Trident

[FanchesterCity]

4 boats are required to allow for the fact that one maybe 2 can be being fixed.
- One undergoing full refit (1 year out every 4 years).
- One going to/returning from station.
- One on station.
- One broken / in dock / on station in time of crisis.
We only have about 2.5 crews at the moment.

I'm sure that's right - still sounds a bit Heath Robinson

 

[Chippy_boy]

The ideal would be no nuclear weapons for any cunts, but we as a nation need them to scare other motherfuckers who wish us harm. So long as Boris and Trump don't get their fingers on the button. That's unreliable.

With no nuclear weapons, there would be nothing to stop Russia claiming as much territory as it fancied. Their conventional forced so massively outweigh everyone elses (apart from China perhaps).

 

[inbetween]

A 20th Century Cold War weapon system which has little relevance to the threats we face today. Investing in conventional weapons and troops, intelligence gathering etc would be better use of the money. Trident is a vanity statement. It plays well in the media and doesn't require any hard thinking about future threats. Voting for it was the easy and politically safe option.

Also anyone who can glibly state they would slaughter 100,000 people without a second thought is either an idiot or a homicidal raving lunatic.

What about the threats we face tomorrow? No-one can say in 40 years we will not see a resurgent Russia or China fully nuclear armed. Given what is already happening in Syria, Turkey, Yemen, the annexation of Crimea, tensions in the Korea... Can you seriously say nuclear weapons are not relevant and never will be? Even the Saudi's will soon have nuclear weapons.

Don't forget it takes a decade to develop a nuclear weapons system, if we get rid of ours then we have to accept that if the worst happens then we have no defence beyond relying on the support of our allies. Personally I don't think that is acceptable given the state of the world at the moment.

Hopefully no-one will ever use a nuclear weapon in anger but remember the USA is the only country to use them and that was in it's defence. Although disproportionate, no-one can say it did not protect their way of life.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Seriously? Russia is more dangerous today that it has been since the late 1970s. Then there is China who are not the tame dragon many seem to think. Then you have Pakistan, North Korea and others.
The Russians actually intend to use Nukes tactically in their current battle plans.

ICBMs may bot be the correct solution with Modern anti missile tech. But subs as the launch platform still works, though firing long range cruise missiles (or other more exotic tech) could be much cheaper and more effective.

Until someone manages to detect / track a sub or work out that if the sub can't be notified it won't know there's been a strike (until it assumes the worst after some period of no comms) then it's a lot of money lost.
Still doesn't really address terrorism as we're seeing it today, and doesn't address the dirty bomb threat - although it doesn't even address the missile threat actually, just gives us a chance to strike back.

On a different note - IF it's really defence situation, and we have it as a threat to perturb others then in theory we don't actually have to carry the warheads, or only one in four of them needs to be real etc. Not a game i'd want to play, but it's a theoretical way of saving money.

 

[FanchesterCity]

With no nuclear weapons, there would be nothing to stop Russia claiming as much territory as it fancied. Their conventional forced so massively outweigh everyone elses (apart from China perhaps).

Other than the other nations unifying and better Western technology in other forms of warcraft - but it's a moot point, the nuclear genie's out of the bottle.

 

[manctheknife]

Suppose ISIS or Al Qaeda detonate a dirty device in the centre of London. Who are we going to aim the warheads at? Nuclear weapons offer no defence against the threats we now face, such as terrorism and cyber warfare. The money we're going to spend would be much more effective going to the intelligence services and ensuring we have an adequate mobile response force.

Who we gonna aim at?...Saudi. all day long. The whole region would go up like Joan of Arc.

 

[Phil1]

I find it hard to believe in a world that's been teetering on the edge for some years there are people who would rather forgo a nuclear deterrent in order to save some money.
I caught A bit of Theresa Mays speech in the commons yesterday where she was arguing the case and I think she said Trident would cost the equivalent of 20p in every £100 spent. Now I've not looked into it and as the vast majority of politicians would lie to their own grandmas it might not be true - but if so, it doesn't seem like a great deal for that extra peace of mind.
Nobody wants to have to worry about this kind of stuff but whilst the threat is real then so should our defences.

 

[Tam_O_Shanter]

Both options very costly.
Walney is too shallow (Barrow).
Plymouth can't replace Coulport.
Both near large centers of population ( UK reg authority).

But it's ok to base it 25 miles from Scotland's largest city. Facking Jocks are dispensible.

 

[BobKowalski]

Seriously? Russia is more dangerous today that it has been since the late 1970s. Then there is China who are not the tame dragon many seem to think. Then you have Pakistan, North Korea and others.
The Russians actually intend to use Nukes tactically in their current battle plans.

ICBMs may bot be the correct solution with Modern anti missile tech. But subs as the launch platform still works, though firing long range cruise missiles (or other more exotic tech) could be much cheaper and more effective.

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.

 

[inbetween]

Until someone manages to detect / track a sub or work out that if the sub can't be notified it won't know there's been a strike (until it assumes the worst after some period of no comms) then it's a lot of money lost.
Still doesn't really address terrorism as we're seeing it today, and doesn't address the dirty bomb threat - although it doesn't even address the missile threat actually, just gives us a chance to strike back.

On a different note - IF it's really defence situation, and we have it as a threat to perturb others then in theory we don't actually have to carry the warheads, or only one in four of them needs to be real etc. Not a game i'd want to play, but it's a theoretical way of saving money.

There is barely any money to be saved, the maintenance of the system falls within the defence budget. The actual outlay to build new submarines and the system itself which will cost billions will be spread over 35 years. If we had voted no last night we wouldn't suddenly have 60 billion to spend, we'd have 1/35th of that over the next 35 years which is about 1.75b a year saved.. That is a pretty paltry figure for an absolute last line of defence and deterrent.