Trident

[ainsworth74]

Mod Note: Thread split from this thread.

The Polaris was carried by the four 'R boats' (Resolution, Repulse, Renown and Revenge).
The Trident II (current) is carried by the four 'V boats' (Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance).
Letters 'S' has been used on the Swiftsure class of conventional subs (nuclear powered) and 'T' used on the Trafalgar class that replaced them. 'U' would not be politically appropriate for subs so the next available letter is 'W'.
Anybody like to suggest a class name - (NOT Wxxxx McWxxxxface though!)

Actually we used 'U' on the Upholder Class but then skipped back to 'A' for the latest attack boats the Astutes so I would suggest it would actually be 'B' next. Though I'm wondering if they might go for a theme (like with the Type 23 frigates which are all Dukes) rather than a letter.

 

[Gutfright]

The Polaris was carried by the four 'R boats' (Resolution, Repulse, Renown and Revenge).
The Trident II (current) is carried by the four 'V boats' (Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance).
Letters 'S' has been used on the Swiftsure class of conventional subs (nuclear powered) and 'T' used on the Trafalgar class that replaced them. 'U' would not be politically appropriate for subs so the next available letter is 'W'.
Anybody like to suggest a class name - (NOT Wxxxx McWxxxxface though!)

White Elephant?

 

[RichmondCommu]

White Elephant?

Until someone else decides to attack us with nuclear weapons, in which case Jeremy Corbyn would be drafting a strongly worded letter of complaint to our attackers.

Fortunately Jeremy Corbyn hasn't a cat in hell's chance of ever being Prime Minister.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Until someone else decides to attack us with nuclear weapons, in which case Jeremy Corbyn would be drafting a strongly worded letter of complaint to our attackers.

Fortunately Jeremy Corbyn hasn't a cat in hell's chance of ever being Prime Minister.

If someone decides to attack us with Nuclear Weapons deterrent will have failed then.

 

[RichmondCommu]

If someone decides to attack us with Nuclear Weapons deterrent will have failed then.

I concur however with Trident we have something to fire back with.

 

[asylumxl]

I concur however with Trident we have something to fire back with.

How is mutually assured destruction any better?

 

[RichmondCommu]

How is mutually assured destruction any better?

Maybe it isn't but I have no time for someone who has ambitions to run the country who say's that he would let someone attack the UK and then refuse to do anything about it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I concur however with Trident we have something to fire back with.

....provided the "someone in charge" is not averse to pressing the right button.

Does anybody remember this festive parody...
"God rest you merry gentlemen
Lie safely in your bed
The independent British bomb
Is flying overhead
It's off to kill the Russians
When the rest of us are dead"

Normal chorus then follows

 

[miami]

I concur however with Trident we have something to fire back with.

Why bother? The best bet for the citizens of the UK if a nuclear strike occurs is to hope the country attacking (China, Russia, US?) will be strong enough to cope with the British refugees.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Why bother? The best bet for the citizens of the UK if a nuclear strike occurs is to hope the country attacking (China, Russia, US?) will be strong enough to cope with the British refugees.

Why bother? Can you really conjure up a scenario where the US would attack us? And how would refugees manage to make it all the way to Russia, let alone China?

If another country is prepared to attack us then they should be under no illusions that we would not respond in kind.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

....provided the "someone in charge" is not averse to pressing the right button.

Does anybody remember this festive parody...
"God rest you merry gentlemen
Lie safely in your bed
The independent British bomb
Is flying overhead
It's off to kill the Russians
When the rest of us are dead"

Normal chorus then follows

If someone is not prepared to press the button they should not be in charge of the boat.

 

[asylumxl]

Maybe it isn't but I have no time for someone who has ambitions to run the country who say's that he would let someone attack the UK and then refuse to do anything about it.

