New poll shows public opinion split on Trident

Meanwhile we have Ipsos Mori polling given 70% opposition to unilateral disarmament (24% support), and 58% opposition to disarmament in general (34% support).

Reply 82

AlwaysWatching

11

Original post by Fullofsurprises

The fact that you actually believe this government PR machine drivel shows how far removed reality is from the minds of the Trident believers.

It hasn't come from the government. The government doesn't say anything about such checks, in the same way it doesn't comment about the UKSF. It came from several captains and retired weapons engineer officers in an interview with professor Hennessy who was writing about it. Ex servicemen aren't the government and have no reason to lie.

I notice how you aren't even sidestepping now, you just aren't replying. The fact you don't even know the bureaucratic system of the weapons operation shows how far removed from reality your mind is.

I wonder, what do you think the checks are? Do you even know what circumstances would resort one to do the "checks"?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 83

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think the First Officer (sorry, Chief Engineer) listens out for the Archers at 7.05pm every night. If it's 1 min late, ka-boom - end of Moscow.

Not the only check, and not even necessarily the checks used today, and even then its only to open the letter of last resort to receive their orders.

Reply 84

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think the First Officer (sorry, Chief Engineer) listens out for the Archers at 7.05pm every night. If it's 1 min late, ka-boom - end of Moscow.

I don;t understand :frown:

Reply 85

LeoAngliae

1

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think an intelligent and educated reader will want to know how a US built nuclear warhead can be franchised out by the US to another state without them retaining some pretty solid form of control.

An intelligent reader would actually research into precisely how these systems work, and then come to the conclusion that every expert has. It's wilfully ignorant for you to say "I really have no clue at all how these systems work, so I must be right".

As I clearly explained to you, the warheads are developed and built by the UK at AWE Aldermaston. Only the SLBM component is built in the US

It's laughably unlikely that the scenarios of control you regurgitate from the published MoD propaganda tell the whole story. It's much more likely that everyone knows that without US pre-authorisation, they simply cannot be used.

You are in a bit of a muddle. You genuinely have no clue how these systems work, and so you assume you must be right. It's almost beyond a joke how wilfully stupid you are

Several past US presidents have thrown UK Trident into arms reduction talks with Russia or the Soviets. They could not have done that without regarding them as 'their weapons'.

Given that UK deterrent systems have never been in the SALT or START treaties, you are wrong about that as well.

You've said literally nothing of worth of value in this entire conversation because you know pretty much nothing about the Trident system, about the W76 warhead and Mk4 re-entry vehicle, about how Trident FCS works, about how the UK nuclear command and control system.

I can see it would be a waste of time to speak with you further because you have nothing to bring to the table in terms of actual knowledge or insight about nuclear weapons sytems, simply your own prejudices and conspiracy theories and urban legends and the utter conviction that your lack of knowledge proves you right. In short, you're an idiot. Good night

Reply 86

IBIB

2

All good british people support trident, its only the poor working class and migrants that oppose it including muslims

Reply 87

Aj12

18

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think an intelligent and educated reader will want to know how a US built nuclear warhead can be franchised out by the US to another state without them retaining some pretty solid form of control.

The core of that is that the US regards the UK as a client state and offshore military base. However, beyond the client/master relationship, there undoubtedly must be technical controls as well. It's laughably unlikely that the scenarios of control you regurgitate from the published MoD propaganda tell the whole story. It's much more likely that everyone knows that without US pre-authorisation, they simply cannot be used.

Several past US presidents have thrown UK Trident into arms reduction talks with Russia or the Soviets. They could not have done that without regarding them as 'their weapons'.

If on the other hand, perversely, it turned out to be genuinely true that the sub captain and first officer could decide completely independently to wage nuclear war, then that in itself is deeply troubling and points a huge finger at the instability and profound dangerousness to the human race of managing such systems balancing on a pin of human fallibility.

It's all complete trash. The simple truth is that these are US systems run by the US, which the UK taxpayer has to overpay for, with a network of myths, legends and dubious PR endlessly trotted out by the comfortably padded budget hawks in the MoD, their friends in the arms industries and the politicians dozy or egotistical enough to buy into it.

