It doesn't matter if they know!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.
I call that bullshitthe 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 considered
Me too. Total shite.I call that bullshit
Yeah. There'd be no build up or warning. France will just randomly fire one off.It doesn't matter if they know!
The point is, when it's launched, you can't identify who launched it, because you don't know why subs are where.
Eventually they'd work it out, but not in a rapid retaliation.
If you have 30 subs all doing the underwater jiggle and you don't know which is where, when one of them strikes, how do you know which nation it was?
I agree that ICBMs are a very expensive option.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.
It is. I write from a well informed positionMe too. Total shite.
None of those you mention can hit an ICBM travelling at Mach 10 can they?I agree that ICBMs are a very expensive option. Worse with anti missile technology being developed ( Israel has iron dome, arrow 2 arrow 3 missiles and David's sling a high power pulse later) they are not covered by Salt or Start treaties so the US is giving them a stack of cash to develop them by proxy. Within 20 yeasr - about the time our Trident ICBMs replacement Kicks in they could be as good assesses.
Still need replacement subs thoughts keep Trident going for a bit or to launch possible replacements - e.g. long range terrain hugging cruise missiles or Robot mini subs that can launch the same or travel river systems and detonate as is.
It's a hell of a decision to fire a retaliatory nuke if you're not certain. If you're stuck underwater and lost comms with the UK because London is 'no more', you'd better be sure!Yeah. There'd be no build up or warning. France will just randomly fire one off.
None of those you mention can hit an ICBM travelling at Mach 10 can they?