Trident
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  26 Apr 17 5.57pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Last I heard the Polaris missile on a Trident Submarine had around a 4500 or so mile effective range. According to Wiki the range of Trident 11 is 7,500 miles. [Link] (look on the right hand side for the range capacity) The distance between the UK and China is 4,831 miles. Once your sub(s) sets off towards Greece or around the horn of Africa those distances become far less. I should imagine you can reach the parts you wish to, and the enemy can't be sure where that sub is and be certain that they can eliminate it in time.....Not with having to also worry about the US and France's systems at the same time....Like I say, it's a massive risk and hence a deterrent and it becomes a realistic last throw of the dice rather than a probable reliable victory. As for enemies like NK....We only need to be able to reach those that can reach us.....And if NK were a strike threat to us we could move into range. Originally posted by jamiemartin721
It was a mistake in the 80s for the Conservatives to move entirely to the Trident system (which just happens to be a huge US Arms industry spend), and its been a continual mistake to keep focused on Trident decade on decade, even though the world has been changing. I'm not so sure that it's a mistake if it cements in the Americans as allies. That's essentially been the British strategy since the war and I think holistically it's the most sensible course of action. Are the nuclear strike alternative systems that much better? Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The problem isn't that 'the enemies of the cold war' aren't a threat, its that Trident isn't really any use against the enemies of the modern era and future. I can see that this is your opinion but I disagree. We can reach the main potential enemies. If we can't America can. I'm not sure your stats are reliable based on what I've seen and we have a solid alliance with the States....despite the best efforts of those on the left that would wish otherwise.....Probably watch 'Love Actually' on repeat.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 26 Apr 17 6.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
Isn't "our" nuclear deterrent - ie the actual missiles - leased from its US manufacturer? It's all bollocks anyway. Go ahead and name me the states that are lining up to attack the UK that we're deterring, with the reasons why you chose them. Then feel free to list the direct benefits to the average UK citizen - who unsurprisingly won't have disappeared in a ball of nuclear fire - of those £200+ billions that this "renewal" will cost over time. 'Leased'....Haha! Never heard of that one. What are you trying to say? That we aren't allowed to use them? The US has no veto upon our use of nuclear weapons. We have given assurances, which makes sense but it's our finger on the button. As for who is a direct threat?...Is that how you think of having a defence is it? Quick...let's design a system (even though it takes decades to sort out)..design a system that only deals with direct threats right now. I can't imagine anyone would put you in charge of anything important with thinking like that. Our threats at the moment are Russia and China. We are essentially a support prop within Nato for the US....We along with France are the added complication that makes nuclear war unrealistic and nuclear blackmail off the table. With you and those who think like you at the helm we would be subject to nuclear threat blackmail and everything else that goes with it. As for the benefits to the average citizen. It is having a deterrent...as opposed to you not having any....Like I have said...how many world wars have there been since WW2? You are the real risk taker not me.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 26 Apr 17 6.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Former Conservative Defence Minister Michael Portillo has recently described Trident as a “waste of money” which is “completely past its sell-by date”, and “neither independent” nor “any sort of deterrent” So after today and thanks to posters: 1. Waste of money - Absolutely 2. Sell-by-date - Absolutely 3. Neither independent - Not sure brain still trying to work it out 4. Any sort of deterrent - No but not absolutely IMO the present system should continue for its remaining life of 15 years but not be renewed, as there is no benefit in not having what is already there.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 26 Apr 17 7.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
'Leased'....Haha! Never heard of that one. What are you trying to say? That we aren't allowed to use them? The US has no veto upon our use of nuclear weapons. We have given assurances, which makes sense but it's our finger on the button. As for who is a direct threat?...Is that how you think of having a defence is it? Quick...let's design a system (even though it takes decades to sort out)..design a system that only deals with direct threats right now. I can't imagine anyone would put you in charge of anything important with thinking like that. Our threats at the moment are Russia and China. We are essentially a support prop within Nato for the US....We along with France are the added complication that makes nuclear war unrealistic and nuclear blackmail off the table. With you and those who think like you at the helm we would be subject to nuclear threat blackmail and everything else that goes with it. As for the benefits to the average citizen. It is having a deterrent...as opposed to you not having any....Like I have said...how many world wars have there been since WW2? You are the real risk taker not me.
