It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Renewal of Trident (Commons vote today)

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheShippingForecast

The delivery method is extremely important. Any land based system becomes an immediate target. Air launched systems are the same - they need to be launched from pre determined airfields which would be the first things hit.

Trident allows for an almost undetectable delivery method which is virtually impossible to target with any certainty. Any potential attacker knows that they could lay waste to the whole UK and still have several 455kt warheads inserted up their fundamental orafice from the sub. This is the deterrent and the whole point of the Trident programme. You can guarantee that if tensions escalate the other Trident subs would be launched, further increasing the chances of retaliatory strikes.

The point of the system is not to fight a war, it is to deter any aggressors from starting one.

Nuclear weapons is one if those subjects that tends to polarise opinions. I would almost guarantee that we could debate the point all day and never reach agreement or significantly influence the opinion of those reading.




posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf

Tridents the logical solution because relatively speaking the UK is a tiny little island, even if we do have the info structure to support such vessels.

But the logic behind such deployment simply escapes me down to the unsurvivable nature of any nuclear exchange with our Russian cousins. They have places to hide or relocate to(for a little while) we don't.
edit on 20-7-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf

If, God forbid, I ever find myself irradiated wounded and lying under a pile of rubble with no prospect of rescue, the fate of the people of Moscow is the very last thing to consider on my to do list, honestly.

Like Denis Healey, who as Defence Secretary had the power to authorise nuclear retaliation, I'd rather the government didn't bother. He said as much himself. There wouldn't be any point. Deterrence failed. Que sera sera.

I doubt the spare subs tied up at Faslane even have missiles on board them, tbh., They're more likely stored in a US facility. By the time they'd got the crews assembled and sailed the spares across the Atlantic, the facility over there would've been pulverised as well. The war would've been over for days.

There needs to be a bit of realism about such things. Once war starts it gains a momentum of its own which is almost impossible to resist.

Agree, though, Trident is a more effective delivery system. But it's no more effective a deterrence for the UK than a few dozen humble a-bombs. I don't think we can afford a SSBN deterrent anymore, with our conventional forces being in such a poor state.

Happy to debate although it's been done to death here, there any everywhere lately.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Hello, first time poster, long term reader to this site.

I live approx 5-6 miles from Faslane (Trident's 'home') and saw the strangest thing today, I had my wife stop the car so I could take photo's.

It looked like 3 military jets engaging an enemy, they were all practically touching at one point, this was at 230pm UK.

The amount of jet traffic has increased dramatically in the past couple months in my home town.

The Russian's regularly sent BEAR planes to mess with us but today looked next level.

Happy to post the pics online if anyone cares to see them.

Thanks,
edit on 1-10-2016 by slowitdownmusic because: grammar

edit on 1-10-2016 by slowitdownmusic because: grammar



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast
a reply to: PaddyInf

If, God forbid, I ever find myself irradiated wounded and lying under a pile of rubble with no prospect of rescue, the fate of the people of Moscow is the very last thing to consider on my to do list, honestly.

Like Denis Healey, who as Defence Secretary had the power to authorise nuclear retaliation, I'd rather the government didn't bother. He said as much himself. There wouldn't be any point. Deterrence failed. Que sera sera.


Again, the point isn't to make you feel better after an incident, it is to stop it happening in the first place. The retaliation would be purely for revenge, and that is the deterrent.


I doubt the spare subs tied up at Faslane even have missiles on board them, tbh., They're more likely stored in a US facility. By the time they'd got the crews assembled and sailed the spares across the Atlantic, the facility over there would've been pulverised as well. The war would've been over for days.


First of all, I am certain the devices not deployed are stored in Scotland. However it isn't these ones that are the deterrent, it is the CASD (continuous at sea deployment).

There is always a Trident sub on permanent patrol somewhere in the World. The position is not known, even by most of the crew, and it is on radio silence except in emergency. It has 8 nuclear missiles, each armed with multiple 455kt nuclear warheads and with a range of about 12000km. You could wipe out Faslane and the sub in the US, but the CASD vessel is still out there ready to drop a bucket of liquid sunshine on any aggressors.



Trident is a more effective delivery system. But it's no more effective a deterrence for the UK than a few dozen humble a-bombs. I don't think we can afford a SSBN deterrent anymore, with our conventional forces being in such a poor state.


