UK to renew Trident nuclear weapons

[webfact]

MPs vote to renew Trident weapons system

LONDON: -- MPs have backed the renewal of the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system, voting 472 to 117 in favour in Parliament.

The vote approves the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told MPs nuclear threats were growing around the world and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries".

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36830923


-- BBC 2016-07-19

[xineohp]

"...and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries". That together with an attack nuclear submarine sure put doubts in the minds of the Argentine junta.

[Alive]

Sounds like a military coup in UK! Military industrial complex wants money now! War forever was Hitler's idea but the Allies like this idea too.

[Tchooptip]

OK !....THEY inspired the Thai Navy demand

[eliotness]

Having the dubious pleasure of coming from Barrow-in-Furness, this is good news for the workforce there. All they need now is for Scotland to vote to leave Great Britain and Barrow can build all the conventional warships the Royal Navy needs as well. Bad for the Clyde, good for Barrow ☺

[Boon Mee]

Excellent decision. Have to prepare for the next 'big one' you know is coming...

[Mr Moo]

Having the dubious pleasure of coming from Barrow-in-Furness, this is good news for the workforce there. All they need now is for Scotland to vote to leave Great Britain and Barrow can build all the conventional warships the Royal Navy needs as well. Bad for the Clyde, good for Barrow ☺

Westminster should make sure that ALL contracts are awarded to facilities South of the border at least until Scotland can decide where their loyalties lie.

Don't want cheap imported labour brought in by the EU working on sensitive projects.

[colinneil]

Well thats good UK renewing/replacing Trident.

Four surplus subs for the Thai navy to buy

[mania]

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told MPs nuclear threats were growing around the world and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries".

And yet if say Iran wanted something similar for similar reasons it would be .........ooooooooohhhhh no you cannot have that

AND if you try to have that we will let Israel...who btw has that...blow you up

Typical BS

[Baerboxer]

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told MPs nuclear threats were growing around the world and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries".

And yet if say Iran wanted something similar for similar reasons it would be .........ooooooooohhhhh no you cannot have that

AND if you try to have that we will let Israel...who btw has that...blow you up

Typical BS

Yeah, Iran that well known stable country of peace and openness.

Perhaps stopping the funding and encouragement of terrorist attacks on Israel might be start. Along with threatening to seize international waters and attack shipping whilst trying to distabilize the region to promote it's own brand of Islam.

Rabid animals get treated accordingly.

[mania]

Yeah, Iran that well known stable country of peace and openness.

Perhaps stopping the funding and encouragement of terrorist attacks on Israel might be start. Along with threatening to seize international waters and attack shipping whilst trying to distabilize the region to promote it's own brand of Islam.

Rabid animals get treated accordingly.

I think Iran's actual track record stands better than many who claim to be the "good guys"

All I am saying is when it comes to Nukes it should be either none or all

Good fences make good neighbors for the same reason the OP claims helps them "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries".

Funny you make mention of Israel & international waters.... Same Israel ? USS Liberty ship?

Seizing International Waters? Same Israel? Gaza?

Like I said actual track records vs claims of this & that

Edited July 19, 2016 by mania

[Kiwiken]

"...and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries". That together with an attack nuclear submarine sure put doubts in the minds of the Argentine junta.

I think two humungus new Aircraft carriers help too

[Grouse]

"...and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries". That together with an attack nuclear submarine sure put doubts in the minds of the Argentine junta.

I think two humungus new Aircraft carriers help too

I don't think so

We don't have enough other ships to support

A few more hunter/killer submarines would be more effective

Also, the aircraft will be American F35? Not the greatest....

[mommysboy]

Regrettably, I think it might be better if new trading arrangments on all commercial matters excluded Scotland. The UK has to think about its own interests now. Small third party countries such as Scotland will be of no interest.

Edited July 19, 2016 by mommysboy

[boomerangutang]

31 billion pounds for some weapon systems and not one pence to try and save the less-than-half-dozen dugongs left on Thailand's coasts. Whoops, sorry, that's Thailand-related. Still, extinction is permanent.

[MaxYakov]

Mutually-assured destruction, nuclear deterrence style, will not work with suicidal fanatics who want to take a lot of people with them when they go.

Edited July 19, 2016 by MaxYakov

[daveAustin]

Good news. I'm no war mongerer -- look to the time we can move on from bombs and the monetary system -- but giving up the nukes right now is not the way. Those who say countries like Iran have the right to them because we have them are living in cloud cuckoo land.