I'm in agreement with Arglwydd Golau, if that was to happen the deterrent failed and by then it'd be too late to avoid. Nuclear explosions by their nature are not exactly precise and innocent civilians will most likely be at best vaporised by the fireball or at worst poisoned by the fall out and slowly die a painful death.

Let's just imagine for a second Russia managed to hit your area with a nuclear warhead and killed all your loved ones. What exactly would doing the same to a Russian family achieve?

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm in agreement with Arglwydd Golau, if that was to happen the deterrent failed and by then it'd be too late to avoid. Nuclear explosions by their nature are not exactly precise and innocent civilians will most likely be at best vaporised by the fireball or at worst poisoned by the fall out and slowly die a painful death.

Let's just imagine for a second Russia managed to hit your area with a nuclear warhead and killed all your loved ones. What exactly would doing the same to a Russian family achieve?

They would suffer in the same way as my wife and children and I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would be looking for vengeance.

 

[Harbornite]

They would suffer in the same way as my wife and children and I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would be looking for vengeance.

Fair enough. By the time that the strike has hit your country, the time for negotiating and all that will have gone out the window. I don't understand the logic of some people, you might as well take the enemy with you if they have attacked you in a such a way. You should fight back and not bend over and take it if you have the wherewithal to fight.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Fair enough. By the time that the strike has hit your country, the time for negotiating and all that will have gone out the window.

Well exactly. Jeremy Corbyn would want to debate the content of his strongly worded letter in the Commons before heading down to the Post Office.

 

[Busaholic]

I've gradually changed my mind on the nuclear deterrent over the years, from voting Conservative at the 1983 General Election because I could not countenance Michael Foot's CND views, to now where, despite being no Corbynista, I simply don't think we can as a country afford to spend such sums on a situation that is either never going to happen or, if it does happen, we shall not be around to witness it. To my way of thinking (now) it is rather like being held in house custody for the rest of your life in case of the eventuality of something awful befalling you outside: before you realise it, your life has ended and you never took any risks, did anything worthwhile, etc. There are far better things to do with the money to keep us healthier, happier (hopefully), better educated and, especially,to try to ward off the self-inflicted economic disaster of Brexit.

So my position is one of pragmatism rather than principle, perhaps similar to the SNPs in fact.

 

[kegdr]

Let's just imagine for a second Russia managed to hit your area with a nuclear warhead and killed all your loved ones. What exactly would doing the same to a Russian family achieve?

Whether we go through with the threat or not is down to the PM - either directly or through the letters of last resort (for all we know, Theresa May set out an order for the boat captains not to retaliate, and her statement today was a bluff). But if the best way to prevent that scenario from happening is by maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent, then why should we not do so?

 

[asylumxl]

Whether we go through with the threat or not is down to the PM - either directly or through the letters of last resort (for all we know, Theresa May set out an order for the boat captains not to retaliate, and her statement today was a bluff). But if the best way to prevent that scenario from happening is by maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent, then why should we not do so?

Define independent. Trident missiles come from a shared pool with the US Navy.

It's a difficult problem. The destructive force of nuclear weapons should act as a deterrent, but it'd only take one unhinged group of individuals to plunge the world in to turmoil.

While agreeing to disarm is a nice idea in theory, most countries would probably keep a stock pile of secret nuclear weapons "just incase". You gain nothing.

It seems we are well and truly stuck with it now.

 

[kegdr]

The missiles do indeed come from a pool in the USA but as there is always one Vanguard submarine at sea with a complement of Trident missiles, this has very little effect on operations.

 

[asylumxl]

They would suffer in the same way as my wife and children and I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would be looking for vengeance.

So, when your children were young did you teach them "an eye for an eye" and encourage them to hit others back whenever they have been hit?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The missiles do indeed come from a pool in the USA but as there is always one Vanguard submarine at sea with a complement of Trident missiles, this has very little effect on operations.

It's not really independent though.

 

[Phil.]

If someone decides to attack us with Nuclear Weapons deterrent will have failed then.

