FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
He only posts once every since months when he surfaces ;-)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trident
- Thread starter marco
- Start date
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
If someone launched a warhead at the UK then the fact we can retaliate is clearly not a very good deterrent.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.
RichardDunneOwnGoal
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 2,016
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?
This is why it is so fundamental to ensure nuclear proliferation never takes hold in the Middle East, the concept of mutually assured destruction which kept humanity teetering on a knife edge for decades could theoretically become void should an Islamist theocracy ever gain control of the technology.
Such an armed state with people in charge of the launch codes holding very real beliefs in martyrdom, and MAD might not be applicable.
A genuinely frightening thought.
smudgedj
Well-Known Member
It certainly does.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.
RichardDunneOwnGoal
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 2,016
If someone launched a warhead at the UK then the fact we can retaliate is clearly not a very good deterrent.
That's a very big if though, and that's precisely the deterrent. Of course if it happened it would be an eye for an eye scenario and the UK would be fucked anyway.
smudgedj
Well-Known Member
Ha Your not wrong, I've just checked his facebook page and he's away. Somewhere.He only posts once every since months when he surfaces ;-)
Manchester33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Messages
- 6,856
A good option would be to invest the money on an intelligent missile detection system with automatic destroying capabilities (similar to the Iron Dome in Israel). That way we'll all live at least...
Manchester33
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Messages
- 6,856
Erm yes. In fact there is a lad who posts on here who is a crew member on one of the subs.
Yeah, sure 'Smudgedj', if that is your real name. How do I know you don't just work for the MoD and they're paying you to say that on a Manchester City fan forum?
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,711
How do you know it/they wouldn't? They don't have a nuclear response, so have nothing to threaten an invader with, other than their farYes. 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.
smaller conventional forces.
Israel had a far superior airforce in terms of training and quality, a superbly organised tank and anti-tank capability, far superior, although
smaller, ground forces and an infinitely superior intelligence gathering agency. This was used to devastating effect, as would any nation
defending it's very existence; however, if the Egyptian and Syrian forces were fast approaching the gates of Tel Aviv, would the Israeli government
simply capitulate? It makes sense to use conventional forces, especially if they're the quality of Israel's, they did and succeeded, but if not
the nuclear option is there. I may be wrong but If a poll of the citizens of Israel were held I can't see many opting to relinquish nuclear capability.
smudgedj
Well-Known Member
Shit busted. Will email a mod and change name to 'sillybunny123'Yeah, sure 'Smudgedj', if that is your real name. How do I know you don't just work for the MoD and they're paying you to say that on a Manchester City fan forum?