Renewal of Trident (Commons vote today)

a reply to: jrmcleod

While I agree with several of your points the UK can launch without US approval. (We just can't maintain very them long term without the US).

In fact the really scary part is a vanguard submarine can launch them without anyone approving.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Nuclear weapons are becoming more and more tactical, soon the lines between conventional and nuclear could become very blurry but that being said. Yes nukes are pretty much useless in the 21st century. Trident as it is I've always seen as part of a first-strike doctrine, anything else then whatever it's capable of would be totally silenced by the volleys of missiles criss-crossing the sky.

The submarines themselves certainly haven't lost their usefulness though, submarines that can stay out at sea indefinitely at depths nobody could ever catch a sniff of them will always be a real deterrent and the bane of any navy wishing to pick a fight with a nation with such assets.

I can think of a few scenarios such a weapon could prove useful without nuclear armament. Singapore takes it's defence very seriously and with good reason, if China decided to flatten Singapore we'd be dragged into it and our best chance of winning without huge losses would be by submarine. Iran could try cross the gulf into Arabia, Argentina and the Falkland's. A few scenarios, all unlikely to happen but it's best to have the right equipment just in case. In terms of naval assets the Vanguard class is a damn sight cheaper than manning, maintaining and supplying a whole fleet or even 1 aircraft carrier plus armament and it will always have the surprise element. Very useful even without the Trident missiles.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So what you are saying is that the nukes rely on US tech. If we went to war with the US, you are trying to tell me they havent built in some kind of fail safe etc. that would allow them to remotely disarm or likewise?

Let me tell you, i fthey havent they are more stupid than i thought! I will however, bet my bottom 'Dollar' that they have some kind of failsafe in there that we just dont know about!

would Ghandi want nuclear weapons?
would Jesus want nuclear weapons?
would Morehei Ueshiba want nuclear weapons?

No.
These are wiser men than any politicians I can think of.
We don't need them.

a reply to: RAY1990

This happened in the 1950s. The predominant type of nuclear weapon during the cold war was the tactical nuclear weapon.

152 and 155mm howitzers could fire nuclear artillery shells. The Soviet one was 1 kiloton.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The people who build bombs are pretty smart and just like the weapons they build they are getting smarter and smarter.

I suppose you could launch high altitude drones and all sorts of things with an ICBM launch too and it's not like nations don't do test runs so who's to know. The Trident (Vanguard) packs a nasty torpedo punch too not to mention the electronic warfare systems and the reconnaissance and surveillance systems.

It's not like the ICBMs are the be all and end all of the whole package, the technology will be useful in 10 years and if we keep it and progress it I can't see a time submarines could ever be trumped on a battlefield.

a reply to: RAY1990

All true but you can also deliver milk in an Aston Martin. Dosent mean its the most suitable or cost effective way of doing it.

I can accept that there is a good case to be made for keeping the UK at front of submarine technology. Not convinced a new version of the Vanguard would be the right way to do it.

Well, one of the DUP guys just proposed Northern Ireland as a base for Trident if The Scots don't want Faslane.

Could be a better place altogether.


Lovely slap down of the idiotic Caroline Lucas too.
Pointing out she is one of those more likely to support our enemies than our own nation.

It's just an expensive ornament.

We rely on the US for our freedom.

All Western nations do.

originally posted by: DarkvsLight29
I think we should keep our Nukes, sole reason is so we don't easily get taken off the map,,other than that get rid off them all in every country.

If we are firing nukes then its already too late and we are probably mid way through being annihilated, we will only use them in retaliation to being nuked by another country so they are kind of pointless to have, the people holding the keys for these things have the mentality of the average 5 year old, you broke my toy i'm gona break yours, at the end of the day you just end up with 2 broken toys which are useless to anyone

I cant see how destroying the #ing world solves anything!!! Every country needs to disarm but all the time our governments are run by sadists it will never happen

Here is a list of how your MP voted.

www.theguardian.com...

