On 1/9/2026 at 11:08 AM, 3NUMBAS said:

Trumps subs are said to be lurking near Russian waters ,Putin wouldn’t be crazy to do it. His mouth pieces will get em in trouble

the position of a strategic sub is irrelevant these days with intercontinental missiles, that was just nonsense by trump,

and if it wasnt, then its even worse, because that would then be a cue where an american sub is lurking

No indigenous Brits will sign up to fight for Starmer so he'd be better off keeping his mouth shut.

He's on his own unless he can get his "new" British imports to fight for him. Highly unlikely they are here for the welfare. Here to take not to give.

Good luck Keir.

57 minutes ago, candide said:

Right, only one is permanently out, and 2 in period of crisis.

Please share your source stating that it's that easy to spot nuclear submarines. It's not what I read.

You are so incensed that anyone would challenge your fantasy that you now invent phrasing. I did not state that it is easy to spot a nuclear submarine. It is difficult, but it is possible. Russia laid down sensors to track the UK submarine individual noise signatures. The oceans are criss crossed with US and Russian submarine acoustic listening devices. NATO, China and Russia regularly patrol their offshore waters using submarine hunting aircraft. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yl2729nmjo

Inflammatory post removed

@daveAustin

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

You are so incensed that anyone would challenge your fantasy that you now invent phrasing. I did not state that it is easy to spot a nuclear submarine. It is difficult, but it is possible. Russia laid down sensors to track the UK submarine individual noise signatures. The oceans are criss crossed with US and Russian submarine acoustic listening devices. NATO, China and Russia regularly patrol their offshore waters using submarine hunting aircraft. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yl2729nmjo

It is difficult but possible. OK.

Can a country rely on the probability that it will identify and destroy the other country's nuclear subs before sending nukes to that country?

Nukes are still a fool's game - regardless if one country's payload can be delivered faster. Retaliation will still happen and will be devestating to all players - and the future of the world in general.

On 1/10/2026 at 2:39 PM, Patong2021 said:

And you are assuming that the UK submarine fleet is fully operational. The UK has 4 submarines armed with nuclear missiles. Only 1 is at sea at any given time. The other 3 are in port for maintenance or training or budget constraints.

The Russians track their enemies and it is a very good certainty that before any Russian attack, the UK submarine would be identified and neutralized. The 3 other submarines would never leave port, having been neutralized. The UK does not have a nuclear deterrent force.

For sure, 2 out of the 3 subs will still be able to launch a part of their nukes.

On 1/10/2026 at 3:19 PM, candide said:

Russia has not been attacked and no one intends to attack it. It's Russia attacking and threatening other countries. 😀

With all due respect I think you have that wrong. NATO seems to be pushing for war with Russia. (Without going into all the other previous discussion on it) Britain and France saying that they will put (peace keeping) forces into Ukraine when there is a peace agreement is a guarantee not to have one. Putin would be a fool to agree to that and he is not one.

1 hour ago, 300sd said:

With all due respect I think you have that wrong. NATO seems to be pushing for war with Russia. (Without going into all the other previous discussion on it) Britain and France saying that they will put (peace keeping) forces into Ukraine when there is a peace agreement is a guarantee not to have one. Putin would be a fool to agree to that and he is not one.

There can be no lasting peace if there are not enough guarantees to prevent Putin from invading Ukraine again later.

Of course, Putin doesn't agree with real guarantees.

On 1/10/2026 at 1:05 PM, malibukid said:

i want to fly to Thailand at Mach 30

If you have the underwear for it , then go for it.

9 hours ago, Harry Vibhavadi said:

For sure, 2 out of the 3 subs will still be able to launch a part of their nukes.

How so? If the submarines are in drydock or not fully manned or in training mode and are subject to a pre-emptive strike, they are not going to be sending a retaliatory strike. The one vessel at sea will have its letter of last resort that it can use to authorize launch assuming it is aware of the Russian attack. That's assuming it has not been neutralized by a Russian hunter killer submarine or anti submarine missile. The UK's nuclear deterrent is a pipe dream because the fleet is not large enough. This may change in a few years, but until then it is a delusion.

2 hours ago, candide said:

There can be no lasting peace if there are not enough guarantees to prevent Putin from invading Ukraine again later.

Of course, Putin doesn't agree with real guarantees.

Then it's a vicious circle isn't it? Like I said, they know Putin would not agree to that! Putin did agree to the Minske Agreement. The West never honoured it.

15 minutes ago, 300sd said:

Then it's a vicious circle isn't it? Like I said, they know Putin would not agree to that! Putin did agree to the Minske Agreement. The West never honoured it.

