Trident

[casserole of nonsense]

Is there a list of countries that don't have Trident that have been invaded ?

Grenada

 

[East Level 2]

Where are the subs going to be based when Scotland becomes independent?

They do the maintenance of the current Vanguard Class at Devonport near Plymouth so that's a possibility.
The licence at BAE at Barrow is odd in that it allows nuclear subs to be built there but they can't return once commissioned. - Or at least that was the case a few years ago.

 

[BlueAnorak]

What's the point in keeping it if we ain't going to use it though!?

The point of having it is to make it much, much, much less likely that we never use it.
It has kept us free from major destructive conflict on home soil for 64 years from 1952 to the present day.

 

[BlueAnorak]

You know Russia have nukes down as a first strike option? Not last resort, first fucking strike. That alone is a reason to have a deterrent. And lets not forget North Korea doing nuclear tests and testing long range rockets.

This.

 

[BlueAnorak]

BTW, Giving up Nukes worked well for the Ukraine didn't it...

 

[BlueAnorak]

We only need to replace the Vanguard class subs for now.
I'm certainly not sure that an iCBM capability will actually get through in 25 years time due to advances in missile interception technology (See Israel Iron Dome, Arrow Arrow2 and Davids Sling Technology so perhaps cheaper options should be considered?
For example long range low flying Cruise Missiles, Mini-subs launchable from missile tubes that could themselves launch a cruise missile or carry robotic crawlers that can scuttle up river systems and detonate.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Perhaps a stupid question but if Trident fired an anonymous nuke at say Country A how would that country and the rest of the world know who fired it?

They wouldn't. In the event we were firing unilaterally against Russia they wouldn't know for sure if they were being attacked by Britain, France,the United States or by some combination of the three. Best for them then not to start anything that could lead to any one of the three launching nukes at them or they'd risk having to fight all three at the nuclear level. The Americans have always been very keen for Britain to retain nuclear capability in part due to the cost savings it gives them in running the Trident programme but also in terms of the uncertainty it creates for any potential enemy of NATO.

I saw an interesting interview a few months back with the former Foreign Secretary of Poland. He'd read a predecessor's copy of the old Warsaw Pact battle plan for World War 3. In it there were preemptive nuclear strikes against a range of military targets across Western Europe ahead of the advancing tanks. None of the targets to be nuked were in either Britain or France. CND's arguments just don't hold any weight whether we're talking Japan in 1945, the old Cold War era of the past or the current situation in the Ukraine. Who knows what threat we'll face in the future?

 

[jpargo]

Interesting fact. Soviets had official policy of no strike first (they would not use nuclear weapons first).

The West (NATO/USA) did not have such policy, and reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in any situation. This one significant factor in nuclear proliferation.

 

[MCFC1993]

Interesting fact. Soviets had official policy of no strike first (they would not use nuclear weapons first).

The West (NATO/USA) did not have such policy, and reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in any situation. This one significant factor in nuclear proliferation.

Putin has called the USA out on it multiples, there's a few videos on it, I'm pretty sure NATO/USA have a nuclear base of something along them lines in Kazakhstan not far from the Russian border. He was saying if he pitched up and set up a base on the Mexican border or something along those lines there would be an uproar (Not saying Mexico would allow it).


As for trident, it was surely only ever going to go that way. There needs to be a deterrent to stop countries ever attacking us, the naysayers will always say thats a weak/exaggerated excuse but the truth is we just don't know what will happen in the future. As for the money excuse, i've seen on social media people claiming it could have helped stop poverty in this country and so on...like the government would have used the money that way.

 

[urban genie]

We have a very capable anti ballistic system that could take down any nuke heading our way, as do france, the US, Russia etc, so even if one was fired by any side they would probably be shot down, if mutiple were fired it wouldn't matter if we could fire one back we would all be dead anyway, so spunking 250 billion plus on something we will never use, when a more modern upgrade of our navy and airforce would be money better spent, and use barrow shipyards to build the new navy so jobs are sucure

In the future any nuke will be deployed by drones more than likely, so keep a nuclear deterant, but one suited to modern warfare not the cold war.
We have already developed one of the best missile systems in brimstone recently, that can be adapted for duel use, trident isn't necessary or affordable, just posturing for the sake of it. I would rather have a more technically advanced army/navy/RAF with a modern nuclear final option.