Trident

[goalmole]

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.

Well done. You've expressed my thoughts and opinions on this matter comprehensively.

 

[BobKowalski]

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!

Fifties and sixties actually. We tried to have a truly independent deterrent. But it never worked, was too expensive and we went cap in hand to the Yanks instead. The rest as they say is history.

Props on the Backstabbers.

 

[FanchesterCity]

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

Gotcha!

 

[SWP's back]

The speed of the ICBM doesn't have to be matched to hit it.

I never said it does. And my point stands.

 

[SWP's back]

Because the Parloamentary Defence Select Committee said so. Not in so many words of course but it made it clear that despite the claim we were nominally independent, firing without the express authority of the US was pretty well unthinkable. Not least because the US controls the geo-data that the missiles rely in to reach their targets. They could just switch that off at a moments notice and our Trident missiles would be effectively blinded.

Wrong.

 

[idahoblues]

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.

Whilst a fascinating post, what is wrong with attending school in a foreign country? Most sherman detractors on this site complain of Americans not visiting other countries or cultures...I guess there is also the point that your post is nonsense, please feel free to list all the draft dodging presidents. JFK was too early, Bill Clinton was probably the best president in years, he's the only one I can think of who may fall into your catergory, he was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford after achieving a degree at Columbia University. He then went on to achieve a JD at Yale.....dumb southern boy I guess

 

[urban genie]

we have the technological knowhow to develop many modern independant bits of kit, unfortunately we don't, if we invested the money for trident in the technical and industrial side of our country better we could easily have a cheaper alternative.

Besides if it was russia to attack us their anti missile system would stop any retaliation from us so we would only be incinerated thinking we had struck back rather than actually it happening, What you want is investent in the weapons pf tomorrow not relics from the past, bout time we had lazers and emp devices nukes are so 20th century

 

[mosssideblue]

Sorry mate, you have been reading too many warbooks. Our nuclear deterrent is what it says on the tin , ours. We are not beholden to NATO for its deployment. The scenario you post, confirms to me youknow little about the deterrent, and its raisen detre for the UK.

Our missiles are operated under NATO authority primarily. The public position is that PM has the final say in theory but has to "consult" with NATO before exercising the use of nuclear weapons. The MoD says there are circumstances where our national interests could be threatened outside the framework of NATO and that the PM has complete discretion in these circumstances.

So let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where that might apply. Argentina's in a mess economically (which isn't hypothetical) and there's civil unrest. The military are ordered to shoot protestors but refuse and instead mount a coup. To divert attention from their domestic issues they invade the Falklands. They know we'll struggle to mount a conventional response so think they've got the upper hand. But to make sure, they threaten to shoot 50 islanders a week until we cede the islands to them.

Our PM is a somewhat hawkish figure and threatens to retaliate if they do that so they call our bluff and shoot the first 50. The PM, knowing we are incapable of mounting a conventional operation, orders a nuclear strike on Buenos Aires. Do you seriously believe, regardless of anything the MoD might say publicly, that the USA would allow something like that?

 

[mosssideblue]

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.

The US would probably bomb the shipyard in Scotland and sink the one sub we have at sea. Acting without American consent would put them at odds with the UK. Confining any fallout of any nuclear conflict to UK/Europe would be their primary concern. This assumes that the US is no longer an active ally in helping UK/Europe overcome whatever unspecified threat we are facing. If they are helping us and still an active ally then consent may be given to use Trident in a second strike capacity but even then they may pressure us not to if it posed a threat of escalation and a threat to US soil.

Essentially my argument is that not getting American consent to use Trident will put us in effective conflict with the US and that is something we will never do. Trident is an extension of the American military and in time of conflict Trident will be under American/NATO control.

 

[mosssideblue]

The US would probably bomb the shipyard in Scotland and sink the one sub we have at sea. Acting without American consent would put them at odds with the UK. Confining any fallout of any nuclear conflict to UK/Europe would be their primary concern. This assumes that the US is no longer an active ally in helping UK/Europe overcome whatever unspecified threat we are facing. If they are helping us and still an active ally then consent may be given to use Trident in a second strike capacity but even then they may pressure us not to if it posed a threat of escalation and a threat to US soil.

Essentially my argument is that not getting American consent to use Trident will put us in effective conflict with the US and that is something we will never do. Trident is an extension of the American military and in time of conflict Trident will be under American/NATO control.

what a load of crap. You honestly think the US would bomb Faslane and take outthe on patrol boat? Stop talking bollocks. Trident IS NOT an extention of US arms, where are you getting this shit from?
I asked you lastnight andyou failed to answer, but why do youthink youare an authority on this?