Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dave Beans

Should Trident Be Renewed - Yes Or No?

Recommended Posts

Nukes are relatively cheap, when compared to conventional weapons - and especially the stupendously expensive, vulnerable and generally equally useless blue water navy.

So cheap, compared with the ~720 billion budget, that I went for yes mostly on that alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted No.

We should throw the towel in on a lot of our forces and just concentrate on missiles and some tanks and artillery.

We are not doing any regime change or adventuring for a few generations - I hope.

Anything we do will be a joint venture.

We need some tanks in Poland.

Some light armoured trucvks in Spain, do be dropped into North Africa.

The rest needs missiles.

Lots of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. They are a deterrent of last resort. Without nukes and small conventional forces you are at the mercy of an aggressor state. Nukes can't be uninvented and it would be folly to unilaterally disarm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nukes can't be uninvented

This is related to the interesting concept of being 'paranuclear' i.e. you don't have any nukes you could deploy today, but your country is at a technological level whereby it could quite easily build and deploy nukes within a matter of months if it really wanted to. Japan is paranuclear, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I abstained because I really don't know.

As far as I can tell by the time you use them they're redundant anyway because nuclear winter is about to descend on the world anyway.

On the other hand, I see the argument about keeping the Russians and Chinese honest (nothing to stop them rolling into Scotland anymore than Sevastopol).

There again I don't think the Russians have the slightest interest in doing anything like that. At the moment.

The question is, if we don't have them.. what do we have instead? Nuclear ICBMs ? No nukes? Bigger army? How much do you actually save by not having them? Assuming you still want some conventional subs instead..

Lots of questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to cut our cloth to suit our reduced circumstances.

And get rid of those ridiculous aircraft carriers built just so we can "project our power across the world". Well, I don't want to. And I don't want to pay for politicians to play at war at their desks. All they do is project their stupidity.

In fact slash the budget to Irish per capita levels.

WRT to our nuclear deterrent, it doesn't pass basic logic. You don't want to be the weakest nuclear power. You won't be allowed to use it against those without and as soon as you use it against the stronger they would exterminate you. As for deterrence against a future Islamic State....yeah right, we know how that ends, it starts raining virgins.

Ultimately the nuclear deterrent is defensive. You don't use the likes of Trident to project power in the conventional political or military sense. It is a warning even to the likes of the Islamic State and its backers whose leaders may preach martyrdom to its foot soldiers but rarely seek it themselves. In that respect Trident is not comparable with the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers which are essentially an offensive capability. It is worth noting that the latter were commissioned by the Blair government in 2007 as part of its globalist neo imperialist military agenda. Personally I would scrap the aircraft carriers and keep Trident, concentrating our role in NATO on supplying a maritime and air defence capability for the North Atlantic and helping to defend Europe which after all is where this country is situated. If we need an aircraft carrier for that then we have one under our feet already which can't be sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not vote but am inclined for YES.

Our conventional forces simply are not of sufficient size and power anymore to defend ourselves against some of the nutjob forces out there. Many states have accquired, or will accquire, nuclear weapons in the coming decade. Being able to wipe out the leaders of such states is key in our defence.

There is lots of new kit coming on line in the next decade that will make it harder and harder for nuclear subs to go hide. Drones basically that will lurk outside nuclear sub bases and follow anything out. In future our subs are going to have to go further and deeper in order to remain a deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted yes. I'm sure some will disagree but imo the reason we're in one of the longest periods of peace in history is because of nuclear weapons. They're a deterrent to war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that when questioned in Parliament today whether she would authorize the use of the nuclear deterrent if required even if it inevitably meant mass civilian deaths, Theresa May did not try to qualify or to finesse the answer. She simply said 'Yes'. That is really all any potential hostile power needs to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers which are essentially an offensive capability. It is worth noting that the latter were commissioned by the Blair government in 2007.....

IIRC the QE's were ordered right at the end of Brown's term, against I believe considerable civil service opposition, as essentially a job creation scheme to bolster labour's scottish votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted yes. I'm sure some will disagree but imo the reason we're in one of the longest periods of peace in history is because of nuclear weapons. They're a deterrent to war.

Surely some mistake? The UK has been at war almost continuously since our independent nuclear deterrent failed to deter the Argentinine invasion of the Falklands in 1982! The Falklands, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya, Syria... on and on, tearing down and remaking the world according to the globalist imperatives of Neo-liberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely some mistake? The UK has been at war almost continuously since our independent nuclear deterrent failed to deter the Argentinine invasion of the Falklands in 1982! The Falklands, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya, Syria... on and on, tearing down and remaking the world according to the globalist imperatives of Neo-liberalism.

Well I suppose we have fought wars in 173 countries over the years. Quite an achievement when you think about it. 89% of all countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to cut our cloth to suit our reduced circumstances.

