Trident

[KHT1]

Personally I think it's a waste of money, it does not act as a deterrent becuase every country knows it would not dare to be used...but that's beside the point.
My main question is who else is reminded of Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove or how I learned to stop worring and love the bomb"?
with Dame Vera Lynn singing along at the end...

[themattmeister]

Judging by your other post on the sister site you are a true visionary.

Keep them coming.

[Sisyphus]

it does not act as a deterrent becuase every country knows it would not dare to be used...

As our Trident submarines cruise beneath the waves, travelling below 500ft at 5knots so they're undetectable by SOSUS - and, so, completely undetectable, what are the Captain's encoded target instructions?

Not Russia. They're no longer our main threat. Ah, yes, Al Qaeda. Hang on! They don't exist in a single country.

We spend billions so that we can sit at the International Table as a Nuclear Power. That's it! End of story!.

Trident has no military use. It is entirely a political tool.

[owdun]

The things we really need, more,better equipped servicemen, Real Aircraft carriers, etc.etc. are taking second place to Trident, which is bloody useless for all intents and purposes.As Rocky said, its all for show at the top table.


Owdun.

[SO19]

I couldn't disagree more.

In my opinion, maintaining the United Kingdom's own independant nuclear deterrent is worth every penny and is only 0.8% or there abouts of our annual defence spending. It is of course true that the initial expendature for the complete replacement will be higher as the current Trident ends it's life, but again, I believe that is worthwhile...

Owdun, I can understand your argument, but the defence budget should increase to accomodate the needs, not the otherway round. And do you really believe the government would put that money back into defence? I doubt it.

becuase every country knows it would not dare to be used...but that's beside the point.

But thats exactly the point, it ensures mutually assured destruction and while that might not be entirely relevant now, history has the annoying habbit of repeating itself.

It is a potent tool be that politically or militarly and we all know the world is an uncertain place... even more so forty years from now.

[Sisyphus]

But thats exactly the point, it ensures mutually assured destruction and while that might not be entirely relevant now, history has the annoying habbit of repeating itself.

It is a potent tool be that politically or militarly and we all know the world is an uncertain place... even more so forty years from now.

But the threat now and for the foreseeable future is someone getting hold of a 'suitcase sized' nuclear weapon and planting it in, say, London. So who would we target with our nuclear missiles?

We can't ensure the mutual destruction of, say, Al Qaeda because no-one knows where they are, or even who they are.

The likes of N. Korea or Iran may be able to develop nuclear weapons in a decade or so but they certainly won't have the technology to install them in a missile that could reach the U.K.

If they are so necessary why haven't all the major EU countries got them? Or is the UK a 'special case' somehow?

[SO19]

But the threat now and for the foreseeable future is someone getting hold of a 'suitcase sized' nuclear weapon and planting it in, say, London. So who would we target with our nuclear missiles?

We can't ensure the mutual destruction of, say, Al Qaeda because no-one knows where they are, or even who they are.

All valid points, but I never said we could use nuclear weapon's against the likes of Al Qaeda, especially when such extreme organisations/ideaologies like themselves belong to no one state and are transient by nature. What we do to combat that type of threat is impliment a completely seperate doctrine, of which, effective intelligence is the key. This does not mean however that we should scrap Trident, that would change nothing. In the case of religous extremism, our short term solutions, while very effective, will only ever disrupt what really requires a radical social and perceptual change.

And why do we have to always choose one or the other? They fulfill different needs and should be treated as such.

The likes of N. Korea or Iran may be able to develop nuclear weapons in a decade or so but they certainly won't have the technology to install them in a missile that could reach the U.K.

Not yet, but what happens when they do? What happens when that capability is sold to another state? What happens when they threaten another country? And what happens when a 'suitcase bomb' is detonated on British soil with links back to just such a state? It still has major potentcy in todays world and tomorrows unforeseen world.

If they are so necessary why haven't all the major EU countries got them? Or is the UK a 'special case' somehow?

Most of the major EU countries have had a nuclear weapons program at one time or another and could certainly equip themselves now if need be, but the fact that they have never done so means theres no impotace to start now. In the end, the United Kingdom (along with France later on) were Europe's nuclear deterrent. We were the major player.

