You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trident
- Thread starter marco
- Start date
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Edited for accuracyFrom what i understand the boats will be built in Barrow.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
I wonder how personal those instructions really are.
I'd imagine they're more formal and just signed off by the current PM. There must be some instruction that says 'in the event of my death and no subsequent PM in place'.
And then...
Is it really the authority of the PM to authorise it? it would be a really weird situation I imagine. Can't help but think it would be entirely down to the guy on the sub in the end.
I would say, if ever there was a time to negotiate a pay rise for the submariners, that would be the time!
I'd imagine they're more formal and just signed off by the current PM. There must be some instruction that says 'in the event of my death and no subsequent PM in place'.
And then...
Is it really the authority of the PM to authorise it? it would be a really weird situation I imagine. Can't help but think it would be entirely down to the guy on the sub in the end.
I read the other day that the new PM writes instructions in a sealed envelope for each of the four subs which is kept under lock and key. The 4 options she was given should London/UK be wiped out were;
1. To retaliate.
2. To do nothing.
3. To place the submarine under the control of an ally - specifically the United States Navy or Royal Australian Navy.
4. To act according to how the Captain deems best.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
I would say, if ever there was a time to negotiate a pay rise for the submariners, that would be the time!
I do believe that takes us back to the OP
well in at 472 votes to 117, within the space of a couple of weeks this country has grown massive pair of hairy balls
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Why do you believe we need US permission to use them ?Russia may or may not be more dangerous I just don't see Trident as the answer. It is a poor use of money that could be spent elsewhere in countering global threats. Additionally we lease the missiles from America and they would never be used without American approval and if the US did approve it means missiles are already flying all over the place and our one sub will be irrelevant.
If Russia did anything it would be using conventional troops. If Russia used tactical nukes in Eastern Europe we still wouldn't use Trident. China isn't going to invade or attack us either. They could just buy us instead. N. Korea is a basket case and having Trident is no deterrent to a madman.
I am not philosophically opposed to Nuclear deterrent and the MAD concept. I just think Trident is poor value for money and is more about us trying stay relevant in a dick waving contest.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Might have been if it were factually correctIs the correct answer. Great post.
BoyBlue_1985
Well-Known Member
I would probably like to believe that no matter how stupid the UK gets we are not still using the 1960's version of when to launch the nuclear weaponIt's supposed to be silence on Radio 4 for a set number of days.
There are also supposed to be instructions on each sub, written by the Prome Minister. When we get a new PM each sub recieves new instructions. So if you're a smart Johnny Foreigner looking to bomb the UK you assassoinate the PM. The singel sub that is at sea then needs to get new instructions some how. You pin point the hand over from Postman Pat and launch.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,065
Mainly because the likes of us, the US and France do have them.The vast majority of the other major nations in the world - Canada, Australia, Mexico, Malaysia, Indonesia, Spain, Italy, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Japan to name but a few - don't have nuclear weapons.
Taiwan, which has been under constant threat by China for nearly 70 years doesn't have nuclear weapons yet hasn't been invaded.
There's no way Pakistan and India wouldn't have gone to full scale war if they didn't each have them either.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,065
What happens if another nation (baddies) build a similar sub and launch from there? where do we aim for if we're not sure who fired it?
Are you kidding? There's not a chance a country could build such a thing and the rest of the world's intelligence services wouldn't know.
the americans lease the missiles to us in exchange for the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, negotiated by Roy Hattersley. One of the strings attached was the US having the last word on if/when a launch was being consideredWhy do you believe we need US permission to use them ?