Trident

[FanchesterCity]

Update:

The Permissive Action Link is basically the activation codes for the actual weapon (not the missile) - so the missile could be fired by accident (theoretically) but the unlock codes wouldn't arm the device. The unlock codes come in at LEAST two parts and have to be activated by two individuals or systems and in a relatively short period of time. I do not know if any codes can be transmitted whilst airborne. Someone else might know.

Now, if NATO have half those codes and we don't (as a safety measure) then PB would be correct. But that's entirely speculative on my part. Other than that, I can't see how NATO could physically intervene. The repercussions afterwards are another matter, but in terms of 'pressing the button', if they aren't in the physical loop, they can't physically stop it.

 

[goalmole]

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.

Of course India/Pakistan have nuclear capability. What I meant was that they are making great efforts to develop their own independent delivery systems.

 

[steviemc]

Kowalski lost the EU narative, so now he'll tell you that NATO has gone tits up. You've been well and truly sussed BK.

https://postimage.org/

 

[BobKowalski]

Well of course it's a doonsday scenario, you wanted a scenario where the PM would issue, unilaterally, an order to fire the nukes. I wrote 'In a preemptive strike' for a reason.

Your scenario was pants for the reasons I outlined. You might as well have gone for alien invasion.

 

[BobKowalski]

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.

We actually tried to develop our independent missile system to carry warheads. It was called Blue Streak. It was cancelled and never went into production. After that we leased from the Americans.

 

[steviemc]

Your scenario was pants for the reasons I outlined. You might as well have gone for alien invasion.

You asked him for the feckin' thing - and he gave it you! FFS.

 

[steviemc]

We actually tried to develop our independent missile system to carry warheads. It was called Blue Streak. It was cancelled and never went into production. After that we leased from the Americans.

You do realise you're going back to 1972 with that comment? When the O'Jays had a hit with 'Backstabbers'? Only a mere 44 years ago!

 

[BobKowalski]

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.

Anti-EU propaganda? I voted remain mate.

No idea what you mean by 'historically native country'. Are you getting confused by the name 'Kowalski'?

Good answer to what? Brexit? Fucking stupid decision. Trident? Vanity project and expensive. Want more expansive answers just read my posts. Want to debate them then go ahead knock yourself out.

 

[BobKowalski]

You asked him for the feckin' thing - and he gave it you! FFS.

He gave me a pile of steaming horseshit. I outlined why it was a pile of steaming horseshit. If you think otherwise then explain why it wasn't steaming horseshit and rebut the points I made. Give it a go its not rocket science (badum tish).

 

[Kazzydeyna]

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

The Americans are allies of one people. The Americans.

In an international crisis they would take the course of action best suited to their own ends, and if that meant betraying "their oldest friend" that's what they would do. We were the same when we were the worlds superpower decades ago.

I'm no Francophile, but I have a grudging admiration and respect for the French deciding against being a full nato partner as they do not, have not, and will never trust the Americans fully. And nor should they.

I find it incredible that we as a nation spent months arguing about our independence from the EU only to so easily and willingly cede this same independence to the fucking yanks. Make no mistake, trident is NOT and never will be an independent weapon system. No British PM would ever dare use it without express American permission so why spend billions on it. Let the American taxpayer pay for some more missiles if they want them. Don't ask me to pay for them and tell me I'm buying a uk deterrent. That's a lie.

If we have to spend this money on defence, how about some planes for our shiny new aircraft carriers. Or some boots and body armour for our troops so at least next time we have to go to war to lend legitimacy to yet another blood thirsty American president (who will no doubt have been in college in Canada or Europe when HE was of draft age himself of course) they can actually defend themselves.