Trident

[Harbornite]

Not quite sure what you mean there...if there were no nuclear weapons there would be no risk at all of such a war. There were many proxy wars during the Cold War.

Yeah but there were no nuclear wars. Hence why Cuba or Berlin didn't escalate...

Note how I said "such a war", in this case I was referring to nuclear war.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Yeah but there were no nuclear wars. Hence why Cuba or Berlin didn't escalate...

Note how I said "such a war", in this case I was referring to nuclear war.

Perhaps it was the plural that confused me!

 

[Harbornite]

Perhaps it was the plural that confused me!

Perhaps. Obviously nukes will not prevent every single war, but the ones they have prevented or ended were/ would have been rather serious.

 

[furnessvale]

Not quite sure what you mean there...if there were no nuclear weapons there would be no risk at all of such a war. There were many proxy wars during the Cold War.

Nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented. As long as less friendly powers have them, I will vote every time to keep ours.

 

[Harbornite]

It's good to see that my poll has more votes in favour of trident. We would all like a perfect world where everyone gets on and no one is murdered or killed for whatever cause. Sadly we don't have that world so we need things like Trident.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You have a remarkable skill in being able to accurately predict the military capabilities of the entire world in 20-50 years time which is the timescale we're talking about.
Most analysts would be very happy if they could accurately forecast what the strength of the worlds armed forces might be in 5 years.
Your ability to see into the future is truly breathtaking.

That argument cuts both ways.

It seems fairly clear to me that nuclear weapons are useless against any threat that is currently facing us. From your remarks, I'm assuming you want to spend what could be £40bn just on the off-chance that they might turn out to be useful in 20 or 50 years' time.

That doesn't sound to me like an efficient use of public money. I wonder what our army, navy, RAF, or security services could do with having that £40bn spent on improving equipment and resources etc.? Quite a bit I'd imagine - which would help protect against threats that exist today.

Or another way of looking at it: Would you recommend - say - reopening the Carmarthen-Aberystwth or Stranraer-Dumfries rail lines tomorrow, just on the offchance that they might be useful in 20 or 50 years' time? Somehow I rather doubt it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Perhaps. Obviously nukes will not prevent every single war, but the ones they have prevented or ended were/ would have been rather serious.

I'm not sure they have prevented any wars (bar possibly a land invasion of Japan, but that's questionable). The risk of using them is so extreme that even the threat of doing so would bring serious, serious consequences. It would be a total Pyrrhic victory for the "winner" in the current geopolitical climate.

 

[furnessvale]

I'm not sure they have prevented any wars (bar possibly a land invasion of Japan, but that's questionable). The risk of using them is so extreme that even the threat of doing so would bring serious, serious consequences. It would be a total Pyrrhic victory for the "winner" in the current geopolitical climate.

Only if the country being threatened has nukes of its own with which it could retaliate.

Any other country would simply have to acquiesce to whatever the aggressor demanded.

 

[Harbornite]

I'm not sure they have prevented any wars (bar possibly a land invasion of Japan, but that's questionable). The risk of using them is so extreme that even the threat of doing so would bring serious, serious consequences. It would be a total Pyrrhic victory for the "winner" in the current geopolitical climate.

What about a war between the USA and USSR? Nuclear deterrents played their part in making nuclear war a very undesirable prospect.

 

[ainsworth74]

Not just a nuclear but a conventional war as well. I can't help but feel that the reason we never saw a major conventional ground war in Europe after World War Two was, in large part, due to the threat of nuclear war making such a course of action incredibly dangerous.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

What about a war between the USA and USSR? Nuclear deterrents played their part in making nuclear war a very undesirable prospect.

Of course, all this depends on individuals acting rationally, and no mistakes, cock-ups etc. It does seem remarkable that such an occurrence hasn't happened.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In October 1962, none of us at Manchester University knew if today was going to be the day of Armageddon during the Cuban missile crisis for about a 10 day period. I would not like to live under such a threat of what might well have been, ever again..:roll:

 

[asylumxl]

Not just a nuclear but a conventional war as well. I can't help but feel that the reason we never saw a major conventional ground war in Europe after World War Two was, in large part, due to the threat of nuclear war making such a course of action incredibly dangerous.

How much of that has to do with the "deterrent" of nuclear weapons and how much of that is due to everyone fighting wars via proxy instead?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In October 1962, none of us at Manchester University knew if today was going to be the day of Armageddon during the Cuban missile crisis for about a 10 day period. I would not like to live under such a threat of what might well have been, ever again..:roll:

You'd never know until the the threat had either passed or had been carried out. Either way, you'd not be living under the threat .