We seriously need to look deep into the minds of those people who are in favour of these WMD's. Seriously. You should get to your doctor and ask for a psychiatric evaluation because you are sick in the #ing head.

Nuclear weapon are are a vengence weapon. If we ever need to use them it's because someone has used them on us. In other words. You kill me, I kill everyone. And that makes sense to some people..?

Really, go seek help. There is something seriously wrong with you.

You can be dragged up to court and charged under the terrorism act for downloading material on the terrorist banned list, But openly state you are in favour of a weapon, that if ever used, would destroy every living thing on this planet that's OK.

Sick.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
We seriously need to look deep into the minds of those people who are in favour of these WMD's. Seriously. You should get to your doctor and ask for a psychiatric evaluation because you are sick in the #ing head.

Nuclear weapon are are a vengence weapon. If we ever need to use them it's because someone has used them on us. In other words. You kill me, I kill everyone. And that makes sense to some people..?

Really, go seek help. There is something seriously wrong with you.

You can be dragged up to court and charged under the terrorism act for downloading material on the terrorist banned list, But openly state you are in favour of a weapon, that if ever used, would destroy every living thing on this planet that's OK.

Sick.

It makes sense in so far as having them makes a foreign government less likely to attempt a first strike.

All the talk about how horrible they are and how many people they will kill is exactly the point of the damn things.

Sailing around undetected, those subs will be able to launch a retaliatory strike against any nation that attacks us with WMD's.
That knowledge is one of the reasons we won't be attacked by Russia or China or someone.

Yes, a terrorist might let one off, but no nation will and furthermore, analysis of the isotopes will reveal the place of manufacture (Right down to the individual reactor and year) so there is no chance of a rogue state getting away with supplying a weapon to IS or someone without the very real possibility of it coming back to bite them.

a reply to: Ohanka

Haha...are you for real?

Nuclear is evil, unpredictable, expensive and extremely outdated ...so not necessary for todays energy needs, coal and oil are just as outdated and unnecessary so it's just right wing rhetoric you are using here

It's people like you that will keep us in the Dark ages of the "War Machine" , spending 200 + billion on something that is pretty useless unless you don't fancy living on this wonderful planet anymore


This is quite embarrassing and unnerving to think that any member of ATS supports Trident let alone UK'ers


NO MORE TRIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a reply to: SprocketUK



Says it all really.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

Say it all really.

Just words though isn't it?

The fact is we can (as a nation) afford to do all of those things, but decide not to.


It doesn't matter how well off the poorest in society are if they are nothing more than a shadow on the steps of the town hall.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Needs must through, if we can afford to pay for all that stuff then why all the austerity measures being implemented?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

Needs must through, if we can afford to pay for all that stuff then why all the austerity measures being implemented?

Tons of reasons, but to give you one example, the school my wife works at needs a new extension and a couple of classrooms.
To get this done, they have to choose from a shire hall approved list of building firms.
The project manager works two days a week, the building will cost over 100k and not be ready before school returns in September.

The Academy school next door has no such restrictions. They had a bigger extension done in 4 weeks for 45k because they could pick their own builders. Damn thing has been in use for the last three weeks.

THAT is where the money goes. Stupid things like that and only being able to buy books, furniture etc from approved suppliers at 100% mark up.

a reply to: SprocketUK

That's a shame hope everything goes well regarding completion in September.

Kids are so important to our future and education must be paramount.

originally posted by: zerozero00
a reply to: Ohanka

It's people like you that will keep us in the Dark ages of the "War Machine" , spending 200 + billion on something that is pretty useless unless you don't fancy living on this wonderful planet anymore

By way of comparison, the United States plans to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000,000,000,000 - that's one trillion dollars, for those of you keeping score at home - over the next 30 years to modernize its arsenal of nuclear weapons and their various delivery systems. This at a time when our infrastructure is crumbling and, like the UK, most near-term threats are unlikely to have comparable armament.