Trident to be funded by MOD - Sign it's not wanted?

[Jimbeaux]

Mr Dave said:

Jimbeaux said:

elster said:

The development was indeed by a US company, mainly using British resources. Most high end technologies are developed using British alternatives.

Oh but of course; and my Uncle designed the Aston Martin in his shed here in Louisiana while perfecting the Cadbury formula in a moonshine still.....then gave it all to the Brits.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 1st August 01:05

Off the top of my head you have the American atomic weapon programme, the American supersonic programme, harrier, angled flight decks and steam catapults, having an air force, the Canberraalmost all the avionics in the F22. The jet engine, All sorts really. Oh Martin baker ejector seats. And I hear Abrahams the best tank in the world has Chobham armour now, I seem to recall we replaced that years ago with Dorchester. Some of your latest ECM kit and modern fighter engines are very very similar to older Russian kit too.

Not that there's anything wrong with taking things that work and putting them to very good use.

I am sure that happens to an extent. If it does to the level you just described.....well I will let others debate that.

[The real Apache]

Not that I approve of such xenophobic pissing in the snow, but.......you missed out the biggie. Supersonic flight courtesy of Miles' flying tail

[nonuts]

We seem to be forgetting a few important things when people are saying 'just get rid of it all', the world changes. 100 years ago we hadn't even started a bun fight with the Germans the first time around... who's to say what the world will look like in 50 years when the oil / clean water / whatever is running out because we're all idiots.

I for one would like us to be able to build, maintain and use our own nuclear weapons.

However I also don't think we should be sacrificing our ability to defend ourselves. The cuts should be made elsewhere if needed.

[Mr Whippy]

Is there no option in space based ICBM warhead inteception and 'star wars' stuff of that nature.

I think Trident is useful to have, but for the spend and money would doing something spacey be more in line with the future deterrent needed?

I think not being nuked in the first place is preferable if those doing the nuking are radical nations run by mentals like North Korea etc, rather than relying on a deterrent that you will nuke back!?

Hmmm

Dave

[Frankeh]

Mr Whippy said:

Is there no option in space based ICBM warhead inteception and 'star wars' stuff of that nature.

I think Trident is useful to have, but for the spend and money would doing something spacey be more in line with the future deterrent needed?

I think not being nuked in the first place is preferable if those doing the nuking are radical nations run by mentals like North Korea etc, rather than relying on a deterrent that you will nuke back!?

Hmmm

Dave

A 'star wars' like system would pretty much cause every other country to st their collective pants.
We'd probably be looking at cold war 2 if anyone (The US) tried to launch such a system.

[dilbert]

Frankeh said:

Mr Whippy said:

Is there no option in space based ICBM warhead inteception and 'star wars' stuff of that nature.

I think Trident is useful to have, but for the spend and money would doing something spacey be more in line with the future deterrent needed?

I think not being nuked in the first place is preferable if those doing the nuking are radical nations run by mentals like North Korea etc, rather than relying on a deterrent that you will nuke back!?

Hmmm

Dave

A 'star wars' like system would pretty much cause every other country to st their collective pants.
We'd probably be looking at cold war 2 if anyone (The US) tried to launch such a system.

I don't think anyone would be *that* worried by star wars. The trouble with it, is that it's not 100% reliable. In practice, you could probably expect 40-80% reliability out of it.

You only really need one MIRV with 12, 0.5 Meg warheads and you can take out the majority of a country.

Clearly you wouldn't eradicate the whole country, but what would Britain be like without London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. There would still be plenty of capacity just with one missile.

Actually, a country like England (or Japan) would be pretty easy since we're small and densely packed.
Russia, America China, and perhaps France and Germany too would be much harder simply because everything is so much better spaced out.

China would be a bit easier, because it's cities are few and really vast. You might need two warheads on one city to do the job completely. In other ways China would be harder. In some parts of China they probably wouldn't notice to much if their cities vanished. Their countryside is pretty much self sufficient because it's still working on horse and cart technology. Here in the UK, if all we lost was London, even the countryside would more or less seize. We're so much more dependent on technology.

We have the capacity to take on a China or Russia, even though it's harder for us than it is for them.

Edited by dilbert on Monday 2nd August 11:55

[Mr Whippy]

dilbert said:

Frankeh said:

Mr Whippy said:

Is there no option in space based ICBM warhead inteception and 'star wars' stuff of that nature.

I think Trident is useful to have, but for the spend and money would doing something spacey be more in line with the future deterrent needed?

I think not being nuked in the first place is preferable if those doing the nuking are radical nations run by mentals like North Korea etc, rather than relying on a deterrent that you will nuke back!?