If you mean from a physical standpoint, anyone who has any understanding of nuclear warhead engineering could confirm no such control exists. At one point the US establishment was reluctant to fit devices that could stop a war head being detonated by a pistol shot, they certainly wouldt allow any sort of remote off switch. I can recommend a book if your interested.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 88

Observatory

20

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think an intelligent and educated reader will want to know how a US built ~~nuclear warhead~~ ballistic missile can be franchised out by the US to another state without them retaining some pretty solid form of control.

The core of that is that the US regards the UK as a client state and offshore military base. However, beyond the client/master relationship, there undoubtedly must be technical controls as well. It's laughably unlikely that the scenarios of control you regurgitate from the published MoD propaganda tell the whole story. It's much more likely that everyone knows that without US pre-authorisation, they simply cannot be used.

How? The same way any industrial good leaves the control of its manufacturer after sale. Do you expect that Audi can make my car steer to the right while I am trying to steer it to the left? Do I need to construct some elaborate explanation why this should not be so? I am Audi's client; is Audi my "master"?

What would require some elaborate explanation is how the US would retain remote control of something they don't possess, have no access to, and don't even know the location of. It's possible, to some extent at least, but not in ways that are easy to hide.

Several past US presidents have thrown UK Trident into arms reduction talks with Russia or the Soviets. They could not have done that without regarding them as 'their weapons'.

There's no such thing as a UK or a US Trident missile; both countries draw their missiles from a common pool. A missile currently aboard a UK boat could be aboard a US boat in three years. So saying "The US has negotiated about UK Trident missiles." just means they've negotiated about any Trident missile. Since Trident is their main delivery system, any significant nuclear arms treaty involving the US will also involve "UK Trident". What the US has not done is said that a reduction in the size of the total pool of Trident missiles would result in fewer missiles being leased to the UK, which from our point of view is all that matters.

If on the other hand, perversely, it turned out to be genuinely true that the sub captain and first officer could decide completely independently to wage nuclear war, then that in itself is deeply troubling and points a huge finger at the instability and profound dangerousness to the human race of managing such systems balancing on a pin of human fallibility.

This is a fair point: command and control of nuclear weapons is difficult and introduces a very small but finite risk of a global cataclysm being launched by accident. Again, though, the question isn't whether this is good or bad relative to eternal peace; the question is whether this is better or worse than having conventional wars again.

It's all complete trash. The simple truth is that these are US systems run by the US, which the UK taxpayer has to overpay for, with a network of myths, legends and dubious PR endlessly trotted out by the comfortably padded budget hawks in the MoD, their friends in the arms industries and the politicians dozy or egotistical enough to buy into it.

The UK vastly underpays for Trident; the current missile arrangement is essentially a massive US subsidy paid to the UK in exchange for the UK not developing its own ballistic missiles. Which by the way is exactly what the UK did when the US tried to insist on operational control over Trident's predecessor, Polaris, back in the 60s. That is why operational independence isn't in the least bit surprising to anyone with any technical or historical knowledge of this subject.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 89

I hate how people say 'Trident is a deterrent' as if it was an unquestionable fact that cannot be argued against. It depoliticizes the issue so that if you oppose renewal you are said to oppose a deterrent.

I don't believe it's a deterrent in a modern day context and neither does the raving socialist...Michael Portillo.
http://www.cnduk.org/cnd-media/item/2140-former-conservative-defence-secretary-slams-trident-replacement

The argument's starting point should be whether or not trident is a deterrent anymore, not the starting point that trident is unquestionably a deterrent.

Reply 90

Original post by Bornblue

I hate how people say 'Trident is a deterrent' as if it was an unquestionable fact that cannot be argued against. It depoliticizes the issue so that if you oppose renewal you are said to oppose a deterrent.

I don't believe it's a deterrent in a modern day context and neither does the raving socialist...Michael Portillo.
http://www.cnduk.org/cnd-media/item/2140-former-conservative-defence-secretary-slams-trident-replacement

The argument's starting point should be whether or not trident is a deterrent anymore, not the starting point that trident is unquestionably a deterrent.

