(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.
x
Turn on thread page Beta
-
MatureStudent36
- Follow
- 20 followers
- 3 badges
- Send a private message to MatureStudent36
Offline3ReputationRep:- Follow
- 41
- 09-04-2013 22:04
-
rsplaya
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to rsplaya
- Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 42
- 09-04-2013 22:05
(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. -
- Follow
- 43
- 09-04-2013 22:07
(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?
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. -
- Follow
- 44
- 09-04-2013 22:09
(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. -
rsplaya
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to rsplaya
- Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 45
- 09-04-2013 22:12
(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. -
MatureStudent36
- Follow
- 20 followers
- 3 badges
- Send a private message to MatureStudent36
Offline3ReputationRep:- Follow
- 46
- 09-04-2013 22:13
(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 -
- Follow
- 47
- 09-04-2013 22:15
(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. -
rsplaya
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to rsplaya
- Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 48
- 09-04-2013 22:16
(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 -
MatureStudent36
- Follow
- 20 followers
- 3 badges
- Send a private message to MatureStudent36
Offline3ReputationRep:- Follow
- 49
- 09-04-2013 22:17
(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. -
- Follow
- 50
- 09-04-2013 22:18
(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". -
rsplaya
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to rsplaya
- Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 51
- 09-04-2013 22:19
(Original post by Drewski)
Because a country can't die. It would carry on and therefore it's worth fighting for. -
- Follow
- 52
- 09-04-2013 22:20
(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.
(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. -
MatureStudent36
- Follow
- 20 followers
- 3 badges
- Send a private message to MatureStudent36
Offline3ReputationRep:- Follow
- 53
- 09-04-2013 22:21
(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".
how are you planning on keeping the submarine crews and the entire logistics train quiet? -
rsplaya
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to rsplaya
- Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 54
- 09-04-2013 22:21
(Original post by Drewski)
And how do you know that's not what we're doing anyway....? -
- Follow
- 55
- 09-04-2013 22:22
(Original post by rsplaya)
Because Lib Dems would have received the memo before the last election and stopped debating it. -
MatureStudent36
- Follow
- 20 followers
- 3 badges
- Send a private message to MatureStudent36
Offline3ReputationRep:- Follow
- 56
- 09-04-2013 22:23
(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. -
rsplaya
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to rsplaya
- Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 57
- 09-04-2013 22:23
(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. -
- Follow
- 58
- 09-04-2013 22:24
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.
-
rsplaya
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to rsplaya
- Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 59
- 09-04-2013 22:25
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Ask a survivor from an occupied country in World War Two that. -
rsplaya
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to rsplaya
- Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 60
- 09-04-2013 22:26
(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.
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Related discussions:
- HoC Trident Debate - Live
- The Defence debate
- Should there be a referendum on whether the UK should ...
- Nuclar weapons Debate
- New poll shows public opinion split on Trident
- Should the UK get rid of its nuclear deterrent (Trident)?
- What hope for the nuclear deterrent?
- Trident is more important than ever.
- The Green Party and nuclear weapons?
- Opposition Leaders Debate
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 11, 2013
Share this discussion:
Tweet