Trident is more important than ever.

Scroll to see replies

Sure, but don't dismiss the case as unfactual or unsupported by experts, because plenty of experts have questioned the independent deterrent myth.

Of course, lots of top military officers are also against Trident being renewed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/top-military-chiefs-go-cold-on-nuclear-deterrent-8180688.html

Whilst I'm not going to pretend to know better than those running our military I'd suggest being careful how deeply you read into their comments. The airforce or army is naturally going to want all the money they can get, they have a vested interest in suggesting Trident is a waste of money so they can ideally see the money given to them, it says as much at the end of the article.

Reply 141

venenecinema

Original post by thunder_chunky

I very much doubt that it served as the only or foremost deterrant from nuclear attacks.

That isn't peanuts when there are massive cuts being made to other area's. In fact it's not peanuts full stop.

What makes you doubt that?

Reply 142

username129099

Original post by thunder_chunky

I think it's quite obvious what I meant by "use"

I think unless you built it with the hope you would be able to kill people in the millions and ignite world war 3, then that was never how it was intended to be used, its been used everyday since its been built and has been 100% effective. Operational cost ~£1.5bn. I don't think you can say its unnecessary, only it might not be, just like we cannot say it necessary just only it might be. I'm pretty sure health hasn't be cut either the spending has risen, and the cost saving won't go towards other military spending it will just be a reduction overall.

Reply 143

MatureStudent36

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I know. I rememeber reading it first time around.

It basically comes down to nobody in the Army, Navy or Airforce want to see cuts. So as they're not really responsible for Trident they'd much rather see it cut to save their toys.

Remember when Genreal Richards, the then head of the Army before he became CDS said the the RAF should scrap all of its jets and replace it was Tucano TurboProp aircraft as that's all we'll need. (This was obviously before Libya kicked off) He was just trying to protect his team.

I hate these little indescretions of service chiefs and retired senior officers.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 144

Drewski

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Of course they do. Plenty of military people think the RAF is redundant and it should all be split up between the Army and the Navy. Plenty more think we could do away with a lot more - apart from their own little world.

An opinion isn't wrong. But it's just that - an opinion. It isn't fact. And we shouldn't ever get the two mistaken.

Reply 145

dj1015

Original post by thunder_chunky

It's not the only role of the government despite the possibility that it might be the first.

And lobbing nukes at other countries to protect yourself is so last century. It's never been used or needed and it's a financial burden. It should at least be vastly reduced to free up funds to reduce cuts in other area's, the sort of cuts that are actually effecting normal people day to day.

Iran is currently in the process of developing Nuclear weapons. A nation that is less than hospitable towards us.

With the addition of ICBM tech, they could from the comfort of there own nation bomb anywhere in the UK with nuclear weapons.

I for one, will sleep much better knowing...

A) If they did, we would return the favor.
B) They wouldn't threaten us if they knew we could do the previous.

In conclusion, I'd much rather have an effective Nuclear defense than pay for Joe Bloggs to buy 20 Lambert on dole day.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 146

FinalMH

Original post by Aj12

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c569db3a-4947-11e2-9225-00144feab49a.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20179604

Based on that information you provided would that imply Mr Michael Portillo Secretary of State for Defence lied to the BBC?

Reply 147

Drewski

I dearly wish we didn't need to have them. They are a horrible weapon and the very concept of them deeply disturbs them. But we cannot uninvent them. They exist and will always exist. Until we can invent something that would render them completely redundant we must keep them. The only defence against them is the thing themselves. It's a twisted logic that people don't like, but it is the truth of the earth.

I'm all for getting rid.... I just don't feel brave enough to gamble the country and the lives of all it's people by going first.

