UK Nuclear Deterrent - To Scrap or Not to Scrap?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Mm. Beg to differ.

I think simply being nuclear is a sufficient deterrent. It's that little thing in the back of your mind which says that no matter what you might throw at an enemy, there's always the chance one of his nuclear weapons might just get through ... and it doesn't matter whether it's a ballistic missile, a cruise missile or a freefall bomb ... because the end result's the same.

UK needs to look at cheaper options if it wishes to remain in the nuclear club. Else it will find itself unable to afford its shiny new aircraft carriers, A400M's etc etc. Heck, they can hardly afford the basics other NATO forces take for granted as it is ... like helicopters, body armor etc etc.

reply to post by KingDoey


How on earth would not having nukes result in expulsion from the Security Council?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


If Britain is the target of a nuclear attack, who will be left to retaliate?

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


If you read I said expulsion as a permanant member of the Security Council, not completely expelled. The P5 is a nuclear club.

You cannot expect to have the same influence as other countries that have nukes, if you yourself have none.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by KingDoey]

reply to post by KingDoey


It's purely coincidental that the P5 all have nuclear weapons.

The P5 was agreed upon during the closing stages of World War II.

It wasn't just agreed that only the countries who had nuclear weapons would be a member of that body.

I mean look at India and Pakistan for example. Once they developed nuclear weapons they wern't admitted to the P5 to make it P7.



[edit on 23/4/10 by Kram09]

reply to post by Kram09


No, but because they have Nukes they are applying considerable pressure to be be included, as are Brazil and other "second tier" nations.

The Lib Dem proposals for getting rid of Trident is something that does put me off, but it depends on what they intend to replace it with. We used to have a world leading ballistic missile programme in the 60's but it was canned, by a Labour Government I think. If we could regrow this industry, we could surely have a capable missile delivery system at a fraction of the cost we pay the US firms to make our rockets.

Also, before the subs, we used to have an air and land based detterent, such as Blue Steel. If we get rid of Trident, we could use this, but the disadvantage is it is more vunerable to a first strike than subs are.

All of this I could live with a vote Lib Dem, but their other Defence policies really scare me, such as canning the Tranche 3 Eurofighters. I also think they'll get rid of the new Carriers coming up.

They make a good case for spending money on equipment for current conflicts, but if you focus on just what is going on now, rather than what might happen later, you will find yourself caught with your pants down and lubed up ready for humiliation.

If you cut programmes for such wqeapon systems, you lose skills, industry and capability which can take a decade or more to regrow.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

If Britain is the target of a nuclear attack, who will be left to retaliate?

This kind of comment show a serious lack of understanding about what a nuclear attack actually means..

It maybe a dirty bomb, it maybe a suitcase, it may be an ICBM, it could be launched from silos, from subs, or dropped from the skies.....

It does not however mean no more UK....

You know when I was at school I only was bullied once... You know why?? Because the big kid who was the bully got a bloody nose from me.

Now lets look at the global situation a minute...

We have Iran a religious totalitarian state seeking nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe countries off the face of the planet. We have North Korea who has Nuclear weapons and the dieing leader would like nothing more than to nuke a country in the west or with western interestes.

And you want to scrap our Trident defence system???

Are you mad???

Korg.

Originally posted by Freeborn
We should never get rid of our independant nuclear capability as long as other countries retain their's.

Time's have indeed changed, but the threat still remains.

This is a pet hate of mine, the use of the word "independent" when describing Britain's nuclear deterrent. Could you please justify why it is "independent" when:

1. British Trident missiles are leased from the US.

2. There is a Trident factory in Berkshire that is two-thirds own by Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering (American companies).

3. The firing and guidance systems are designed and built in the US (and cannot be used without the help and cooperation of the US).

4. In 2003 Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, restructured the UK's defence forces to make them "inter-operate" with the US. It is impossible for the UK to launch a missile without US approval.

There is nothing "independent" about the British nuclear arsenal. It is nothing more than an extension of America's colossal nuclear arsenal, only it's paid for by the British tax-payer. Also, simply having it makes us a target, and last time I checked we don't have ABMs.

There are cheaper alternatives that a just as effective (if not more so). We don't need the "latest and greatest", and we can always re-evaluate the situation when we are in a (financial) position to do so. Right now, I personally think it's crazy committing £100 billion (which will end up being much, much more).

Use logic for once instead of listening to the fear mongering generated by those who have a vested interest in deals worth hundred of billions of pounds (British tax-payer pounds that is).

I for one am voting for Lib Dems.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by VanessaDeagan]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by VanessaDeagan]

Originally posted by VanessaDeagan

3. The firing and guidance systems are designed and built in the US (and cannot be used without the help and cooperation of the US).

Not true!

British Missiles are built to British specification and DO NOT Require help or cooperation from the US to be used. There is in place a US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement and we have been cooperating together in the development of our joint nuclear arsenal for years, somewhere in the early 50's...

If a British Sub Commander concurred with the Captain on an executive order to launch the Trident missiles, what do you think the next step would be??? Ring the Pentagon and say please sir can we have some help launching these big bangs please?? Get Real!!!

Britain has the final say so on the use of it's own nuclear arsenal. Just as any other sovereign state.

Kind regards,

Korg.


[edit on 23-4-2010 by Korg Trinity]

I personally would like to everyone to lose the nukes, but in this day and age, having a nuke makes people listen to some extent, as well as being a somewhat insurance policy.

But once one person has one, everyone wants one its like a trend, and a terrible one at that.

reply to post by KingDoey


When was it agreed that the Security Council members, permanent or not, had to have nukes?