UK Trident nuclear missile programme

[wjfox]

In these difficult economic times, should the Trident nuclear missile programme be scrapped? Some estimates put the cost of replacement at over £35bn, a large chunk of our national budget. Then again, the world is entering dangerous times - and we need a good deterrent against certain existing and potential threats.

Discuss... and please vote in the poll above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme

[wjfox]

Clegg says no to Trident renewal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8104238.stm

[Caiman]

Yes we need to maintain our deterrent. Though such euphemisms annoy me.

[belfastuniguy]

I don't like nuclear weapons and the message they portray. However I live in the real world and getting rid of the nuclear deterrent of the UK is really not a sensible decision.

[TSRJames]

Originally Posted by wjfox

Clegg says no to Trident renewal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8104238.stm

He would say that, but he doesn't have to really have a sensible position on it as any decisions will not be up to him, so he’s just off to get the vote from the usual student/CND members, most of whom don’t realise that we would have had WW3 if it wasn’t for nuclear weapons, I’m almost certain of that (as much as I liked being at Uni, I didn’t like a lot of people there as I’m always complaining about them! My mates were realistic about the world though. )

We need to keep the deterrent. Yes, it will cost over £35bn but that is over a long period of time. To remove it would be irresponsible and short sighted. Yes nuclear weapons are horrific, but it is that fact that means (up to now) they have only been used on two occasions – which did save many American, British and Commonwealth lives as the proposed invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall did not happen.

We should have also replaced the Vulcans with B-1Bs in the late 1980s and maintain the role of strategic bombing and power projection for the RAF (this may have helped reduce some of the various troubles between the RN and RAF with the carriers we are having now) and we should never have got rid of the RAF/FAA tactical WE.177s in 1998 either.

[livin' hull]

interesting BBC spin! - in the full speech, it seems the LibDems are not getting rid of the deterrant but Trident... (but even that would be open to a vote)

"He suggested it might be possible to equip Astute class submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk land attack missile. He also suggested Britain, like Japan, could retain a stockpile of safeguarded fissile material that could be turned into a nuclear missile within six to 24 months."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ats-nick-clegg

-----

wasnt aware that Japan kept such a stockpile though!

[RiffRaff]

Tossers.....every time the economy takes a downturn, these fuckwits crawl out of the woodwork and start wanting to take the hatchet to the defence budget.....

They are so fucking predictable.....

Edit:

Bollocks.....pressed wrong button on poll question....of course i support Trident.

[madjackmcmad]

Absolutely we need Trident. Can we be certain that the world will be stable in 20 years from now?

Nuclear weapons are designed never to be used but they also mean that this country has not faced the realistic threat of invasion for 60 years.

Anyway we need them to protect us from the French

[gettheoldboyout]

We should look for a cheaper option, maybe that involves Astute class as Clegg alluded to, I don't have naval expertise so couldn't say. Nuclear arsenal isn't sacrosanct and therefore shouldn't be immune from budgetary constraints, which we as a country will have to face up to in the next 5-10 years. In an ideal world I'd rather we scrap them altogether as I believe "developed nations" like USA and UK possessing these weapons only encourages so called "rogue states" such as Iran and N Korea to develop their own making the world a more dangerous place. We can hardly lecture others on the wrongs of having nuclear weapons when we possess our own. If we truly want a peaceful, united world in future then one day we'll have to agree to scrapping these weapons as part of a global agreement, with every country accepting the futility of nuclear war and ergo the futility of the weapons themselves.

Sadly that utopia looks more remote than ever.

Shite i meant yes i support it and i put no in the poll! how stupid am i? I'd hate to imagine what would happen to this country if we scrapped a deterrent.

[TSRJames]

Originally Posted by gettheoldboyout

We should look for a cheaper option, maybe that involves Astute class as Clegg alluded to, I don't have naval expertise so couldn't say. Nuclear arsenal isn't sacrosanct and therefore shouldn't be immune from budgetary constraints, which we as a country will have to face up to in the next 5-10 years. In an ideal world I'd rather we scrap them altogether as I believe "developed nations" like USA and UK possessing these weapons only encourages so called "rogue states" such as Iran and N Korea to develop their own making the world a more dangerous place. We can hardly lecture others on the wrongs of having nuclear weapons when we possess our own. If we truly want a peaceful, united world in future then one day we'll have to agree to scrapping these weapons as part of a global agreement, with every country accepting the futility of nuclear war and ergo the futility of the weapons themselves.