[Sisyphus]

Apologies, I don't know how to sort these out separately so I've italicised my comments in the quote.

All valid points, but I never said we could use nuclear weapon's against the likes of Al Qaeda, especially when such extreme organisations/ideaologies like themselves belong to no one state and are transient by nature.

So the deterrent is irrelevant in this scenario.

And why do we have to always choose one or the other? They fulfill different needs and should be treated as such.

But what is the 'other' need? We renew them in case N. Korea or Iran tool up?

Not yet, but what happens when they do?


As now. The U.S. provide the deterrent. Our miniscule inventory of weapons was never really the focus of any country's concerns was it?

What happens when that capability is sold to another state?

So how would we prove who sold what to whom?

And what happens when a 'suitcase bomb' is detonated on British soil with links back to just such a state?

It would be almost impossible to find out who planted the bomb. But if this were possible how on earth could we trace where they got it from? So who, then, would we retaliate against?

Most of the major EU countries have had a nuclear weapons program at one time or another and could certainly equip themselves now if need be,

Have they? The only one I'm aware of is France.

In the end, the United Kingdom (along with France later on) were Europe's nuclear deterrent. We were the major player.

I don't think we've ever been a major player in the nuclear debate. This role has been taken up by the US and the USSR. Nor do I think our contribution did a single thing to 'deter' the Russians, and they were the only 'baddies' on the scene at the time. We were an irrelevance to them.

I would argue that we developed nuclear weapons after WWII because politicians were trying to hold on to what was left of 'Empire' and the Bomb was a device to keep us at the 'top table'.

And, of course, we don't have an independent nuclear deterrent. That dream disappeared when Blue Steel was cancelled. OUR nuclear deterrent is wholly dependent on the U.S.

[Alfa]

Our miniscule inventory of weapons was never really the focus of any country's concerns was it?

I think you greatly underestimate the power of of H bombs. We have an arsenal of over 100 of them which is more than enough to destroy any country in the world. Do you really think even a country like the US could survive having it's 100 most important cities destroyed in a single blow? And that is without even factoring the fall out from such weapons. Yes it is miniscule compared to the thousands the US has but think of it this way we only have 1 world so why would we need to be able to destroy it 100 over like the US/Russia when once is enough?

Also you're saying Iran and North Korea aren't a threat as it would take decades to develope warheads for missle to reach the UK but what about Pakistan? They have been nuclear for some time now and that country is a powder keg and a take over by Islamic extremists isn't hard to imagine.

We spend billions so that we can sit at the International Table as a Nuclear Power. That's it! End of story!.

I can assure you the billions we spend on Trident to "keep our place at the table" is more than worth it for what we get back from being one of the top 5 most powerful nations in the world. We're able to influence others decisions and ensure our own intrests are looked after and that is more than worth the price!

Also anyone who says that we would never use a nuclear weapon is talking rubbish, if a hostile country was planning to launch a nuclear attack on us do you really think we wouldn't hit them first because the effects on them would be horrible?

The most important reason to have them is that while we do we are immune to any serious attack on our country. Not all world leaders or governments are sane look at Kim Jong IL imagine someone like him in charge of a country like China?

Just the threat of a nuclear strike on us by another country would force us to comply with their wishes if we couldn't retaliate in kind.

It would only take a single strike to bring the country to it's knees, if London was destroyed we would never recover, the economy would be through the floor and the after effects of the fall out would poison water supplies as well as people.

You may say that's all fantasy and the worst case scenario but when it comes to national security that is how you have to think as there would be nothing to stop a country half a world away lobbing a H bomb at us if they thought there would be no come back.

The status and security of being a 1st class nuclear power, and all the benefits that brings, is far too much to give up for the sake of a few Billion which we can quite easily afford I mean it's not like we're all going to have to go hungry in order to fund the programme.

[Tab]

KHT_1.....You say that no one will ever use an atomic bomb, do you trust the North Koreans that much

[Sisyphus]

Our miniscule inventory of weapons was never really the focus of any country's concerns was it?

I think you greatly underestimate the power of of H bombs. Yes it is miniscule compared to the thousands the US has but think of it this way we only have 1 world so why would we need to be able to destroy it 100 over like the US/Russia when once is enough?