Similarly, I hate how people imply that forever more there will be no threat at all of interstate conflict in the developed world, even as it is happening, and say that purely based on the issues we have today we will have no need tomorrow. Obviously defence is not of those thing where you plan today for the threats of tomorrow. Would anybody have taken you seriously if you had said 50 years ago "50 years from now the soviet union will have collapsed, there will be near perpetual war in the Middle East with our involvement as we fight against a horde of terrorists from the region trying to destroy our way of life"?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 91

username1899909

I Think you're find most of the population want to replace trident and only 25% of people want to scrape trident , most people back trident

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 92

Original post by Jammy Duel

Similarly, I hate how people imply that forever more there will be no threat at all of interstate conflict in the developed world, even as it is happening, and say that purely based on the issues we have today we will have no need tomorrow. Obviously defence is not of those thing where you plan today for the threats of tomorrow. Would anybody have taken you seriously if you had said 50 years ago "50 years from now the soviet union will have collapsed, there will be near perpetual war in the Middle East with our involvement as we fight against a horde of terrorists from the region trying to destroy our way of life"?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Great.
The starting point for the debate should be about whether or not trident is a deterrent in a modern day context. It should not be deemed an unquestionable fact that trident is a deterrent.

I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but it shouldn't just be presumed that it is.

Interesting that the former Defence Secretary, Conservative Michael Portillo thinks it is no longer a deterrent.

Reply 93

Drewski

19

Original post by Bornblue

Great.
The starting point for the debate should be about whether or not trident is a deterrent in a modern day context. It should not be deemed an unquestionable fact that trident is a deterrent.

I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but it shouldn't just be presumed that it is.

Interesting that the former Defence Secretary, Conservative Michael Portillo thinks it is no longer a deterrent.

It is a deterrent. It is not the only deterrent.

Reply 94

Original post by Bornblue

Great.
The starting point for the debate should be about whether or not trident is a deterrent in a modern day context. It should not be deemed an unquestionable fact that trident is a deterrent.

I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but it shouldn't just be presumed that it is.

Interesting that the former Defence Secretary, Conservative Michael Portillo thinks it is no longer a deterrent.

Generally when you offer a response to a rebuttal, not that it was a rebuttal, you don't just say, in essence "I don't care what you said, I'll just restate what was rebutted"

Reply 95

Original post by Jammy Duel

Generally when you offer a response to a rebuttal, not that it was a rebuttal, you don't just say, in essence "I don't care what you said, I'll just restate what was rebutted"

Because your point was a party political point and had nothing whatsoever to do with the post I was making. Was just purely opportunistic on your behalf.

Reply 96

Original post by Drewski

It is a deterrent. It is not the only deterrent.

In your opinion. In others such as the former Tory defence secretary's it is not.
The likes of Isis, the biggest threat at the moment are not put off by trident given they believe.

I'm not saying it is or is not a deterrent, that's the point of the debate. The problem is it is just being accepted ans stated that it absolutely is and you're not allowed to challenge that apparently.

Reply 97

KingKoala

9

How about we ditch Trident and then ditch tuition fees?

Reply 98

Aj12

18

Original post by Bornblue

In your opinion. In others such as the former Tory defence secretary's it is not.
The likes of Isis, the biggest threat at the moment are not put off by trident given they believe.

I'm not saying it is or is not a deterrent, that's the point of the debate. The problem is it is just being accepted ans stated that it absolutely is and you're not allowed to challenge that apparently.

A nuclear deterrent deters existential threats, it prevents a situation where the UK could find itself wiped out, by either massive conventional forces or a WMD attack. Any one who believes ISIS is an existential threat to the UK needs their head examined. The head of the USMC recently pointed out that mismanagement was a greater threat to the force than ISIS. It is a threat yes, but one that can be dealt with through conventional forces. Trident is not meant to deter terrorist attacks by non-state actors in the same way an armed police unit does not deter cyber crime.

Reply 99