Hmmm

Dave

A 'star wars' like system would pretty much cause every other country to st their collective pants.
We'd probably be looking at cold war 2 if anyone (The US) tried to launch such a system.

I don't think anyone would be *that* worried by star wars. The trouble with it, is that it's not 100% reliable. In practice, you could probably expect 40-80% reliability out of it.

You only really need one MIRV with 12, 0.5 Meg warheads and you can take out the majority of a country.

Clearly you wouldn't eradicate the whole country, but what would Britain be like without London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. There would still be plenty of capacity just with one missile.

Actually, a country like England (or Japan) would be pretty easy since we're small and densely packed.
Russia, America China, and perhaps France and Germany too would be much harder simply because everything is so much better spaced out.

We have the capacity to take on a China or Russia, even though it's harder for us than it is for them.

Making a star wars system erring towards total efficiency would at least force other nations to consider other nuclear warhead delivery methods... if we could blanket most of Europe with it then it may also give some leverage for political means too. Also great for our industry if it is all developed in-house.


ICBM's from subs just seems old hat. I totally understand and agree with the arguement for them, the deterrent, things might be different in the future, but surely that is a reason to develop new things?

If North Korea can get a hold of nuclear warheads and have ICBM's of an intermediate range, then you need the next best toy... when we first got ICBM and nuclear warheads we were one of a few, it doesn't seem that way today. Much like we got rid of our nuclear capable interdictor aircraft because they were old-hat, isn't it time to start thinking of the next best thing?

Even if it ultimately costs more?

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 2nd August 12:02

[dilbert]

Mr Whippy said:

dilbert said:

Frankeh said:

Mr Whippy said:

Is there no option in space based ICBM warhead inteception and 'star wars' stuff of that nature.

I think Trident is useful to have, but for the spend and money would doing something spacey be more in line with the future deterrent needed?

I think not being nuked in the first place is preferable if those doing the nuking are radical nations run by mentals like North Korea etc, rather than relying on a deterrent that you will nuke back!?

Hmmm

Dave

A 'star wars' like system would pretty much cause every other country to st their collective pants.
We'd probably be looking at cold war 2 if anyone (The US) tried to launch such a system.

I don't think anyone would be *that* worried by star wars. The trouble with it, is that it's not 100% reliable. In practice, you could probably expect 40-80% reliability out of it.

You only really need one MIRV with 12, 0.5 Meg warheads and you can take out the majority of a country.

Clearly you wouldn't eradicate the whole country, but what would Britain be like without London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. There would still be plenty of capacity just with one missile.

Actually, a country like England (or Japan) would be pretty easy since we're small and densely packed.
Russia, America China, and perhaps France and Germany too would be much harder simply because everything is so much better spaced out.

We have the capacity to take on a China or Russia, even though it's harder for us than it is for them.

Making a star wars system erring towards total efficiency would at least force other nations to consider other nuclear warhead delivery methods... if we could blanket most of Europe with it then it may also give some leverage for political means too. Also great for our industry if it is all developed in-house.


ICBM's from subs just seems old hat. I totally understand and agree with the arguement for them, the deterrent, things might be different in the future, but surely that is a reason to develop new things?

If North Korea can get a hold of nuclear warheads and have ICBM's of an intermediate range, then you need the next best toy... when we first got ICBM and nuclear warheads we were one of a few, it doesn't seem that way today. Much like we got rid of our nuclear capable interdictor aircraft because they were old-hat, isn't it time to start thinking of the next best thing?

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 2nd August 12:01

Sort of, but I'm not sure ICBM's are old hat.

Don't get me wrong I'd love to be involved in the design of an ABM or space based shield. It'd be a great job, and the overall cost would be high enough that there would be scope for good rates of pay. Labour costs would vanish into the basic cost of the system.

The space based shield, would be hugely expensive. It would make the costs of Trident look trivial.

In the end, I don't think I would want to swap the ICBMs for a shield. As a combination, ICBM's and a shield, that makes sense to me, but I know we can't afford it.

Perhaps it's trivial. I'm not religious. The Bible says "Do unto others as they do unto you". It doesn't say "Fend em off as best you can, and live with the hits you inevitably take."

The point is, if you have both, then if someone does attack you, you can defend and be offensive. So if they fire 20 missiles, and only two get through, you only have to fire two back. That makes sense to me. That's a wise use of power.

Sadly, being that wise, is expensive. Can we really afford a conscience that is so clean?

Edited by dilbert on Monday 2nd August 12:24

[Frankeh]

Surely a space based laser shield is pretty vulnerable anyway..
If we somehow got one all the other countries would have to do is change the path of their satellites to crash into ours.
Then launch their ICBM at us and laugh away.