I don't at all. Quite the opposite. My point was that we got our nuclear weapons when the USSR was the [only] nuclear threat. With the massive amount of US nuclear weaponry the Reds were never going to be bothered by the number we had - they were insignificant when compared to the US/USSR arsenal. Unless, of course, there was a credible scenario that the USSR would attack us but not the US. And if they did the NATO treaty would have ensured a US retaliatory strike. .

We're able to influence others decisions and ensure our own intrests are looked after and that is more than worth the price!

No we're not. If we're so influential how come we weren't able to influence anyone to follow us, sorry the US, to war in Iraq. It's not as if there weren't tremendous efforts to do exactly that.


Also anyone who says that we would never use a nuclear weapon is talking rubbish, if a hostile country was planning to launch a nuclear attack on us do you really think we wouldn't hit them first because the effects on them would be horrible?

Yes we would. But how is Germany or Japan going to react if the same happened to them? How are they so different that they don't need to have nuclear weapons but we do.


The most important reason to have them is that while we do we are immune to any serious attack on our country. Not all world leaders or governments are sane look at Kim Jong IL imagine someone like him in charge of a country like China?

I could ask if you think George Bush and the Hawks in the US are sane but that would take us off on a tangent.

The main issue here is that we are NOT immune to any serious attack. Most international strategists agree that the imminent danger [and for the immediate future] is some nutter planting a 'suitcase sized' bomb in London, NY, or wherever.

Just the threat of a nuclear strike on us by another country would force us to comply with their wishes if we couldn't retaliate in kind.

Sorry, but international politics just don't work like that. Do you think if the US threatens Iran with a nuclear strike tomorrow that will solve the problem in Iran, then?

It would only take a single strike to bring the country to it's knees, if London was destroyed we would never recover, the economy would be through the floor and the after effects of the fall out would poison water supplies as well as people.

Agreed but it is more likely to come via a suitcase than an ICBM

You may say that's all fantasy and the worst case scenario but when it comes to national security that is how you have to think as there would be nothing to stop a country half a world away lobbing a H bomb at us if they thought there would be no come back.

The status and security of being a 1st class nuclear power, and all the benefits that brings,

But what status and what benefits? Non-nuclear Germany and Japan are richer and, arguably, more influential than us in a global sense.
To be a 1st class nuclear power we'd need to be completely independent and we're not.

[Alfa]

The influence we gain from being a permanent member of the security council can't simply be based on how many people we got to join the invasion. We can VETO any proposition put towards the council, so if someone wanted to introduce something that would harm our intrests for example it would never pass as we could simply block it.

This is a huge advantage as it means that if people want something passed they have to get us on side which means even if we don't like a particular propostion we can gain concessions for allowing it to pass. It's more the trade issuse etc... where we benefit most and yes before you say it, I know it works both ways.

As for Germany and Japan well they wouldn't be able to react at all to a nuclear strike/threat would they, that's the point.

Also while they may both be richer, although it must be said our economy is in a much better shape than Germany's, they definately do not have the influence we do. When was the last time you heard of Japan or Germany at the forefront of anything? Japan with it's economic might should be the worlds number two power but it's not and isn't a big player in international politics and Germany is only really listened to when it's speaking as part of a EU alliance and the only difference between them and us is that we have a permanent seat on the Security Council, same as France and the only real reason we still have that is because we are a nuclear power.

On the point about immunity from attack, we ARE immune from an attack from any STATE. That is different from terrorists but just because we aren't immune from a suitcase bomb by terrorists are you suggesting we should then make ourselves vunerable to another type of attack too?

Also how real do you actually think the threat from a "suitcase nuke" is?

Nuclear weapons are huge and it requires an incredible amount of skill and technical knowledge to develope them. It then takes even longer to make them small enough to be carried by a missle, several years in fact and that's with the full support from a state programme.

So when you take that into account how realistic do you think it is for a terrorist to develope one small enough to fit into a suit case without any support?

The fact of nuclear retaliation would deter any state sponsorship of a nuclear terrorist attack.

Sorry, but international politics just don't work like that. Do you think if the US threatens Iran with a nuclear strike tomorrow that will solve the problem in Iran, then?

