Trident

[smudgedj]

Even if that was the case, if someone launched an first strike nuclear attack on us then the concept of deterrence has well & truly failed hasn't it?

Why would they launch a nuclear attack on us knowing full well we would annihilate their entire country.

 

[inbetween]

Even if that was the case, if someone launched an first strike nuclear attack on us then the concept of deterrence has well & truly failed hasn't it?

But that is why they won't launch first and never will. A credible deterrent is one which prevents the first strike option and it is again why we have an invisible launch platform capable of striking from absolutely anywhere.

The only exception is with a suicidal enemy but what is the point in anyone ever striking first and being eliminated themselves moments later.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Do you think Russia would have annexed Crimea and fomented unrest in eastern Ukraine, if they'd had
a deterrent?

Yes. Because it wouldn't justify a nuclear response.

Egypt and Syria invaded Israel in 1973 knowing that Israel had nuclear weapons as well as a delivery capability. They were defeated by conventional weapons but the possibility of a nuclear retaliation didn't stop them.

 

[Chris in London]

If we did not have a nuclear deterrent already I would think long and hard about whether the UK should spend the money required to develop one. We are where we are however and retaining Trident seems to me to be one of the easier decisions the government has to make.

Trident, it should be noted, is cost-neutral in the sense that whether we spend the money on trident or not, we have a commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence as part of our NATO treaty obligations. So - a bit like the £350m that (doesnt) go to the EU, the money won't go into the NHS etc even if we cancel trident. Britain still enjoys considerable power in the world, and an independent nuclear deterrent is part of the reason why.

 

[abu13]

We spend millions looking for life on other planets while we have people on our own planet dying through a lack of basic human needs, we cant afford to give pensioners a decent pension and have cut backs left right and centre but we can find money for a nuclear program.

The world is a fucked up place, maybe if we didn't go skipping along hand in hand with America invading the middle east we wouldnt need to worry about these issues.

 

[manctheknife]

Yes. Because it wouldn't justify a nuclear response.

Egypt and Syria invaded Israel in 1973 knowing that Israel had nuclear weapons as well as a delivery capability. They were defeated by conventional weapons but the possibility of a nuclear retaliation didn't stop them.

The possibility of the wind changing direction certainly bothered the Israelis ....

 

[Manchester33]

This is one of those scenarios, where they could just say - look, we're going to create 10 nuclear submarines, they're state of the art and will be undetectable, so if any of you fuckers bomb us, we'll annihilate you!.... Then they just don't build them, spend that money on the NHS, or their 2nd and 3rd homes and voila....


Be honest now, have you ever been in the same room as Trident? No? Didn't think so.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

hmmm, yes and no.
Every nation has a budget and a defence strategy and has to try to assess the most likely risks and apportion resources accordingly. If we think a nuke is way up on the likely risk list, AND we think the aggressor doesn't want to die in the process, then yes it's deterrent.
If we think the aggressor might have suicidal tendencies, then it's not a deterrent anyway. It's only a deterrent to like minded (with us) potential aggressors.

Then we have the issue that PB raised - sure, it may be acting as a deterrent, but we could be losing 200 lives a year to terrorism (maybe more if it escalates).

I'm not saying it's wrong - just that any decision to renew it isn't an isolated choice at all, it's part of a wider picture of potential threats and a limited budget.

Your first sentence is, probably, why we are renewing. Losing 200 lives to terrorism is dreadful, but irrelevant to the debate, unless it is purely
about cost, which is a fair point, we lose many more to road accidents and probably, murders, but these are additional hazards that also need attention.
Fundamentally, MAD has ensured that Russia has reigned in it's ambitions, Ukraine doesn't have the facility, if it did would Russia have annexed a chunk
of it's territory?

 

[smudgedj]

This is one of those scenarios, where they could just say - look, we're going to create 10 nuclear submarines, they're state of the art and will be undetectable, so if any of you fuckers bomb us, we'll annihilate you!.... Then they just don't build them, spend that money on the NHS, or their 2nd and 3rd homes and voila....


Be honest now, have you ever been in the same room as Trident? No? Didn't think so.

Erm yes. In fact there is a lad who posts on here who is a crew member on one of the subs.

 

[RichardDunneOwnGoal]

Why would they launch a nuclear attack on us knowing full well we would annihilate their entire country.

Trident allows us to have carry that arsenal across the globe, 365 days a year. There are always at least two subs on patrol at all times IIRC.

It's a permanent assurance that if someone was foolish enough to launch at warhead at the UK, even aimed at targeting installations here, they'd be guaranteeing their own destruction in doing so.

It's the strongest deterrent you can realistically have.