Replace GB Nuclear Deterrent or not?

[Bernie Gunther]

Why does the UK keep buying this stuff?

Perhaps because the US has to sell it to someone, to spread the development costs, and the one nation servile and obedient enough to be trusted is the UK?

Just a thought.

 

[shagnasty]

i am not in favour of nuclear weapons but are there not cheaper options that a sub based deterent

 

[Wilson]

nuclear deterrent is such a shit expression,

i would replace it, with a peice of mouldy beetroot

 

[weltweit]

i would replace it, with a peice of mouldy beetroot

But Wilson under what conditions would you be prepared to use it?

 

[Dhimmi]

But Wilson under what conditions would you be prepared to use it?

Against Salad Hussein maybe?

 

[dylanredefined]

i am not in favour of nuclear weapons but are there not cheaper options that a sub based deterent

The best option for a country like the uk is the submarine based missle .At least one submarine is always at sea .So hard to attack and unlike bombers or silo missles no way of getting a first strike in,but,Who is pointing missles at us ?
That needs to be detered?

 

[JTG]

Don't think anyone's mentioned yet that we can't use the fuckers without the say so of the White House. Independent deterrent my backside.

Of course we should get rid of them. And the army, air force and navy too.

 

[greenbrain]

Never mind £25 billion, more realistic estimates including ongoing maintenance are more like £60 billion; and as for being independent it would be locked into the US satellite positioning system and could therefore never be used against the most dangerous power on the planet.
And has been said by previous respondents it would be useless as a deterrant against stateless terrorist groups.
To add American language to the American billions and the American guidance system this really is a 'no-brainer'

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Don't think anyone's mentioned yet that we can't use the fuckers without the say so of the White House. Independent deterrent my backside.

Of course we should get rid of them. And the army, air force and navy too.

Well, I think it's probably a sensible idea to retain the ability to defend oneself credibly, but that is very different from what one needs for 'power projection'

There was quite an interesting discussion of what a force designed purely for self-defence would look like, on a thread a year or two ago. The basic idea was that if you aren't going to go invading other countries, what you need is different, and probably a fair bit cheaper.

 

[likesfish]

Well, I think it's probably a sensible idea to retain the ability to defend oneself credibly, but that is very different from what one needs for 'power projection'

so thats puts the end to any UN peacekeeping ops or evacuations etc etc

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> so thats puts the end to any UN peacekeeping ops or evacuations etc etc

Well, the other side of the discussion I'm referring to was about just that. The suggestion under discussion was to put the power projection stuff, strategic transport etc, directly under the control of some international body and pay for it jointly with a bunch of other nations, who would all have to agree before it got used.

In the case of tsunami relief say, agreement wouldn't most likely be a problem. In a case such as invading Iraq however, clearly it would.

Obviously the US would not want to play and would want to try to subvert or bully such a system as they do the UN, but if you start thinking about what an 'ethical' defence policy might look like, something like that could be a possible way to implement it.

 

[Gmart]

Some have suggested that we need this option. The obvious question is, when might we use it?

The answer is never! As there would always be the possibility of not using it. The kind of people who might use it are not governments, but extremists, and what better way to raise the chances of them getting their hands on it than buying another version.

It is sadly right that we will buy it from the Americans tho. And THEY would be the ones who will be unhappy if we cancel it.

We would never need it, we would never use it, so the only reason to have it is to make insecure, weak individuals feel more secure, or to make the politicians feel they are strong statesman on the world stage.

25 billion!! (or 60 billion as Greenbrain points out!)

Remember that the next time they say they haven't got enough money for something important.

 

[likesfish]

as the military have been fobbed off with cheap ammo (cause our own ammo producing factories have been sold off.) theres a shortage of rifle grenades light armour and helicopters not too mention transport planes I think they should come first and blow the nuclear willy waving.
don't see why we should subsidise yank nuclear missiles

 

[Giles]

Just in case what Giles, under what circumstances should GB use nuclear weapons against an enemy?

If the UK were to become involved in a war where we felt it necessary to really destroy the enemies cities, industry etc.

It is not possible to predict the future. If the UK's vital interests were to be threatened, or if another country attacked the UK or its forces in a serious way, we could turn their capital city into a radioactive car-park.

Giles..

 

[Gmart]

I think that you would find that our leaders would hesitate unless the case was clear cut, in which case the world would have ended and so it wouldn't matter.

60 odd billion down the drain...

 

[likesfish]

hopefully startegic bombing has gone.
before you drag in afgan and iraq compare contrast baghad and dresden

 

[dylanredefined]

Once trident is at sea the yanks really have no say on wether we fire it or not
Probably wouldnt sell us a replacement if we decided to drop one on boston or Israel but there is no way they can stop the missle other than killing the sub or
the missle in flight.Though we are dependent on them for refurbishing the missles
Once its loaded in a sub its up to our government if it gets launched.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Perhaps because the US has to sell it to someone, to spread the development costs, and the one nation servile and obedient enough to be trusted is the UK?

Just a thought.

Keep planting seeds, Bernie.

What we lack now is a salesman.

 

[Gmart]

This discussion reminds me of an episode of Yes Prime Minister when Jim Hacker is asked the same questions about using a nuclear weapon and he gives the same answers as some here, ie "as a last resort".

However his Minister of Defence gave him a realistic example and he realises that actually there would always be a chance of NOT firing the missile and thus he would not. Then followed an episode about him using the money to solve some of the UK's many problems only for the Civil Service to manipulate him into buying the missile anyway.

Apologies to anyone who doesn't know this programme, all the more funny because it was/is so close to real life!!

Watch while the politicians are whipped into submission and all this money is paid to our American Allies for a system we don't even want and would probably NEVER use!!

 

[dylanredefined]

" Its the nuclear missle system that harrods would sell "
"but its too exspensive and we dont need it"
"well you could say that about anything harrods sell"

classice lines .

 

[weltweit]

According to the news tonight it seems Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have already made the decision that Trident is to be replaced but with perhaps 160 rather than 200 warheads.

UK nuclear weapons plan unveiled
.......
Tony Blair has told MPs it would be "unwise and dangerous" for the UK to give up its nuclear weapons.
.......
The prime minister outlined plans to spend up to £20bn on a new generation of submarines for Trident missiles.

link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6205174.stm