I think this point is a bit irrelevant to what I was talking about, the fact is the US is not going to nuke Iran over this issue and Tehran know's this. If they seriously believed that the US would do it then yes I do believe they would comply.

To give you an example of this; in 1991 Saddam Hussein had a huge arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that is fact and he had used them on Iranian troops just a couple of years earlier. The US knew this and Saddam was was told in no uncertain terms that if he used chemical weapons on US troops then the US would reply with a nuclear strike.

Saddam never used any of the most effective weapons he possesed in order to repel an invasion so I guess the threat worked.

more likely to come via a suitcase than an ICBM

That may be the case now but what about in 20 years time? The whole point about the replacement of Trident is to ensure we can deal with unforseen probelms which may occur in the next few decades so how could you possibly know what is most likely to happen and where the threats will be coming from? Just 15 years ago we had a state with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us and millions of troops ready to invade look how much things have changed now and that was some thing NO "international strategists" predicted would change.

It's just my opinion and you're intitled to yours too but I just believe the old saying "it's better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them."

.

[Sisyphus]

The influence we gain from being a permanent member of the security council can't simply be based on how many people we got to join the invasion. We can VETO any proposition put towards the council, so if someone wanted to introduce something that would harm our intrests for example it would never pass as we could simply block it.

Permanent membership of the Security Council is an historic 'accident'. The five members were selected because they were the five major victorious powers after WWII. Having nuclear weapons was not a requirement for membership and is coincidental. I've made the argument that politicians see them as keeping us at the 'top table' but I can't see this standing up. Not least when you think the US and USSR have 10,000 + each. France and China have about 400 each [China's of dubious technical reliability] and we have less than 200. Three of the Council have a tiny fraction of the arsenal available to the other two. Why have the US/USSR got more than enough to destroy the world 100 times over? For political, not military, reasons during the bad old days of the 'Arms Race'.

As for Germany and Japan well they wouldn't be able to react at all to a nuclear strike/threat would they, that's the point.

No, that's not the point. The point is how do they feel able to 'sleep at night' without nuclear weapons? If they were such a benefit then they'd have them. They could certainly afford to buy a nuclear system from the US in the same way we have.

Also while they may both be richer, although it must be said our economy is in a much better shape than Germany's, they definately do not have the influence we do. When was the last time you heard of Japan or Germany at the forefront of anything?

I really struggle on the issue of us having influence. WHAT major influence have we had on World Opinion in the last, say, five years? Such influence as we've been able to exert has, as far as I can tell, been within the EU. And even there, France and Germany have generally lead the way.

Japan with it's economic might should be the worlds number two power but it's not and isn't a big player in international politics and Germany is only really listened to when it's speaking as part of a EU alliance and the only difference between them and us is that we have a permanent seat on the Security Council, same as France and the only real reason we still have that is because we are a nuclear power.

This is incorrect. As I mentioned above our seat on the Permanent Council was based on the Post War Allies of the UK, US, USSR and France, with China added as the other victorious power [France's description as a victorious power is an odd one and is bitterly resented in Poland but that's by-the-by ]

On the point about immunity from attack, we ARE immune from an attack from any STATE. That is different from terrorists but just because we aren't immune from a suitcase bomb by terrorists are you suggesting we should then make ourselves vunerable to another type of attack too?

So, again, how do Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Argentina, Egypt, and a host of other countries not need a nuclear deterrent when we do?

Also how real do you actually think the threat from a "suitcase nuke" is?

You'd have to check this out with the 'experts' who believe the dirty bomb to be a real threat. In any event I think it's far more credible a threat than an ICBM from, say, N.Korea or Iran. Or even Pakistan or India who have weapons and missiles to deliver them, but none which could get near the UK.

Nuclear weapons are huge and it requires an incredible amount of skill and technical knowledge to develope them. It then takes even longer to make them small enough to be carried by a missle, several years in fact and that's with the full support from a state programme.

I agree. So do you think the US will actually allow N Korea or Iran to develop them to the stage where they'll be a threat outside their 'local areas'? And as far as Iran goes I think the nuclear Israel might have something to say about it, too.

The fact of nuclear retaliation would deter any state sponsorship of a nuclear terrorist attack.