And get rid of those ridiculous aircraft carriers built just so we can "project our power across the world". Well, I don't want to. And I don't want to pay for politicians to play at war at their desks. All they do is project their stupidity.

well if we truly want to project power worldwide,then there's a lot of places in the world 2 gigantic QE2 class size carriers can't go,that a dozen or so ark-royal-lite 20000 tonners bristling with them taranis UAV's could.(bloody stupid idea having the QE2's non nuclear powered too...you have a huge ballast of fuel to carry around as well as ordnance etc on an operation)

likewise with the subs,they are due for replacement.

instead of 4 subs with 64 nuke warheads each,we could do with 20 subs with 12 warheads each(or keep the 64 warheads per sub,but reduce the fissile value so we basically keep the same mega-tonnage overall)

let's face it.....the likelihood of an all-out nuke strike is small, so 64 warheads is overkill really, if they all hit it's enough to basically incinerate a small country in it's entirity......when in actuality if a nuke strike was ordered, it's more likely to be limited,and carefully targetted one, perhaps half a dozen missiles at most.

what is more threatening is knowing you've got one of these buggers parked close to your coastline and it's so small and stealthy you can't spot it,and can't react in time to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted No because i used to work for the company that will build them and i hate them.

But not building them would see mass unemployment and devastate some areas economically, it is a massive contract and is probably being renewed on that basis alone an economic one, Keynes & all that.

Every country wants to build it's own ships if it can for the economic boost GDP etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does is act as a deterrent or is it a huge waste of money?

better to have it and not need it,than need it and not have it.

international geopolitics can turn very quickly, as recently witnessed by the attempted coup in turkey.

now what if???:

that coup had been successful, but an even more dangerous nutjob than erdogan had surfaced as a result, who decides to commandeer uncle sams nukes based in turkey, plus has hit squads to over-run the jordanians and saudis and oust their leadership too.(and in those countries the populations are more pro-ISIS than the leaders)

you are now faced with an enemy who has just cut off 50% of your oil supplies, has a standing army larger than combined europe's(the saudi's spend $80bn on defence per year as opposed to our $55bn)...and now has 50 retrofitted nukes stolen from uncle sam but re-activated thanks to pakistani knowhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted No because i used to work for the company that will build them and i hate them.

But not building them would see mass unemployment and devastate some areas economically, it is a massive contract and is probably being renewed on that basis alone an economic one, Keynes & all that.

Every country wants to build it's own ships if it can for the economic boost GDP etc

sure, I understand your point, but the whole point of these things is NOT to use them,unless you absolutely have to as a matter of national survival.

to coin a phrase of one US president,"speak softly,but carry a big stick". Better to work out a deal if possible,but if confrontation is unavoidable,then be in a position to win decisively.

we have to deal with the world as it is,not as we would like it to be.

and sadly, the world as it is consists of factions of people who DO seek total world domination, so we have to reserve the right not to get pushed around and hit back VERY hard if provoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 years from now the UK could be facing a nuclear capable caliphate which is made from what is now several Middle Eastern countries, with several hundred million armed men, all on the borders of Europe, with some EU countries already lost.

At the same time the Yanks could be so preoccupied with China that they lack the resources, or interest, to help us.

OK, OK - just one scenario in a 101 different possible scenarios.

It is worth reading about the US military budgets for the coming years. The US Navy simply does not have the budget to replace its aging destroyer fleet let alone its aging nuclear sub fleet - the latter facing serious shortfalls just as China and Russia are increasing their submarine fleets.

Subs, like aircraft, get knackered and they have finite dive times.

But it is the US air force that is really interesting. The air frames of hundreds of their aircraft are simply knackered. They are faced with an enormous bill to upgrade their fleet and they have only one option currently - the hugely expensive F35. In budget terms, they cannot afford to replace their current fighter-bomber fleet with anywhere near the number of F35s.

Then they have stuff like the B21 bomber and, well, the point is that the cost of conventional forces has now got so great that it is even too expensive for the Yanks. People in the US are already talking about the 'Third Offset' and moving more and more to drones both in the air and in the sea.

Nukes do deliver one of the best bangs for bucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely some mistake? The UK has been at war almost continuously since our independent nuclear deterrent failed to deter the Argentinine invasion of the Falklands in 1982! The Falklands, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya, Syria... on and on, tearing down and remaking the world according to the globalist imperatives of Neo-liberalism.

Indeed.

I find it wierd when you get stuffl like rememberance and old soldiers stuff - grandad fought int wat

My Dad fought (turned up and skived really).

My cousin fought in Falklands as a paratrooper.

Brothers did Iraq 1 + 2

One brother did active 'stuff' for a good 20 years, odds and sods in wierd places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that when questioned in Parliament today whether she would authorize the use of the nuclear deterrent if required even if it inevitably meant mass civilian deaths, Theresa May did not try to qualify or to finesse the answer. She simply said 'Yes'. That is really all any potential hostile power needs to know.

I heard that too.

It is an odd situation when you effectively have a head of state announcing that they plan to commit genocidal war crimes if sufficiently provoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that too.

It is an odd situation when you effectively have a head of state announcing that they plan to commit genocidal war crimes if sufficiently provoked.

Not sure what your point is and what you expected her to say.

Our nukes are there as a defensive weapon. They will not be used as war crime as it would be in retaliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   101 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.