If you seriously think Russia or China are poised, ready to strike against the UK militarily, you really have bought the propaganda 100%. If you think Russia are about to roll the Red Army over the plains or Central Europe, you're about 50 years behind the times. Pray tell what military threat China poses to any European country? China has economic clout and Russia has a bucketload of resources - perhaps you buy into the premise that this "power" is a threat to us? If it is, it's only one that's going to be addressed by offensive, not deterrent, force. Do you genuinely believe that a non-Trident UK - even if outside NATO - would be subject to "nuclear blackmail" from Russia? Really? Still, you're entitled to your view. I stand by the fact that I believe the UK at large would be a lot better off spending the obscene sums of money involved on its own people and I believe they would still be around and free to benefit from it rather than be dead or a Russian vassal.
Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 26 Apr 17 7.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
If you seriously think Russia or China are poised, ready to strike against the UK militarily, you really have bought the propaganda 100%. If you think Russia are about to roll the Red Army over the plains or Central Europe, you're about 50 years behind the times. Pray tell what military threat China poses to any European country? China has economic clout and Russia has a bucketload of resources - perhaps you buy into the premise that this "power" is a threat to us? If it is, it's only one that's going to be addressed by offensive, not deterrent, force. Do you genuinely believe that a non-Trident UK - even if outside NATO - would be subject to "nuclear blackmail" from Russia? Really? Still, you're entitled to your view. I stand by the fact that I believe the UK at large would be a lot better off spending the obscene sums of money involved on its own people and I believe they would still be around and free to benefit from it rather than be dead or a Russian vassal. You think China and Russia are peaceful? Hahaha! And you think I'm buying propaganda! Just ask eastern Europe about Russia and any country just off the coast of China about how safe they feel. Both of those countries do precisely what they think they can get away with...whatever incurs the least cost. Defence isn't about protecting against what is here right now....It is about being powerful enough not to be taken lightly....Just ask Tibet about having little in the way of military defence. Talk about living in la la land. Labour member are we? If not you should be. And I want to know...why wouldn't a nuclear defenseless UK be subject to nuclear blackmail?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
coulsdoneagle  London 26 Apr 17 7.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Much as I might want him to win the election, I very much doubt he'll have to make that choice - and Trident isn't really a first strike solution anyhow. The UK has no first strike capacity, short of unleashing at some 64 plus nuclear warheads, at a pre-selected target, that's with 4500 miles of the submarine (give or take 800 ft - Trident missiles aren't notably very accurate - but then nuclear warheads don't really require precision targeting). No Prime Minister in the UK is going to order a first strike except as part of a NATO defence against an overwhelming force. Sure they might say they would 'in certain circumstances' but unless that's the use of a real WMD against the UK, its never going to happen (and the use in the case of WMD really constitutes a retaliatory strike). It'd take one hell of a conventional attack to justify deploying nuclear weapons. I agree with this, but I can't really see Nato or Russia using strategic nuclear weapons even against an overwhelming conventional force. Russia as the USSR had a no first strike policy, and that was dropped at the end of the USSR but its tactical plan in response to an attack would probably be to use Taccy Nukes against forces that crossed in to Russia. I think tactical nuclear weapons could be used defensively but its hard to see anyone who has both the capability and the desire to get in to a situation that could escalate to that level.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 26 Apr 17 7.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by coulsdoneagle
I agree with this, but I can't really see Nato or Russia using strategic nuclear weapons even against an overwhelming conventional force. Russia as the USSR had a no first strike policy, and that was dropped at the end of the USSR but its tactical plan in response to an attack would probably be to use Taccy Nukes against forces that crossed in to Russia. I think tactical nuclear weapons could be used defensively but its hard to see anyone who has both the capability and the desire to get in to a situation that could escalate to that level. It's fine to speculate on probabilities but no one sensible would ever design a defence system on what you think the other side would do. You design a system that could punish if attacked....they do the same and hence you have stalemate. Hence no world wars for two and half generations.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 26 Apr 17 10.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You think China and Russia are peaceful? Hahaha! And you think I'm buying propaganda! Just ask eastern Europe about Russia and any country just off the coast of China about how safe they feel. Both of those countries do precisely what they think they can get away with...whatever incurs the least cost. Defence isn't about protecting against what is here right now....It is about being powerful enough not to be taken lightly....Just ask Tibet about having little in the way of military defence. Talk about living in la la land. Labour member are we? If not you should be. And I want to know...why wouldn't a nuclear defenseless UK be subject to nuclear blackmail?