Reply 148

sevchenko

"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it"-Erasmus

All this talk about WMD's makes me sick. Thank God none of you have ever experienced the brutality and senselessness of a war. All of you sit in you warm cosy houses free from any harm or danger. Death, pain and suffering will never touch you. War is never the answer. Nuclear weapons are pure evil, its represents humanity's worst features. Learn from the past lets use words instead of weapons. Disarm all nuclear weapons, lets live in peace not fear

Reply 149

thunder_chunky

Original post by doggyfizzel

So apart from killing millions of people it's other use is......to make coffee? To serve as an ornament in someone's garden? It's use and it's only use is to kill people. It may serve as a deterrant as a secondary role but it's main purpose is to blow the living **** out of a target. And again I think it's pretty obvious what I meant by "used" I mean actually used. Launched. When have we even come close to launching them in a realistic situation? And if we have was it in the last 30 years?
It could at least be scaled down. Face it, it is an unncessary financial burden that has never been more than a relic an era long gone. No health cuts? What about Lewisham Hospital? Cuts are happenning all over. Vital parts of the millitary are having it's equipment cut and we're spending £1.5 billion on something that is nothing more than a scarecrow for anyone that wants to partake in a little sabre rattling with us? I'm not buying that.

Reply 150

Aj12

Original post by FinalMH

Depends what he meant by independent. I've just been arguing that its operationally independent so if we want to press the button and nuke France the missile would fire without someone in Washington having to agree. I think in an actual situation say we wanted to launch a first strike on someone we would likely want the support of our allies, so from that perspective you could argue its not independent

Reply 151

MatureStudent36

Original post by FinalMH

He said it was a waste of money, not reliant on the US.

I'm not really bothered what Portillo says as he's not current as he held the post nearly 15 years ago. I doubt he realises what's happening next week rather than 30 years out.

Any use against the Taliban or a terrorist. No

Any use against a rogue nation. You bet.

When I start seeing the current Minster for Defence or the Navy guys in charge of operating them say kill it, then I'll carry on with my viewpoint. I'm quite happy to also ignore a serving memeber of the Navy or recently retired as they'll normally follow it up with more Subamarines, Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers.

This is a done deal. It'll be happening. Carry on, nothing to see here.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 152

2468_James_Maaay

Watch this in full
[video="youtube;_MCbTvoNrAg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg[/video]
If you don't find this depressing, you're a moron.

Reply 153

Drewski

Original post by sevchenko

That's great.

But what happens when someone decides that's not for them?

And, fwiw, a number of people in this thread are ex-Forces and have been a lot closer to the sharp end than most.

Reply 154

MatureStudent36

Original post by thunder_chunky

Who said it's going to kill millions? We got what 80K at Hiroshima, and that was on a city. Airburst, tactical hit against a facility. Not necessarily millions.

But yes it could be. But as we'd be dead I'd feel comfortable knowing that the tubes that killed me will shortly be dead.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 155

MatureStudent36

Original post by 2468_James_Maaay

Watch this in full
[video="youtube;_MCbTvoNrAg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg[/video]
If you don't find this depressing, you're a moron.

Great. I remember this one from my Survive to fight training. Still never mastered my toilet drills.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 156

sevchenko

Original post by Drewski

That's great.

But what happens when someone decides that's not for them?

And, fwiw, a number of people in this thread are ex-Forces and have been a lot closer to the sharp end than most.

Like who? the USSR and America saw sense before it was too late

Reply 157

MatureStudent36

Original post by sevchenko

Like who? the USSR and America saw sense before it was too late

The USSR collapsed.

The west outspent them

As I said earlier on. Excerise Able Archer 83 was a very close call.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

Reply 158

Drewski

Original post by sevchenko

Like who? the USSR and America saw sense before it was too late

They did.

But can you speak for all nations that currently have them and those that might develop them in the future, all the way up to 2060? Can you say it for certain?

I'd like to be as sure. But I'm not.

(And, for what it's worth, if I was sure, then definitely, get rid. Not that the money would be better spent, though - I don't have that kind of faith in the Gov.)

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 159

username129099

Original post by thunder_chunky

The key would be in the word deterrent. If you have to use it, it clearly hasn't fulfilled its primary purpose. If we had come close or indeed fired it that would be a far better point that it was useless. Its has been scaled down significantly in recent years, we have less, we carry less, we aren't at the same levels of readiness, how has it not been scaled back? I'm not going to face it because that argument is based on a lot of assumptions I don't agree with and I have never once seen a convincing argument to back up. Cuts in one place, overall spending, overall spending can rise 1500%, it doesn't mean Lewisham Hospital is going to avoid cuts. I'm talking about the health budget, there is more money than there was before. Cuts are happening all over, and defence is taking one of the hardest hits, I don't see why were are looking there when there is £700bn elsewhere rather than the titanic "waste" of £1.5bn in that.