[Mr Whippy]

Frankeh said:

Surely a space based laser shield is pretty vulnerable anyway..
If we somehow got one all the other countries would have to do is change the path of their satellites to crash into ours.
Then launch their ICBM at us and laugh away.

Ground launched/projected stuff is getting pretty impressive these days though.

Watching a Phalanx type system shooting down mortar rounds, and laser beams hitting similar targets, is pretty impressive.


Space seems a good place to put some stuff, but not everything. And obviously fairly expensive too.



Surely if you have your shield, then the stick doesn't need to be as big?

BGM109G were a good stick imo... a scramjet GLCM with a nuclear warhead might be quite scary?

Dave

[KANEIT]

What of the risk of collision with space debris or the chance of it losing position and falling to earth? What if it malfunctioned, how easy to repair, how quick to implement a repair, how expensive to repair?

I'd rather sub-based.

[tank slapper]

Mr Whippy said:

ICBM's from subs just seems old hat. I totally understand and agree with the arguement for them, the deterrent, things might be different in the future, but surely that is a reason to develop new things?

In what way are they old hat? The reason they are still around some 40-50 years after they were introduced is because they work, and work better than any alternative.

A ballistic missile submarine is extremely difficult to detect, harder to detect sufficiently well to kill and can deliver a payload that is virtually unstoppable once launched in around 20 minutes or less. There is nothing else that comes close to providing the same capability available.

[Mr Whippy]

tank slapper said:

Mr Whippy said:

ICBM's from subs just seems old hat. I totally understand and agree with the arguement for them, the deterrent, things might be different in the future, but surely that is a reason to develop new things?

In what way are they old hat? The reason they are still around some 40-50 years after they were introduced is because they work, and work better than any alternative.

A ballistic missile submarine is extremely difficult to detect, harder to detect sufficiently well to kill and can deliver a payload that is virtually unstoppable once launched in around 20 minutes or less. There is nothing else that comes close to providing the same capability available.

They are around 40-50 years later because non-proliferation treaties has left them as being the almost 'default' weapon of choice for a deterrent...

It's like pistols at dawn. New better things have come along, but they have been deemend TOO effective, TOO cheap and widespread, or too brutal or nasty, and thus NPT has kept them from being utilised.


I don't know what the alternative is, or if there is one, but it's surprising that nothing has been explored in alternative areas, more so in nullifying the threat of ICBM's (shooting them down technology), rather than replacing them with a new delivery method.


Hmmm


Either way, I think the cost is tiny really, in the bigger picture. I have no idea why they are making such a meal out of it!

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 2nd August 15:40

[rhinochopig]

Mr Whippy said:

tank slapper said:

Mr Whippy said:

ICBM's from subs just seems old hat. I totally understand and agree with the arguement for them, the deterrent, things might be different in the future, but surely that is a reason to develop new things?

In what way are they old hat? The reason they are still around some 40-50 years after they were introduced is because they work, and work better than any alternative.

A ballistic missile submarine is extremely difficult to detect, harder to detect sufficiently well to kill and can deliver a payload that is virtually unstoppable once launched in around 20 minutes or less. There is nothing else that comes close to providing the same capability available.

They are around 40-50 years later because non-proliferation treaties has left them as being the almost 'default' weapon of choice for a deterrent...

It's like pistols at dawn. New better things have come along, but they have been deemend TOO effective, TOO cheap and widespread, or too brutal or nasty, and thus NPT has kept them from being utilised.


I don't know what the alternative is, or if there is one, but it's surprising that nothing has been explored in alternative areas, more so in nullifying the threat of ICBM's (shooting them down technology), rather than replacing them with a new delivery method.


Hmmm


Either way, I think the cost is tiny really, in the bigger picture. I have no idea why they are making such a meal out of it!

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 2nd August 15:40

It's not surprising at all really because if one side develops a technology which can eliminate the threat of the other side's ICBMs, then all it does is start another arms race. It's all about balance.

[tank slapper]

Mr Whippy said:

They are around 40-50 years later because non-proliferation treaties has left them as being the almost 'default' weapon of choice for a deterrent...

It's like pistols at dawn. New better things have come along, but they have been deemend TOO effective, TOO cheap and widespread, or too brutal or nasty, and thus NPT has kept them from being utilised.

Any technology that could be used to put a nuclear warhead on target could also be used to put a conventional one there. Non-proliferation doesn't prevent the development of delivery systems. That things like high speed low observable cruise missiles are starting to come available now as a result of technology advances doesn't change the fact that a ballistic missile still does it better.

