Trident, yay or nay?

Maniac leader from virtually any country in the world? How many countries do you think have nuclear weapons?

At the end of the day of the situation you've come up with there did happen (it wouldn't), the US would retaliate on our behalf. But retaliating and killing more innocent people wouldnt achieve anything.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:1. who is it supposed to be deterring?

Maniac leader (can be from virtually any country in the world) wakes up one morning and decides it's a good day to nuke a western power.

"Hmmm, shall I choose USA? No, they would nuke the shit out of us in retaliation. The UK then? No, they'd do the same. Belgium it is then."

An excellent argument for staying in the EU and putting forward a motion for a European deterrent and a European army.

After all we currently spend more on defence pro rata than any of our European colleagues, so we're bound to make a saving when the cost is spread - leaving us with more dosh to spend on the good stuff like health, education and looking after an ageing population.

wanderlust wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:Are you sure it's 100 Billion?
Barrow and the North West will take the biggest hit on jobs. Approx 200 constituencies do work in the defence industry.

Could be. I do know our total national expenditure is around £850 billion per annum so spread over a few years it wouldn't have a catastrophic impact on the economy.

Quite shocking talk from someone who has been on the warpath about the economy recently.


About £40 billion and 30,000 jobs is what replacing Trident is worth.

If Successor didn't go ahead  £30+ Billion wouldn't suddenly appear in the treasury coffers. And it isn't the enemy you know today that is worrisome, it is the enemy you don't know tomorrow. Taking today's perceived enemy would anyone like to guess how many Russian incursions into UK airspace there are in a month? And how they used to just overfly the Atlantic north off Scotland and how they now breach UK airspace around Cornwall and the Channel? I know nuclear weapons wouldn't be used in these scenarios but Putin and Russia are getting more aggressive rapidly. As yon bloke said, "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

In what scenario would Putin fire a nuclear bomb at the UK though? And why would the threat of an American retaliation to Russian aggression toward one of their closest allies not be a deterrent?

bwfc1874 wrote:Maniac leader from virtually any country in the world? How many countries do you think have nuclear weapons?

Possibly more than we think in 5-10 years.

Highly unlikely given the UN Security Council's (of which we are part) strong response to any state developing nuclear weapons.

Let's take North Korea for instance, why would they attack us? They'd know the US would destroy them. Take the money and invest it in our intelligence services and the armed forces which as Copper pointed out earlier are creaking under lack of funding.

bwfc1874 wrote:Highly unlikely given the UN Security Council's (of which we are part) strong response to any state developing nuclear weapons.

Let's take North Korea for instance, why would they attack us? They'd know the US would destroy them. Take the money and invest it in our intelligence services and the armed forces which as Copper pointed out earlier are creaking under lack of funding.

Do you wear cardigans?

Nah it's too hot at the moment, t shirts and jeans only.

Topless for me. Six pack glistens in the sun

bwfc1874 wrote:In what scenario would Putin fire a nuclear bomb at the UK though? And why would the threat of an American retaliation to Russian aggression toward one of their closest allies not be a deterrent?

Accidental weapon release? Putin incursions become blatant and he starts to have his aircraft fly in a threatening manner into European airspace, an itchy trigger finger in Belgium, Holland, Italy, Germany fires a SAM  and brings down one or more aircraft. From there it escalates and France and the UK would become involved. We have nuclear weapons so Putin would be having second thoughts but if we didn't have them? I know it's a made up scenario but that is how things generally happen. I can't say too much but there have been one or two warmish incidents in the last few years.
Of course it could also be North Korea, Iran or Israel but as long as we can retaliate in kind then we are more safe.

If that's the most realistic scenario you can come up with them I'm sorry I think it only proves my point. If an accidental weapon release could be escalated to a nuclear stand off then even more reason to worry about them.

And what about the point regarding the US deterrent we'd still hold?

Putin, that fat bastard from Korea, Iran, ISIS, who knows where the threat will come from? The capability has provided security all my life and I won't delude myself that the money saving will be spent wisely elsewhere, I'll take the jobs!

bwfc1874 wrote:If that's the most realistic scenario you can come up with them I'm sorry I think it only proves my point. If an accidental weapon release could be escalated to a nuclear stand off then even more reason to worry about them.

And what about the point regarding the US deterrent we'd still hold?

Ffs are you Corbyn's grandson? That fcuking useless twat shows tolerance to the intolerant!!

On ISIS though SK - why would a group as barbaric and destructive as them give a shit about our perceived retaliation if they were to use a weapon on us? (Which is a massive leap in their capabilities let's remember). 

They would not give a shit so the whole point of a deterrent is foregone.

North Korea aren't capable of firing a missile that far (at this point granted) but again the US's retaliation is a deterrent for them, Russia and Iran (who don't have nuclear weapons by the way).

Soul Kitchen wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:If that's the most realistic scenario you can come up with them I'm sorry I think it only proves my point. If an accidental weapon release could be escalated to a nuclear stand off then even more reason to worry about them.

And what about the point regarding the US deterrent we'd still hold?

Ffs are you Corbyn's grandson? That fcuking useless twat shows tolerance to the intolerant!!

So an accidental weapon release escalating to a nuclear stand off is in your view -

A: A reasonable escalation ?
B: A likely enough scenario for us to own nuclear weapons?

Personally I don't. And holding that view doesn't make anybody a 'hippy' or overly tolerant or even a hater of Britain as I heard earlier! They're legitimate questions we're entitled to ask given the magnitude of the topic.

Fair enough if you think it could never happen. Or that the three ICBMs on Russian radar were only "False" when a radar officer couldn't believe it thus never pushed the button.. I'm at the hot end and can't say too much. We don't hold a US deterrent. We have our own, in the case of government inaction the Royal Prerogative can be used to pass the order. We do lease Trident from the US but keep our own controls. Did you know Germany at one time had Dual-Key A1 Pershings? Not that that really made Germany a nuclear power, not really. Google the "Letters of last resort," Mrs May has to write to the submarine commanders

I'm well aware of the letters of last resort and I can't perceive any situation where any Prime Minister would ever use them. I suggest you read up on the Cold War Russia testing our responses is nothing new and whilst we should be wary there's no reason to believe Putin will fire a nuclear weapon at us.

Do you agree that ISIS would not be deterred by our deterrent?

Do you agree that Putin would be wary of a US reaction before he decided to fire a nuclear weapon at us?

There you go , teaching Granny to suck eggs. ISIS would not, neither would North Korea or even Iran, though there are some who think they didn't advance their program enough. And honestly I don't need to read up on Russian Cold War tactics. That was too long ago, but in the here and now they are getting a bit shirty and they've already proved they will do what they want apropos Ukraine. Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion.

I stated who knows where the threat will come from, not will they be arsed or not!
Anyway you're entitled to your opinion and I've better things to do than talk about the inevitable renewal of the nuclear deterrent.