And that is why we've never been attacked with nuclear weapons. In the 1960s and 1970s there were enough Warsaw pact divisions to roll straight across western Europe. Guess why they didn't? One answer is the WE177 tactical nuclear bomb which was carried by the Canberras and later the Jaguars and Buccaneers of R.A.F.G. Ivan knew full well that if he turned right at the border he'd be getting a few buckets of sunshine in his front door.

 

[Harbornite]

So, when your children were young did you teach them "an eye for an eye" and encourage them to hit others back whenever they have been hit?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not really independent though.

If someone attacks you, then defending yourself is a reasonable thing to do.

 

[kegdr]

So, when your children were young did you teach them "an eye for an eye" and encourage them to hit others back whenever they have been hit?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not really independent though.

We manufacture the submarines and the warheads. We have the ability to store, load and fire the weapons. In what way is it not independent?

 

[Harbornite]

The topic of whether or not Britain's trident nuclear deterrent should have been renewed has been cropping up, following the decision to renew it. Do you think it was right to renew it and why or why not?

 

[Harbornite]

Well, seeing as this thread has spawned it's own bit about trident, it turns out that MPs voted to renew it, 472 to 117.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36830923

It needs its own thread...

www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=133009

 

[DasLunatic]

Trident is a required evil in this world we live in. As much as I'd like to see the world go nuclear-free, I feel it could lead to the use of biochemical weapons instead - a much worse fate.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The thing with a Nuclear deterrent is that even if you have it, you hope you never need it. If ever you do need it, the world is ending as we know it anyway. Therefore, why bother? It is no deterrent to the likes of Da'ish, so won't help in that fight. It may be a deterrent to Russia, but all you need to do is let Russia THINK you have nukes- you don't actually need to have them...

So why not spend the money on something worthwhile, just tell Putin & co that you're building a few nuclear submarines...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So why not spend the money on something worthwhile, just tell Putin & co that you're building a few nuclear submarines...

News such as this is always welcome news in Barrow-in-Furness.

I am all for the retention of our nuclear deterrent.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

News such as this is always welcome news in Barrow-in-Furness.

I am all for the retention of our nuclear deterrent.

Don't worry, Paul. I was not suggesting that the workers of Barrow be thrown on the scrapheap- just that their substantial skills be used to produce something which serves a practical purpose rather than something which in the "best-case-scenario" is going to see no active use for the £160/£180/£210*million spent on it...

*estimates vary on the cost of a new nuclear deterrent. Just pick a number and double it!

 

[mikeg]

No we should not renew trident. Why have we been given this false dichotomy between unilateral disarmament and blowing huge sums of public funds on a now virtually useless sledgehammer nutcracker is beyond me. Our main defence threat is the Islamic far right. But they operate in geographically dispersed cells. You can't nuke Isis, so no help against that. Yes we have a resurgent Russia, but it's not the power it used to be and I doubt we're their enemy number one, more like joint fifth. North Korea's weapons tend to go plop in the ocean and could maybe reach bits of China or the western extremities of Hawaii at the best. Iran hasn't developed anything weaponisable yet and we could renew faster than they could invent. We have semi-reliable nuclear armed allies such as the USA and France.

To deal with a resurgent Russia, tactical nuclear would be more than enough and I strongly doubt it would come to that. Even a small tactical nuclear fleet could wreck absolute havoc and destruction compared to Hiroshima.

Seems to be a matter of dogma to me rather than any practical consideration. All this from a party that can supposedly cut government spending. All while our troops go unequipped for battles that are actually being fought. Seems obscene to me.

 

[jon0844]

If we compare Trident with HS2, how much of that money is actually going into the economy and will come back through taxes and spending (VAT) from workers being paid either directly or through the supply chain?

Like a poster above, I do think we should have just said we're doing it and then spent the money on something else. Just make sure that Putin and Co think we have WMDs and can launch in 45 seconds... Maybe creating a dossier for them.