Trident

[smudgedj]

Why do we even have it then? Countries like Pakistan, India are striving to acquire their own independent nuclear capabilities, what the fuck are we doing handing over ultimate control of our defence to the Americans and paying billions for the pleasure. The French don't seem to have a problem developing a missile system independently to the Americans maybe we should think about doing the same.

Our nuclear deterrent is independent.

 

[FanchesterCity]

The idea that they hit us we hit back, and so forth seems unlikely.
One bomb would wipe out all of Greater London. The lot. Zilch. At this point there is no proper chain of command, it's horror on a massive scale. And chances are, we aren't going to be the only ones hit. If someone's going to do it, they might as well do a few places while they're at it (assuming they have enough weapons).

Look at 9/11 - a relatively minor situation compared with modern day nuke, and the ensuing confusion that came of that. I'm just not buying this 'ping pong' number of strikes. A single strike would bring us to our knees.

 

[marco]

Why do we even have it then? Countries like Pakistan, India are striving to acquire their own independent nuclear capabilities, what the fuck are we doing handing over ultimate control of our defence to the Americans and paying billions for the pleasure. The French don't seem to have a problem developing a missile system independently to the Americans maybe we should think about doing the same.

because the Americans are our biggest ally and TBH i'd rather stand next to them than anyone else when the shit hits the fan, we have been in with them for years, we had the old Faslane and they were on the Holy Loch, great on a Friday night though there were regular pub battles between us and them with the scots in the middle

 

[FanchesterCity]

Why do we even have it then? Countries like Pakistan, India are striving to acquire their own independent nuclear capabilities, what the fuck are we doing handing over ultimate control of our defence to the Americans and paying billions for the pleasure. The French don't seem to have a problem developing a missile system independently to the Americans maybe we should think about doing the same.

Pakistan and India have nuclear capability.

I would imagine the overriding factor is cost. It costs a lot to build and test nuclear weapons so we use a load of American technology, and there's nothing wrong with that. In the unlikely event we have to use one, who cares where the technology came from, or who services it? - we only need it to work and be under our control.

The 'potential' issue (in theory) is if the Americans no longer want to share that technology with us, and we have to go it alone. We could do it, but it would cost us, and would probably take some time to build, but not the end of the world (pardon the terminology).

If a conflict gets as far as nations launching nukes at each other, not much of this matters.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Our nuclear deterrent is independent.

You keep saying this but it really isn't truly independent. It operates under the NATO command structure normally and our NATO allies have to be consulted before we use it. Theoretically the PM could ignore that advice but I simply couldn't see that happening and neither could President Kennedy in 1962 when he agreed to let us have access to the missile technology. There was a form of words giving us freedom of action in cases where our "supreme national interest" was threatened but that was deliberately ambiguous. JFK meant that as a sop to UK public opinion and he and his advisers saw no circumstances in which that might happen outside a NATO framework.

 

[FanchesterCity]

because the Americans are our biggest ally and TBH i'd rather stand next to them than anyone else when the shit hits the fan, we have been in with them for years, we had the old Faslane and they were on the Holy Loch, great on a Friday night though there were regular pub battles between us and them with the scots in the middle

Agreed, for better or for worse, and as much as we mock each other, we'd far rather stand side by side with them than anybody else (imo).
We need them more than they need us too.

 

[FanchesterCity]

You keep saying this but it really isn't truly independent. It operates under the NATO command structure normally and our NATO allies have to be consulted before we use it. Theoretically the PM could ignore that advice but I simply couldn't see that happening and neither could President Kennedy in 1962 when he agreed to let us have access to the missile technology. There was a form of words giving us freedom of action in cases where our "supreme national interest" was threatened but that was deliberately ambiguous. JFK meant that as a sop to UK public opinion and he and his advisers saw no circumstances in which that might happen outside a NATO framework.

When you say the NATO command structure - do you mean we a political command structure, or an actual physical one, e.g. there's a NATO guy in the physical process of launching who can stop it?
Surely if there's only a UK commander on a submarine and he's given the order, there's no physical means of intervention? (or is there? - is he physically capable of launching without any intervention / unlock codes from NATO etc?)

Imagine a rogue commander of the sub, with sole capability to launch - that seems odd.
At an absolutely wild stab in the dark.... I would have thought that EVEN if the the missiles were launched, there might be some secondary acknowledgement required whilst airborne to 'unlock' the bomb as such. That way, even an accidental misfire, or rogue commander couldn't make it happen - the missile would need a secondary confirmation via satellite or something.

Anybody know?

 

[goalmole]

Agreed, for better or for worse, and as much as we mock each other, we'd far rather stand side by side with them than anybody else (imo).
We need them more than they need us too.

Which leads to the possibility that our ultimate defence needs may be compromised if the Americans think that doing so enhances theirs. When the shit hits the fan, I'm sorry but I don't trust the Americans to do right by anybody but themselves. I still think the French have the right idea. Our approach seems to be geared to the cheapest option rather than the best for a truly independent deterrent.

 

[steviemc]

NATO has collapsed. The Russian army is marching through Europe unopposed. The French nukes being under EU control is just your EU hate coming through - I mean seriously the French would just tell the EU to fuck off - but okay I'll give you that one. Now so far so good but here is the kicker. Under your scenario Russia is taking Western Europe with token resistance so why the hell would they bother launching a nuclear strike on the UK? Makes zero sense. So far the Americans are staying well out of it so why ratchet up the ante from conventional to nuclear? Furthermore you say French nukes are off the table. Well nuking the UK puts them right back on the table given France is only 22 miles away. The EU maybe slow to decide but mushroom clouds on the horizon and fallout over Western Europe would probably bring a quick consensus.

I get you have gone for a doomsday scenario; NATO collapsing, EU all but gone, Americans out for some unspecified reason but it's still makes no sense to nuke the one country that could retaliate. It also doesn't say much for 'Trident the deterrent' argument. All it seems to have done is put a big bullseye over the UK.

So Mr.Kowalaski, I've listened to your anti EU propaganda et al. And all the crass that comes with it. Now, please tell me, what deterrent has your native (or historically native country) used to good affect to deter such situations? I'm calling you out on this one, because I'm sick to the back teeth of your spiel without substance. Please answer the question.You seem to be inherently against anything that may serve our country good, in all your comments. As I've already said, I'm calling you out on your so called idealistic principles for this great country of ours, so come on, let's here a good answer, Mr kowalski.

 

[smudgedj]

You keep saying this but it really isn't truly independent. It operates under the NATO command structure normally and our NATO allies have to be consulted before we use it. Theoretically the PM could ignore that advice but I simply couldn't see that happening and neither could President Kennedy in 1962 when he agreed to let us have access to the missile technology. There was a form of words giving us freedom of action in cases where our "supreme national interest" was threatened but that was deliberately ambiguous. JFK meant that as a sop to UK public opinion and he and his advisers saw no circumstances in which that might happen outside a NATO framework.

The MOD clearly state that the nuclear deterent is independent

the UK Trident system is fully operationally independent of the US or any other state. Decision-making and use of the system remains entirely sovereign to the UK.

If you wish to not believe that then there isn't a lot I can do about it.