As has been previously stated, "humble a-bombs" need a delivery system. Air delivery/missiles needs airfields/silos which would be the first target in a strike against the country.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Sooner it's scrapped the better , we have no use for it.

The number one hreat to the UK according to all intel and experts comes from terror attacks on the mainland - we can't launch a nuke on our own country so why not invest 1% of the money in anti terror and all the rest on saving the NHS, schools, fire, police, army etc....

If it is kept (which sadly it will be) I'd be very suprised if it wasn't relocated to Barrow-in-Furness within a decade due to the ammount of BAE and interesting people who've been relocated there over the past couple of years.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Yes the CURRENT number 1 threat is terrorism, but it's not the only one. There are still plenty of unstable dictatorships etc out there. Conventional warfare is always a possibility, which is why we keep a standing military.

Focusing only on one aspect of defence based on the current threat is a recipe for disaster. It's the old adage of fighting THE war rather than ANY war.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: jrmcleod

THAT is a PRETTY far reaching "IF" don't you THINK?
YOU want to fight ME?

WHY would we hit the FATHERLAND?
My daughter lives there and we are the same team internationally.



I guess EVERYONE has forgotten about all the commie and PSUDO commie subs in the world.
Allies are targets too,NOT just America.


HOW close did those RUSSIAN BOMBERS get to England?
edit on 2-10-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Spot on. The UK and US have always been partners with regards to the nuclear threat.

One thing I have noticed is that people seem to forget is that for the last 60 years none of the major nuclear powers have had direct armed conflict despite significant differences. The knowledge that the ultimate outcome of conventional war between these nations could be nuclear destruction has forced countries to find political and economic resolutions where before there may have been armed conflict. Basically the presence of nuclear weapons has prevented wars from starting in the first place in a very turbulent world.

Any armed interventions have been through small, proxy countries. While people have died in these conflicts the numbers have been so much smaller than what could have been. This still happens today.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: slowitdownmusic
Hello, first time poster, long term reader to this site.

I live approx 5-6 miles from Faslane (Trident's 'home') and saw the strangest thing today, I had my wife stop the car so I could take photo's.

It looked like 3 military jets engaging an enemy, they were all practically touching at one point, this was at 230pm UK.

The amount of jet traffic has increased dramatically in the past couple months in my home town.

The Russian's regularly sent BEAR planes to mess with us but today looked next level.

Happy to post the pics online if anyone cares to see them.

Thanks,

Yeah, post those pics. I read reports of planes in for mation in and around central Scotland yesterday. Some preported fighter jets others reported prop engine aircraft. I wonder if there might have been a airshow at prestwick. ?



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: slowitdownmusic

Happy to post the pics online if anyone cares to see them.

Thanks,


Greetings and welcome - very interesting post, would be interested in seing pictures or any updates on events - sounds like quite a big one and not seen/heard about it before your post.


originally posted by: PaddyInf
a reply to: bastion

Yes the CURRENT number 1 threat is terrorism, but it's not the only one. There are still plenty of unstable dictatorships etc out there. Conventional warfare is always a possibility, which is why we keep a standing military.

Focusing only on one aspect of defence based on the current threat is a recipe for disaster. It's the old adage of fighting THE war rather than ANY war.


Excellent post and point which has given me cause for concern - I've been told by many a defence worker under current law (due to TTIP backdoor enforcement on defence) if anything is made using just one US item (i.e a screw or washer used in front seat amalgamation of a fighter jet) then the entire blueprints for the design must be handed over to the US (I can't remember what the reasoning behind this was, sorry) which leaves us with a huge security hole given how seemingly easy hacking the US has been in recent months or if they go full on mental and elect Trump.

I was given this info a few ears ago by people in BAE Systems and The Armour Group (now part of eternal cluster # G4S) can anyone confirm, disprove or provide updates on this?



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf

America has been at fault.
Lets see what the wild card, Trump, whips out.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
My question for caretaker prime minister of the UK about the credibility of her Nuclear threats is this:

Will Trident-D5 work if the US switches them off in these Vanguard-class subs?
Did you ever try to launch them towards the right direction, or they have a flight bias to veer towards the US ?




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join