We've mentioned this before - IF a state was to sponsor a terrorist nuke it would be virtually impossible to pinpoint who the 'rogue state' was. Iran or the Russian Mafia?? Or..??

I think this point is a bit irrelevant to what I was talking about, the fact is the US is not going to nuke Iran over this issue and Tehran know's this. If they seriously believed that the US would do it then yes I do believe they would comply.

BINGO! No nation seriously believes anything other than no-one will ever launch a first strike because it's curtains for everyone. Except, in this case the US have nukes and Iran don't but they're still sticking their fingers up to the US [and the West] So nuclear muscle is impotent even at that level. Ergo, what is the point of a UK nuclear deterrent, especially when most of the world's developed countries manage their affairs quite happily without them?

To give you an example of this; in 1991 Saddam Hussein had a huge arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that is fact and he had used them on Iranian troops just a couple of years earlier. The US knew this and Saddam was was told in no uncertain terms that if he used chemical weapons on US troops then the US would reply with a nuclear strike.

Saddam never used any of the most effective weapons he possesed in order to repel an invasion so I guess the threat worked.

Perhaps - but this is a red herring as the retaliatory threat was from tactical nuclear weapons not strategic ones which Trident are.

more likely to come via a suitcase than an ICBM

That may be the case now but what about in 20 years time? The whole point about the replacement of Trident is to ensure we can deal with unforseen probelms which may occur in the next few decades so how could you possibly know what is most likely to happen and where the threats will be coming from? Just 15 years ago we had a state with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us and millions of troops ready to invade look how much things have changed now and that was some thing NO "international strategists" predicted would change.

I think this is the wheel turned full circle. If we need them then why don't nearly all the other Western developed countries?

As far as the future goes, who knows? For example, I doubt that any international strategist would predict us falling out with the US and them pulling support for our nuclear system. Not likely but not impossible. In similar vein, but in the 'here and now' I'd love to know if we have permission to launch our Tridents without the President's say so. I would think it's an almost certain bet we couldn't. Which means our 'independent' nuclear deterrent wouldn't be independent at all

It's just my opinion and you're intitled to yours too but I just believe the old saying "it's better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them."

In normal circumstances I'd agree with that saying but, again, in this specific instance how come Germany, Japan, Norway...........???

[Alfa]

with reference to the point I made about the Security Council while I know possesing nuclear weapons wasn't an original requirement, I believe it is what KEEPS our place on it as a permanent member. There are countires such as Japan and Germany who are richer and India who have a greater population who many people would suggest have a permanent seat on the council too. Now without our nuclear weapons our status as a power would be diminished and those calls for us to be replaced would be greater.

As for influence, this is somethiong that you won't see as the day to day diplomatic workings are something that you don't see on the news but we certainly do have a lot of influence on the world stage. However, I will freely admit that I can't come up with a more cohesive argument as it's not a subject I have an indepth knowledge of.

The last point I want to make is on the issue you brought up of why other western countries carry on fine without nuclear weapons. Most western countires and also Japan are covered by the US' "nuclear umbrella" and so while they don't have their own weapos they are effectively covered by the US' arsenal. Despite this fact most major powers have, at some point, looked into nuclear weapons whether that is for "educational purposes" or as an actual weapons programme. This has the general consensus that most have the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon if the need arouse. I rememeber seeing one article which stated Japan could probably have it's own weapons in just a few months. It seems they believe it is prudent to at least have the knowledge to be able to produce a H Bomb if the need arises so they're not simply writing off these weapons as irrelevant.

Finally I think we may as well draw a line under this and agree to disagree as I doubt either of us are about to change our position on this matter and whatever we post we will both be able to take each fact, statement and opinion apart and give our own alternative view point on it.

.

[Sisyphus]

I believe it is what KEEPS our place on it as a permanent member.
Now without our nuclear weapons our status as a power would be diminished and those calls for us to be replaced would be greater.

Alfa

My last comment would be that there is no evidence that this is true. But if we accept it as true then it demonstrates that our nuclear deterrent is a political tool, not a military weapon.

Anyway, you're spot on and we can agree to differ on this one.

One thing's for certain the debate is about to start so, outside the forum, things are likely to start hotting up!

I'm glad we beat them to it!