Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    No, but we had other nuclear deterrents so that completely negates your argument. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War we had a nuclear detterent - and usually more than one version.
    We developed Trident as the most cost-effective and most secure form.

    Before Trident we had Polaris, which was basically identical - a submarine-launched ballistic missile - and before that had an airborne deterrent with the RAF. But that was prohibitively expensive.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Polaris_programme

    that one. And I'd agree. The V force cost a fortune.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    No, but we had other nuclear deterrents so that completely negates your argument. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War we had a nuclear detterent - and usually more than one version.
    We developed Trident as the most cost-effective and most secure form.

    Before Trident we had Polaris, which was basically identical - a submarine-launched ballistic missile - and before that had an airborne deterrent with the RAF. But that was prohibitively expensive.
    There are land based systems which are incredibly cost efficient under which the majority of the world's nuclear weapons are currently modeled on.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Your whole argument is meaningless because rather than assuming what I said is what I meant you assumed i said something else for no apparent reason. You know we have other nuclear weapons right? I am not arguing that was should disarm our entire nuclear arsenal why are you making that assumption are you ignorant?
    Actually we don't.

    The last 'other' nuclear weapon we had was the WE.177, but this was retired in the 90s. None of our other weaponry is nuclear-capable and would take masses of money to make it so. Further, any other such weapon is vastly less flexible and less secure.


    Further, the reason I made that assumption was based on your terminology; 'conventional weapons' is a term used to describe normal weaponry. Shells, bullets, explosives of a dynamite nature. All weapons that fall in the WMD category (nuclear, biological and chemical) are then, by-default, non-conventional.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    There are land based systems which are incredibly cost efficient under which the majority of the world's nuclear weapons are currently modeled on.
    Land-based missiles are less effective. They are copied the world-over because they are basic and, in some ways, cheaper. But they are also much less secure. They are in a fixed-location and they are - relatively - easy to render useless. As an ultimate deterrent that is pointless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Land-based missiles are less effective. They are copied the world-over because they are basic and, in some ways, cheaper. But they are also much less secure. They are in a fixed-location and they are - relatively - easy to render useless. As an ultimate deterrent that is pointless.
    If our nuclear launch sites can be nuked before we can respond logically our entire country can be nuked to oblivion before trident can launch. Therefore why bother having trident at all? You would have to be a moronic person to start firing trident after your entire country has been destroy there is no point to it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Your whole argument is meaningless because rather than assuming what I said is what I meant you assumed i said something else for no apparent reason. You know we have other nuclear weapons right? I am not arguing that was should disarm our entire nuclear arsenal why are you making that assumption are you ignorant?

    Trident does both strategic and tactical nukes as a cost saving measure ever since we got rid of our we177 bombs in 98
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    If our nuclear launch sites can be nuked before we can respond logically our entire country can be nuked to oblivion before trident can launch. Therefore why bother having trident at all? You would have to be a moronic person to start firing trident after your entire country has been destroy there is no point to it.
    Because a country can't die. It would carry on and therefore it's worth fighting for.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Trident does both strategic and tactical nukes as a cost saving measure ever since we got rid of our we177 bombs in 98
    Plan C : tell everyone we have trident when we don't do the Israeli thing "we neither confirm nor deny we have nuclear weapons".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    If our nuclear launch sites can be nuked before we can respond logically our entire country can be nuked to oblivion before trident can launch. Therefore why bother having trident at all? You would have to be a moronic person to start firing trident after your entire country has been destroy there is no point to it.
    Thats the joy of a continuous at sea deterrent. The bad guys know that even if they nuke us first we'll still be able to get them from beyond the grave.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Plan C : tell everyone we have trident when we don't do the Israeli thing "we neither confirm nor deny we have nuclear weapons".
    And how do you know that's not what we're doing anyway....?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Because a country can't die. It would carry on and therefore it's worth fighting for.
    After all of your cities are dead and your population is obliterated your country is over. You can either launch back going "haha revenge look at what I achieved" or you can end the bloodshed and just get on with your life. Who cares who is in charge or who has the 'power' it is better to live under a foreign flag than to be dead.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    There are land based systems which are incredibly cost efficient under which the majority of the world's nuclear weapons are currently modeled on.
    To have a our nuclear deterrent as a land based system would take up an area the size of Wales if we, which we probably would, follow the US land based model.

    (Original post by rsplaya)
    If our nuclear launch sites can be nuked before we can respond logically our entire country can be nuked to oblivion before trident can launch. Therefore why bother having trident at all? You would have to be a moronic person to start firing trident after your entire country has been destroy there is no point to it.
    Read about the principle of MAD.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Plan C : tell everyone we have trident when we don't do the Israeli thing "we neither confirm nor deny we have nuclear weapons".
    But it's widely known Israel does have them. They just deny it for political reasons.

    how are you planning on keeping the submarine crews and the entire logistics train quiet?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    And how do you know that's not what we're doing anyway....?
    Because Lib Dems would have received the memo before the last election and stopped debating it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Because Lib Dems would have received the memo before the last election and stopped debating it.
    Yeah, we can trust politicians to shut up...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    After all of your cities are dead and your population is obliterated your country is over. You can either launch back going "haha revenge look at what I achieved" or you can end the bloodshed and just get on with your life. Who cares who is in charge or who has the 'power' it is better to live under a foreign flag than to be dead.

    Ask a survivor from an occupied country in World War Two that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Thats the joy of a continuous at sea deterrent. The bad guys know that even if they nuke us first we'll still be able to get them from beyond the grave.
    There are no good guys and bad guy this is real life not a film.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The main reason we have so much political influence is because of our defence... we shouldn't allow it to continuously decline as is happening.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Ask a survivor from an occupied country in World War Two that.
    Well there were the sides occupied during WW2 or there are the ones that were occupied at the end of WW2 Germany and Japan both of which have two of the strongest economies in the world now... seems just getting on with their lives worked out after all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjpneed)
    The main reason we have so much political influence is because of our defence... we shouldn't allow it to continuously decline as is happening.
    Give an example of our political influence in action I am unfamiliar with it or its benefits.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.