What would Russia or China want to blackmail us over? Stop buying cheap tat from us and we'll bomb you? Stop laundering our money through London property and we'll nuke you? You do make a good point about having nukes to stop people messing with you. A quick check on history since 1980 will show who attacks countries that can't defend themselves with nukes. Russia and China certainly aren't peaceful, but I say again, where's the threat to us that's worth spending another £200+ billion on? Edited by Mr_Gristle (26 Apr 2017 10.07pm)
Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 26 Apr 17 10.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
What would Russia or China want to blackmail us over? Stop buying cheap tat from us and we'll bomb you? Stop laundering our money through London property and we'll nuke you? You do make a good point about having nukes to stop people messing with you. A quick check on history since 1980 will show who attacks countries that can't defend themselves with nukes. Russia and China certainly aren't peaceful, but I say again, where's the threat to us that's worth spending another £200+ billion on? Edited by Mr_Gristle (26 Apr 2017 10.07pm) Really you can't think of the obvious? The most obvious is at a time of war or warning of a war with another country, for example a Nato country. 'You move your troops here, in defence of **** and we shall regard it as an act of war and respond as we see fit'. The point of the nuclear deterrent is always to do with the most extreme situations. It is to deter them from happening....to promote 'jaw jaw and not war war'. Essentially it's the bully in the playground. You can't compete with me physically so I'm going to tell you what you can and can't do when the sh-t hits the fan. The fact that you can't see this is beyond me. Reagan closed this argument down decades ago yet here we are in this country undergoing CND mark 2.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Apr 17 9.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by coulsdoneagle
I agree with this, but I can't really see Nato or Russia using strategic nuclear weapons even against an overwhelming conventional force. Russia as the USSR had a no first strike policy, and that was dropped at the end of the USSR but its tactical plan in response to an attack would probably be to use Taccy Nukes against forces that crossed in to Russia. I think tactical nuclear weapons could be used defensively but its hard to see anyone who has both the capability and the desire to get in to a situation that could escalate to that level. If the cold war had turned hot, it would have likely been NATO that would have used nuclear / chemical and or Biological weapons first. Realistically, to deal with the numerical superiority of the Soviet war machine. NATOs conventional capacity to resist the Red Army was really about trying to hold as much ground as possible until they could be reinforced by the US. In order to achieve that NATO would probably need to use mass casualty weapons to reduce the soviet capacity to overrun and encircle western forces.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Apr 17 9.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
It's fine to speculate on probabilities but no one sensible would ever design a defence system on what you think the other side would do. You design a system that could punish if attacked....they do the same and hence you have stalemate. Hence no world wars for two and half generations. Well that's actually how trident was envisioned. Its design and processes are all built around what the Soviet could potentially achieve. Trident is designed specifically so that even if everyone in the UK was wiped out in a surprise attack. The only way to stop Trident, is to sink the submarines. And to do that you have to know where they are, at any given time. We couldn't destroy the Soviet, but we could inflict such horrific causalities and damage in response that it was a effectively assured destruction. Its about a fail safe as a system as could be devised. Although thinking about it, Trident was more about what the other side was capable of doing. I'd argue that our place on the Security Council pretty much is based on being a nuclear nation (same as France). Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Apr 2017 10.01am)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 27 Apr 17 11.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well that's actually how trident was envisioned. Its design and processes are all built around what the Soviet could potentially achieve. Trident is designed specifically so that even if everyone in the UK was wiped out in a surprise attack. The only way to stop Trident, is to sink the submarines. And to do that you have to know where they are, at any given time. We couldn't destroy the Soviet, but we could inflict such horrific causalities and damage in response that it was a effectively assured destruction. Its about a fail safe as a system as could be devised. Although thinking about it, Trident was more about what the other side was capable of doing. I'd argue that our place on the Security Council pretty much is based on being a nuclear nation (same as France). Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Apr 2017 10.01am) There is nothing safe about nuclear submarines there have been 22 major accidents since year 2000 thats only the ones that we can find out about. You have to consider the other nuclear submarines out there from other countries its like 'underwater dodgems'. Despite what you say the impression you give of professionalism is not the real world where anything nuclear can and does go wrong. We are probably only here because Russian commanders would not carry out their orders to fire missiles during the Cuba crisis and under Andropov where they panicked thinking they had only minutes from an American attack. The sooner we are not on the UN security council the better for what use it is, then we can evaluate a cheaper and more effective system based on our needs and not an ego trip based on the power we no longer are.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.