Sadly that utopia looks more remote than ever.

But the developed nations would never use them as an offensive weapon. However, I’m sure North Korea (and to a lesser extent Iran - I don't think they are that stupid) would think about it.

Sadly, I don’t think we can get rid of them now. If everyone decommissioned them, then you can guarantee that one ‘rouge’ nation would secretly develop warheads and keep them. Some stable nations should have them in my opinion to prevent this – a deterrent. The fact that NATO and the Warsaw Pact had them prevented WW3, and the same is with India and Pakistan. However, they are (at the moment) also reasonably responsible states, unlike some that are trying to possess them.

It may not be seen my many as the best way of doing things, but it's certainly the most responsible way.

[Rob]

Could have done with more options in the poll really as I couldn't choose any. I'm sure we need to keep a credible nuclear deterrant, but I think a cheaper method is needed. I would suggest stretching out the life span of the current Vanguards and Tridents for as many years as we can, as militarily they're still sound and do the job and will be for many years to come, it's just a case of keeping them going for longer. When replacement does become necessary, can we have less than four boats, or use a cheaper platform? Perhaps go back to an air launched nuclear deterrant as we (the allied nations) will dominate the air for the forseeable future.

[TSRJames]

I can't see the problem in keeping the current delivary system. France has multiple systems (sub and air) and maintains the third largest nuclear force. Next year they will have 4 ballistic subs and they still have the 60 ASMP medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads (50 for air force and 10 for navy). If France can do it (they had a triad up until 1997), then why can't we?

[gothicform]

yes. and the french also have done it themselves without the americans involvement. right now our independent nuclear deterrent isn't... the submarines even have to sail to the USA to get loaded up with the warheads, with polaris we maintained the missiles but now we don't even do that. i believe britain should maintain an *independent* nuclear deterrent, not one that relies on any other country. it should be added that 38% of trident is money we pay the americans, anyone want to give american defense companies 13.3 billion quid?

[Bob]

Plenty of nations get by without the burden of these expensive projects. I'd cut it immediatelly.

For a half way option I think we should work with the French for a combined deterrent. 4 subs between the two countries would be ample. I know the Yanks wouldn't jump at this, but a combined French/British/American deterrent could be a long term aim and really a security blanket against the nut jobs run globally could work.

My point though is that the UK developing it's own is utterly wastefull and wreaks of the cold war mentality which has long gone. It's backward, dated thinking. Just as conventional wars are much less likely, I think nuclear ones are too. Humans are inventive, and there are plenty of new ways to wage war on your enemies through technology or disease. Power is more about economics than phsical prowess than ever before. We might as well talk about new armour for the cavalry. The UK needs to get with the 21st century war fashion, it ain't nuclear.

[gothicform]

i think if countries like iran and north korea can develop missiles we can too we might even be able to use some existing designs and just stick warheads in them. of course, if we can do that what's the need for any submarines? actually why don't we also have some some land based silos?

[Bob]

I understand subs are popular because they have that sneaky, peek-a-boo, nuke-you factor. Four is the minimum to guaratee one is always hidden on patrol. So why not just share four with as many countries as possible?

Isn't it a bit strange that economically advanced countries without nuclear weapons have no desire to develop them? Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan etc. etc.

What makes us so different?

Is it that we just don't want to give up perceived power?

[tuten]

The only 'official' countries with nukes are the winners of world war 2, i.e not Germany, japan or italy

[TSRJames]

Originally Posted by Bob

I understand subs are popular because they have that sneaky, peek-a-boo, nuke-you factor. Four is the minimum to guaratee one is always hidden on patrol. So why not just share four with as many countries as possible?

Isn't it a bit strange that economically advanced countries without nuclear weapons have no desire to develop them? Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan etc. etc.

What makes us so different?

Is it that we just don't want to give up perceived power?

Actually, in some ways Japan do but won't unless they have to, and they hold a stockpile of weapons grade material just in case. Germany, Italy and Spain did during the Cold War (US leased B61s). Even Sweden had their own nuclear weapons programme and bomber programme. And Canada had US nukes too (even AIR-2 Genies!!). They don't really need them because they have no worldwide commitments, so have a very European based, tactical military structure. They have little or no strategic military equipment.

[Bob]

lots of "dids" and "hads" there.