Should Britain keep a nuclear deterrent?
Discussion
Given that the cold war is over, and Al Qaida don't have any cities we can nuke, should we scrap Trident missile subs and spend the umpteen billions on stuff like midwives and doctors instead?
I think maybe we should scrap them, and rely on the yanks to do any nuclear blasting that may be required in the future.
What do you boys and girls think?
I think maybe we should scrap them, and rely on the yanks to do any nuclear blasting that may be required in the future.
What do you boys and girls think?
Personally I'd keep a few, slash the numbers of actual people in the army and make the ones that are absolutely neccesary to the security of our shores and make them the best equipped force in the world.
They also wouldnt travel they would be home security not an additional battalion in the worlds police force.
Then, the money left over, could go to other places.
They also wouldnt travel they would be home security not an additional battalion in the worlds police force.
Then, the money left over, could go to other places.
Looking at it another way, can we envisage a situation where we would need to go nuclear but the americans would not? In the event of N Korea getting shirty, etc, can you see a Brit pushing the button before the US? It is kind of like the state of Florida having its own nuclear deterrent, i.e. redundant!
Dr Strangelove said:
What makes you think we have a 'nuclear strike capability' that is actually 'deliverable' to the 'enemy'? If previous forays into 'Strangelove scenarios'are anything to go by, I think you will find our bark is bigger than our
Yep, but knowing your opponent has nucear weapons is still a useful deterrent. If you look at how much happened in the 20th century, how can we possibly predict how the world is going to change in the next 100 years? Countries are sure to rise and fall, whether economically, militarily or both.
GasBlaster said:
Looking at it another way, can we envisage a situation where we would need to go nuclear but the americans would not? In the event of N Korea getting shirty, etc, can you see a Brit pushing the button before the US? It is kind of like the state of Florida having its own nuclear deterrent, i.e. redundant!
Ther may come a time when 'America First' resurfaces and they leave Europe to face any perils alone. Given the flak we give them every day, I wouldn't blame them. 'Why risk American lives saving Europeans?' they'd ask. It's a good question.
>> Edited by simpo two on Monday 14th March 16:50
Eric Mc said:
Don't you think that the Trident subs work then?
Just read a book about the Kursk rescue and recovery operation ("A Time to Die")and the Royal Navy come out of it very well.
Absolutely. British submarine crews are among the best (possibly the best) in the world. The system will work, have no doubt.
GasBlaster said:
Looking at it another way, can we envisage a situation where we would need to go nuclear but the americans would not? In the event of N Korea getting shirty, etc, can you see a Brit pushing the button before the US? It is kind of like the state of Florida having its own nuclear deterrent, i.e. redundant!
The question might be would America feel the need to threaten to nuke a country that only threatens GB or GB's interests? The Falklands situation comes to mind. I would suggest we keep the nuclear option for a while.
GasBlaster said:
The cost of Britains Trident subs is apparently over £12 billion. That is money that could have been spent on health, pensions, transport, etc. Thats a lot of Comic Reliefs!
I would be surprised if this is an annual cost TBH.
Yes I think that we should keep them. Just because we haven't used them and our ‘mates’ have them doesn't mean we should get rid!
rude-boy said:
The cost of Britains Trident subs is apparently over £12 billion. That is money that could have been spent on health, pensions, transport, etc. Thats a lot of Comic Reliefs!
I would be surprised if this is an annual cost TBH.
Yes I think that we should keep them. Just because we haven't used them and our ‘mates’ have them doesn't mean we should get rid!
So would I
That is the original purchase cost-It does not cost that much to keep them going.
Yertis said:
Don't you think that the Trident subs work then?
Just read a book about the Kursk rescue and recovery operation ("A Time to Die")and the Royal Navy come out of it very well.
Absolutely. British submarine crews are among the best (possibly the best) in the world. The system will work, have no doubt.
No doubt about it they are the best and trained to the highest level, trainees on a boat are treated like shite until they qualify regardless of rate or rank. As a point of fact had the Russians asked for help or even disclosed the level of problem (in fairness though they didn't even know themselves :rolleys
there is a very good probabilty that the RN submarine rescue team could have got some survivers off the Kursk. As for the deterent yes abso bloody lutely keep it, the levels of patrol have been down scaled massively in recent years and we now only have one boat at sea at a time and even this is under dicussion to start "sharing" patrols with the French
So there might be times in the none to distant future when our entire independant deterent is along side the wall at Faslane at any one time. What has also changed is the type and quantity of missiles carried, we no longer go to sea with the capability for Armagedon, more like a mixture of tacticals (city killers), non nukes, and a handfull of the big buggers. The world has changed since its inception but the Trident system is flexible enough to have changed with it. Still not heard a valid argument that justifies an independent deterrent.
If the threat is large enough for the UK to go nuclear, then it is large enough that the Americans cannot opt out. I have difficulty in imagining any circumstances in which we would need our own deterrent.
So the increased protection that we get from our own Trident boats (excellent though their crews are), over and above what the yanks already provide, must be absolutely infinitesimal.
Am I right in thinking that we cannot launch missiles without US permission anyway?
No, the more I think about it, the more we should be spending the money on Lois and her colleagues.
If the threat is large enough for the UK to go nuclear, then it is large enough that the Americans cannot opt out. I have difficulty in imagining any circumstances in which we would need our own deterrent.
So the increased protection that we get from our own Trident boats (excellent though their crews are), over and above what the yanks already provide, must be absolutely infinitesimal.
Am I right in thinking that we cannot launch missiles without US permission anyway?
No, the more I think about it, the more we should be spending the money on Lois and her colleagues.
GasBlaster said:
Still not heard a valid argument that justifies an independent deterrent.
If the threat is large enough for the UK to go nuclear, then it is large enough that the Americans cannot opt out. I have difficulty in imagining any circumstances in which we would need our own deterrent.
So the increased protection that we get from our own Trident boats (excellent though their crews are), over and above what the yanks already provide, must be absolutely infinitesimal.
Am I right in thinking that we cannot launch missiles without US permission anyway?
No, the more I think about it, the more we should be spending the money on Lois and her colleagues.
You are assuming that the current situation of the USA guaranteeing Europes security continues.
Given the anti-americanism that is prevelant in Europe and even, to my shame, here in the Uk-they might get fed up and leave us to fend for ourselves.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff