliation for it from somewhere in the world then we would have both paid with our lives for Tony Blair's decision... Doesn't that seem obscene to you?

On 20/07/2016 at 1:46 AM, DieselDaisy said:

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!

"The United Kingdom Scotland voted to remain a part of no longer exists."

 

[DieselDaisy]

10 hours ago, Graeme said:

So, do we need nuclear weapons or don't we? You claim that the countries which don't have nuclear weapons are protected by coalitions of those that do. Therefore, paradoxically, you argue that other countries without nuclear capabilities have no cause to fear but at the same time for the UK to give up its nuclear arsenal would instantly render it wide open to violent coercion or attack.

Some countries are going to shoulder the burden because of the nature and historic flow of power politics (Britain found itself committed to Tube Alloys during the second world war and aftermath).

This is essentially the process of how the Cold War never got beyond the stage of proxy. MAD.

10 hours ago, Graeme said:

Why is the UK exceptional in these circumstances? Especially since the UK's nuclear arsenal is tiny in comparison to the U.S. and it can't actually be fired without U.S. government authorisation anyway, so it is, in effect a small extension of the U.S. nuclear arsenal with the bill footed by the UK government (check it, those are the facts). Would the UK be much less safe if it returned responsibility for those warheads to the U.S.? I really don't think so.

We don't actually know that however admittedly Britain's reliance on American loans for a delivery system is a flaw in the system - I would actually prefer us to buy or manufacture our own weapons. The same countries that are belligerent are belligerent for both countries however rendering the argument somewhat academic. A strike against one NATO member would be a strike at all is NATO modus operandi (sadly Trump has been applying his cerebral genius on this matter recently, in regards to Eastern Europe!).

10 hours ago, Graeme said:

What about Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which commits the UK to elimination of its nuclear arsenal and has 190 signatories? When does that commitment get honoured? Or does the UK government only honour commitments which are convenient to its futile attempts to remain relevant on the world stage?

Indeed, Britain has done more to honour those agreements than any other nuclear power. We are the only country with one operational system. We have discontinued the WE.177 for instance. At its peak, Britain's nuclear arsenal exceeded 500 warheads; now that figure is around 225.

10 hours ago, Graeme said:

Nah, you're right. It could all be a persona, in real life you might adhere to "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all", and not admire Sarah Palin...

Ehh, 'admire Sarah Palin'? Let's say I admire her womanly assets and not her politics, but really you are demonstrating a gloriously lack of a sense of humour here - I'm obviously taking the piss when I say things like, ''Palin for president'. Your problem with me here I believe is that I refuse to follow a politically correct ideology espoused by you and others. Indeed, I see you as epitomising a follower of this creed, in your manner of speaking ('LGBT') and obsession with politics. You equate this political correct culture with 'compassion' whereas I certainly do not thus you would naturally interpret me as somebody lacking compassion.

Compassion I believe should be divorced from hideous 'top down' shouty Marxist ideologies and to do with (real life) human acts and interactions.

10 hours ago, Graeme said:

Right, but you've ignored the crux of what I said, we all disagree with our governments but in the event of a nuclear strike, we potentially stand to be *incinerated* because of a government decision. I don't hold you to account for the Iraq war, I too disagreed with it, but if there had been a nuclear retaliation for it from somewhere in the world then we would have both paid with our lives for Tony Blair's decision... Doesn't that seem obscene to you?

I don't follow. The main objection about the Iraq War was that Saddam did not possess in his arsenal so much as a pea shooter, and that Blair committed Britain to a war based upon a fallacy of Saddam having 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. There was no way Saddam was going to launch anything against Britain. Indeed, if he had the means the casus belli would have been bona fide.

10 hours ago, Graeme said:

"The United Kingdom Scotland voted to remain a part of no longer exists."

Yes it does. When you signed the Act of Union there was no European Union haha. And anyhow, Scotland is simply a gross hypocrite of the highest order, claiming to be 'socialist' and 'left-leaning' yet supporting a centrist 'Thatcherite' corporate institute: the European Union.

Ever wondered why the SNP found themselves allied with the Cameron-Osbourne Tory frontbench clique on the EU debate haha? No country with genuine socialist pretensions would support the EU (as it stands now) - it is that simple - yet the SNP and Scottish Greens (your preference I believe) are zealously pro-EU!

Incidentally, there is a humorous phrase developing in topical circles for frequent anti-democratic calls for referenda having first obtained the 'wrong' result from the electorate - indeed this applies to those Euro idiots brandishing baguettes and not just Scottish affairs: ''to Sturgeon (it)''. 

When first you fail, merely 'Sturgeon it' or 'do a Sturgeon'.

Edited July 25, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Ace Nova]

On July 19, 2016 at 8:40 AM, 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. 

They don't get attacked by nukes because their allies have nukes.

 

 

[PappyTron]

I think that we should demonstrate to the world that we are not to be messed with by using our nukes to obliterate somewhere. Everything north of the Watford Gap, for example.