Russia signed the agreements, but never respected them. Actually, Russia claimed several times that it was not party to the agreement in order to reject any responsibility.

Seriously, who can trust Putin and be stupid enough to accept an agreement signed by Putin without strong security guarantees?

Yanks should wipe out Moscow.

5 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Yanks should wipe out Moscow.

Let's not get too far ahead. Let's just start with Trump standing up to Putin. Just when was the last time Trump make a strong statement against Putin and then retracted after he called.

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Let's not get too far ahead. Let's just start with Trump standing up to Putin. Just when was the last time Trump make a strong statement against Putin and then retracted after he called.

Words do nothing. Say nothing. Just destroy Moscow.

42 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

How so? If the submarines are in drydock or not fully manned or in training mode and are subject to a pre-emptive strike, they are not going to be sending a retaliatory strike. The one vessel at sea will have its letter of last resort that it can use to authorize launch assuming it is aware of the Russian attack. That's assuming it has not been neutralized by a Russian hunter killer submarine or anti submarine missile. The UK's nuclear deterrent is a pipe dream because the fleet is not large enough. This may change in a few years, but until then it is a delusion.

One sub only with forty nuclear heads. It's not a lot but enough to nuke Russia's largest cities.

Same question as previously. It's not impossible to detect a nuclear submarine but it's difficult. Can a country rely on the probability that maybe it will be able to detect a submarine which will nuke it in retaliation, in order to launch a nuclear attack?

BTW, as far as I remember, if radio signals stop (for example if the country due to send these signals is destroyed), the letter of last resort is opened and the nukes are sent.

5 hours ago, candide said:

One sub only with forty nuclear heads. It's not a lot but enough to nuke Russia's largest cities.

Same question as previously. It's not impossible to detect a nuclear submarine but it's difficult. Can a country rely on the probability that maybe it will be able to detect a submarine which will nuke it in retaliation, in order to launch a nuclear attack?

BTW, as far as I remember, if radio signals stop (for example if the country due to send these signals is destroyed), the letter of last resort is opened and the nukes are sent.

A submarine could have 100 warheads and won't make a difference if it is destroyed. The Russians would eliminate the submarine at sea prior to a direct attack on the UK. A detected event such as a failed strike could be walked back with an oopsie because the UK would be afraid to pursue a retaliatory strike. The UK still relies on the VLF systems which means that its submarine must deploy a communications buoy to communicate with admiralty. Russia has the means to block such communications. Deploying a buoy also makes it easier to identify a submarine. You may find this article helpful

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/can-russia-track-natos-submarines

We can thank the Germans for facilitating the Russian tracking ability because Germany allowed the purchases of the equipment through shell companies that were owned by Russian agents. This was occurring even as Russia. invaded the Ukraine. It is part of the reason why Trump is a baddas s to Europe and doesn't have much use for NATO. Germany, a member of NATO was putting profit before principle.

https://www.uawire.org/russia-s-harmony-undersea-sensor-network-built-with-western-gear-tracks-nato-submarines-in-the-arctic

21 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The Russians would eliminate the submarine at sea prior to a direct attack on the UK

Again, it's absolutely not certain that they find it. What if they don't find it? They wait for days, weeks, months before sending nukes?

13 minutes ago, candide said:

Again, it's absolutely not certain that they find it. What if they don't find it? They wait for days, weeks, months before sending nukes?

Yes. The Russians are patient. They are like a cat waiting for the mouse to appear. And yes, it is never certain that the Russians will identify a target, but they have invested billions of Euro equivalents in the process, and I expect they did get something in return for that investment. I jusat hope we never have to find out. The UK's deterrence should not depend on 1 lone submarine to be the deterrent.

15 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Yes. The Russians are patient. They are like a cat waiting for the mouse to appear. And yes, it is never certain that the Russians will identify a target, but they have invested billions of Euro equivalents in the process, and I expect they did get something in return for that investment. I jusat hope we never have to find out. The UK's deterrence should not depend on 1 lone submarine to be the deterrent.

It's true that UK (and France) have not invested enough for their defense.

Having said that, it's worse in other European countries, even if it's a pale consolation.

On 1/9/2026 at 6:50 PM, Cameroni said:

I'm no weapons expert, but I suspect it may be harder to stop a nuclear missile than a French knight.

Just saying.

Correct, And I am also not a weapons expert, but I would guess we have access to slightly more advanced technology today than the English bowmen at Agincourt had in 1415 if I get the year correct.