 

[TheKnightWho]

What about a war between the USA and USSR? Nuclear deterrents played their part in making nuclear war a very undesirable prospect.

But nukes don't deter the use of conventional warfare, because they are such an extreme reaction to it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Only if the country being threatened has nukes of its own with which it could retaliate.

Any other country would simply have to acquiesce to whatever the aggressor demanded.

Not really - the existence of organisations such as the UN would cripple the aggressor through trade sanctions. It would be what's happened to North Korea on steroids.

 

[Harbornite]

But nukes don't deter the use of conventional warfare, because they are such an extreme reaction to it.

I know, didn't I say that in a previous post? I had said that they won't prevent every single war from breaking out, but they help to limit the severity of wars and this explains why Russia, China and the USA haven't fought each other. I'm pretty sure that nukes played a role in avoiding conflict between the Chinese and the Soviets, hence why their conflict was limited to minor clashes between border guards.

 

[JamesRowden]

But nukes don't deter the use of conventional warfare

Do you think it impossible for a country whilst considering attacking a nuclear armed country to consider the potential to be subsequently attacked with those nuclear weapons?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Vengeance against innocent Russians?

Yes, absolutely. In the same way that Russia would have attacked innocent British people like you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What, against people who didn't have any part in the decision?

An interesting definition of vengeance.

So why would Russia have attacked us if they didn't have the full backing of their population?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

As far as I know none of my children have ever hit anyone. However my wife and I taught our children that they should not given into bullies and if someone had hit my child I would not have had an issue with them hitting them in retaliation.

 

[AlterEgo]

So why would Russia have attacked us if they didn't have the full backing of their population?

Ah, yes, Russia - the model of democracy.

 

[DarloRich]

I support Trident and want it renewed. I think it has kept us safe in the past, keeps us safe now and will do so in the future despite the change in threats faced by our country.

Trident is in use everyday. Somewhere out there in the dark ocean is one of our submarines armed with enough destructive force to destroy any country who tries to destroy us. Why would we give that up that security knowing these weapons still exist? Why would we make our country and our people less safe?

Trident is there to create room for a pause, for a time to think and to deter a nuclear attack. That is based on a belief that the missiles could and should — indeed must — be used under certain circumstances and that any attack on our country with NBC weapons will be met with a sure a certain destruction of the the attacker, his regime and all of his people. That must create doubt in the minds of a would be aggressor from Russia via North Korea to ISIL.

I wish we could uninvent these weapons and somehow prevent humanity from ever inventing them, but we cant. These weapons exists and they are not all controlled by sensible counties like ours. They are already held by people like North Korea and more rouge states like ISIL/ISIS/TBC would love to acquire the technology. Without out our shield I fear they might use thier weapons knowing we could not respond in kind. What better way to decimate the capitals of the infidel and apostate and secure your view of the world/

In closing down our deterrent we open ourselves up to the prospect of another country deciding our destiny at some point in the future. Without these weapons we may be subject to blackmail, threats or defeat by nations that do posses them.


Consider also that our deterrent makes us the second centre of decision in a nuclear NATO which secures the "western" deterrent by ensuring missiles are spread out and under independent command. As such many of the other countries in NATO much trumped as living free of such weapons actually rely on us for thier security.

Yes the logic behind these weapons is insane and yes they are ruinously expensive but submarine based weapons are the best way, perhaps the only way, of maintaining a secure, independent, 24 hour a day nuclear deterrent. Finding a bomber base is easy. Finding an almost silent Vanguard-class submarine in the almost endless ocean is almost impossible.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Ah, yes, Russia - the model of democracy.

So because Russia's democracy is questionable we shouldn't attack them if they attack us? Should we have had that attitude during the Cold War when they had no democracy at all.

 

[AlterEgo]

So because Russia's democracy is questionable we shouldn't attack them if they attack us? Should we have had that attitude during the Cold War when they had no democracy at all.

That's not what I said, I was just countering the assertion that Russia would only attack us if the majority of their population agreed with it.

In reality, these decisions will be taken by a small handful of people. That equally applies to the theoretical scenario where the UK might launch a nuclear missile.

 

[RichmondCommu]

That's not what I said, I was just countering the assertion that Russia would only attack us if the majority of their population agreed with it.

In all fairness I didn't say that the Russians would have sought full support from their population.

 

[AlterEgo]

In all fairness I didn't say that the Russians would have sought full support from their population.

How would they know if they backed them then?

(Point taken though, I am splitting hairs!)

 

[RichmondCommu]

How would they know if they backed them then?