About the only advantage a cruise missile would have over an SLBM is that of accuracy, but when you are talking about dropping a 500kT warhead <100m accuracy is sufficient.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that has been regarded as too effective when compared to a thermonuclear weapon - it doesn't really get more effective than removing the target from the face of the earth.

[rhinochopig]

tank slapper said:

Mr Whippy said:

They are around 40-50 years later because non-proliferation treaties has left them as being the almost 'default' weapon of choice for a deterrent...

It's like pistols at dawn. New better things have come along, but they have been deemend TOO effective, TOO cheap and widespread, or too brutal or nasty, and thus NPT has kept them from being utilised.

Any technology that could be used to put a nuclear warhead on target could also be used to put a conventional one there. Non-proliferation doesn't prevent the development of delivery systems. That things like high speed low observable cruise missiles are starting to come available now as a result of technology advances doesn't change the fact that a ballistic missile still does it better.

About the only advantage a cruise missile would have over an SLBM is that of accuracy, but when you are talking about dropping a 500kT warhead <100m accuracy is sufficient.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that has been regarded as too effective when compared to a thermonuclear weapon - it doesn't really get more effective than removing the target from the face of the earth.

The other bits of NBC.

[Talksteer]

nonuts said:

We seem to be forgetting a few important things when people are saying 'just get rid of it all', the world changes. 100 years ago we hadn't even started a bun fight with the Germans the first time around... who's to say what the world will look like in 50 years when the oil / clean water / whatever is running out because we're all idiots.

I for one would like us to be able to build, maintain and use our own nuclear weapons.

However I also don't think we should be sacrificing our ability to defend ourselves. The cuts should be made elsewhere if needed.

To right; 25 years ago the cold war was still happening! In about 25-50years who knows what will be happening.

Also having nuclear weapons makes the UK important on an international stage, with in a very diluted way makes me more important at 9p per day I think it's cheap at the price.

For comparison the Trident deterrent costs about the same as 1.5 general hospitals on an annual basis.

Edited by Talksteer on Monday 2nd August 22:09

[HarryW]

Talksteer said:

nonuts said:

We seem to be forgetting a few important things when people are saying 'just get rid of it all', the world changes. 100 years ago we hadn't even started a bun fight with the Germans the first time around... who's to say what the world will look like in 50 years when the oil / clean water / whatever is running out because we're all idiots.

I for one would like us to be able to build, maintain and use our own nuclear weapons.

However I also don't think we should be sacrificing our ability to defend ourselves. The cuts should be made elsewhere if needed.

To right; 25 years ago the cold war was still happening! In about 25-50years who knows what will be happening.

Also having nuclear weapons makes the UK important on an international stage, with in a very diluted way makes me more important at 9p per day I think it's cheap at the price.

For comparison the Trident deterrent costs about the same as 1.5 general hospitals on an annual basis.

Edited by Talksteer on Monday 2nd August 22:09

Exactly

HarryW earlier in the thread said:

.....to[sic] expand the point that its an unpredictable world; Think on this if you believe you know tomorrows answers today - the person or state it could be used against may not even be born yet.

So in a Hyperbole or two; it would be extremely short sighted and a betrayal of our children and their children not to replace Trident for this generations short term monetary savings...........

[s2art]

And perhaps the real issue is that as long as the French have a nuclear deterrent we have to have a better one. Its very simple.

[The real Apache]

HarryW said:

Talksteer said:

nonuts said:

We seem to be forgetting a few important things when people are saying 'just get rid of it all', the world changes. 100 years ago we hadn't even started a bun fight with the Germans the first time around... who's to say what the world will look like in 50 years when the oil / clean water / whatever is running out because we're all idiots.

I for one would like us to be able to build, maintain and use our own nuclear weapons.

However I also don't think we should be sacrificing our ability to defend ourselves. The cuts should be made elsewhere if needed.

To right; 25 years ago the cold war was still happening! In about 25-50years who knows what will be happening.

Also having nuclear weapons makes the UK important on an international stage, with in a very diluted way makes me more important at 9p per day I think it's cheap at the price.

For comparison the Trident deterrent costs about the same as 1.5 general hospitals on an annual basis.

Edited by Talksteer on Monday 2nd August 22:09

Exactly

HarryW earlier in the thread said:

.....to[sic] expand the point that its an unpredictable world; Think on this if you believe you know tomorrows answers today - the person or state it could be used against may not even be born yet.

So in a Hyperbole or two; it would be extremely short sighted and a betrayal of our children and their children not to replace Trident for this generations short term monetary savings...........

Good work, never thought a 'but think of the children' would get a mention in a thread about nuclear deterent funding