(Point taken though, I am splitting hairs!)

Well they wouldn't have. However my point is that if a country attempted to destroy our way of life it should then be under no illusions that we would do the same to them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Trident is in use everyday. Somewhere out there in the dark ocean is one of our submarines armed with enough destructive force to destroy any country who tries to destroy us. Why would we give that up that security knowing these weapons still exist? Why would we make our country and our people less safe?

Is Sweden less safe than us? Germany? Spain? Holland? Iceland? Australia? New Zealand? Japan?

It seems slightly ironic that in the last couple of years, the country in Western Europe that has suffered most from violent attacks is France - the only other European country that has its own nuclear weapons.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is Sweden less safe than us? Germany? Spain? Holland? Iceland? Australia? New Zealand? Japan?

Germany, Spain, Holland and Iceland are all covered by NATO and the nuclear weapons of the UK and USA (and also France but they're not part of NATO's nuclear planning or chain of command).

Australia and Japan are both covered by the USA and, with the greatest of respect to our New Zealand friends, they're so small and far away from anywhere at all so are very unlikely to be threatened by anyone plus could probably rely on the support of the US anyway.

Meanwhile Sweden did actually seriously pursue the development of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s and eventually gave up as they decided the only time that the USSR would invade would be as part of a large scale war with NATO and therefore NATO's nuclear forces would be available plus it was competing with the conventional forces as well.

 

[miami]

Germany, Spain, Holland and Iceland are all covered by NATO and the nuclear weapons of the UK and USA (and also France but they're not part of NATO's nuclear planning or chain of command).

Yet with a Trump presidency NATO may mean nothing.

Asked about Russia’s threatening activities, which have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations have “fulfilled their obligations to us.”

“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” he added, “the answer is yes.”

Meanwhile Sweden did actually seriously pursue the development of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s and eventually gave up as they decided the only time that the USSR would invade would be as part of a large scale war with NATO and therefore NATO's nuclear forces would be available plus it was competing with the conventional forces as well.

Lets say in 15 years time a newly isolationist USA agrees with Putin that as long as there are no nukes fired and American citizens are given safe passage, the US will ignore any moves in Europe. Russia rolls into Europe to "counteract an Islamic takeover" or something. Do our forces really have the ability to stand up to Russia?

However there's that nasty feeling Putin has that both the UK and France are armed with nukes. Now if the UK gives up, perhaps a National Front leading France does a Vichy style capitulation.

I can see a situation where it would be beneficial to have an independent nuclear deterrent and not have to rely on the US or France.

Will those Trident missiles operate if the US didn't want us to use them? If GPS was turned off, would they work?

 

[ainsworth74]

Yet with a Trump presidency NATO may mean nothing.

Indeed but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it!

Do our forces really have the ability to stand up to Russia?

Conventionally no but the ability to flatten Moscow and St Petersburg should be sufficient to ensure that our conventional forces don't need to.

Will those Trident missiles operate if the US didn't want us to use them? If GPS was turned off, would they work?

For our purposes yes. Trident uses GPS to achieve pin point accuracy which the US requires to enable them to destroy heavily protected bunkers and ballistic missile silos.

Without that Trident can use inertial guidance (i.e. it knows where it started from so can work out how to get to its target) and stellar navigation to guide itself but the accuracy is significantly reduced. But when you're trying target something large like a city the accuracy that remains is still sufficient to do the job.

 

[miami]

Indeed but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it!

If we give up trident it may be too late.

Conventionally no but the ability to flatten Moscow and St Petersburg should be sufficient to ensure that our conventional forces don't need to.

So we agree we need to keep Trident.

For our purposes yes. Trident uses GPS to achieve pin point accuracy which the US requires to enable them to destroy heavily protected bunkers and ballistic missile silos.

Without that Trident can use inertial guidance (i.e. it knows where it started from so can work out how to get to its target) and stellar navigation to guide itself but the accuracy is significantly reduced. But when you're trying target something large like a city the accuracy that remains is still sufficient to do the job.

Upon a conventional invasion of the UK I could see that using nuclear weapons could be a sane, tactical move.

Upon a nuclear strike at the UK however, retaliating would not be a sane move.

However it doesn't matter if the PM probably wouldn't push the button -- "even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would"

If we have trident, we don't need it. But if we don't have trident, we do need it. It's a paradox.

Be nice if we had the capability to make our own warheads though.

It wouldn't come to that of course, as salami (or eurosausage) would come into it

As they say in Yes Prime Minister: https://youtu.be/Cs3EGrv-f4s?t=6m25s

 

[kegdr]

We do make our own warheads.