As for the jocks; they will do everything to oppose what the rest of the UK want but are irrelevant to be quite frank. They sit there twiddling their thumbs all the while enjoying the security and protection that being a nuclear power brings. I don't want thanks, but a simple acknowledgement once in a while would be nice. Can we swap them for the Norwegians?

[jerojero]

Well thats good UK renewing/replacing Trident.

Four surplus subs for the Thai navy to buy

Yep. Just like the sh1t subs they sold to Canada a dozen years ago. One sub couldn't make the initial Atlantic voyage, breaking down before reaching Canada.

[ddavidovsky]

Not sure which is more dangerous, the lunatic individual, or the insecure crowd.

March on, march on, ye lemmings. Not far to the cliff.

[Ricardo]

Total waste of money, which the dis-united-kingdom can little afford, they'll also cost a couple-of-billion a year to operate ... yet the UK can't find half-a-billion a year for its cheated expat-pensioners, and still runs a massive spending-deficit every week ?

And don't tell me about lost jobs in shipyards or weapons-manufacture, it would be cheaper to just pay them all a living-wage for life, to not do anything.

It would have been better IMO to retire the current subs, at the end of their life (several to ten years more ?), and not replace them.

Our own moral gesture (remember them ?) to nuclear-arms-reduction. As if a nuclear-war was ever 'win-able' in any meaningful sense anyway !

But no, Gordon Brown's wet-dream of the UK remaining a global-military-power goes on, and is still supported by the vast majority of MPs and the new Conservative-administration. But we're not that important anymore, the Empire is long gone, get over it guys !

Theresa May MP wouldn't hesitate to push the Big Red Button, well that's because she's sitting in a nice rural nuclear-bunker, you or I would not be.

Happily my taxes won't be supporting this.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Ricardo

[eliotness]

Well thats good UK renewing/replacing Trident.

Four surplus subs for the Thai navy to buy

4 Nuclear subs, get real. The subs we sold to Canada were not nuclear either. People need to be better informed before making sweeping statements.

[eliotness]

Total waste of money, which the dis-united-kingdom can little afford, they'll also cost a couple-of-billion a year to operate ... yet the UK can't find half-a-billion a year for its cheated expat-pensioners, and still runs a massive spending-deficit every week ?

And don't tell me about lost jobs in shipyards or weapons-manufacture, it would be cheaper to just pay them all a living-wage for life, to not do anything.

It would have been better IMO to retire the current subs, at the end of their life (several to ten years more ?), and not replace them.

Our own moral gesture (remember them ?) to nuclear-arms-reduction. As if a nuclear-war was ever 'win-able' in any meaningful sense anyway !

But no, Gordon Brown's wet-dream of the UK remaining a global-military-power goes on, and is still supported by the vast majority of MPs and the new Conservative-administration. But we're not that important anymore, the Empire is long gone, get over it guys !

Theresa May MP wouldn't hesitate to push the Big Red Button, well that's because she's sitting in a nice rural nuclear-bunker, you or I would not be.

Happily my taxes won't be supporting this.

Well I will tell you about lost jobs. The workforce in Barrow was reduced from over 15,000 to under 5,000 in a very short time frame. That devastated the town that has been providing the Royal Navy with ships since before the 1st World War. Do you even realise what it means for a town of 70,000 to virtually overnight have 10,000 put on the dole. The sub in the Falklands was built in Barrow. HMS Sheffield, sunk in the same conflict was built in Barrow. One of the aircraft carriers was built in Barrow. Barrow earned billions of pounds over the last century building ships for other navies, just ask the Japanese, the Israelis, the Chileans, to name but a few. Barrow was subject to heavy bombing in WW2 and the people there are under no illusion if WW3 ever happens Barrow is a prime target, more so because Sellafield is just a few miles up the coast. Living on the dole as you wish them to do, means people lose pride, lose dignity, lose self respect. I don't know where you come from, but would you wish the same for your school mates, your friends and your family ?

[mania]

Good news. I'm no war mongerer -- look to the time we can move on from bombs and the monetary system -- but giving up the nukes right now is not the way. Those who say countries like Iran have the right to them because we have them are living in cloud cuckoo land.

I understand the thinking caused by fear mongering I do...........But if we look at what fruit falls from a tree instead of

what fruit we think...imagine...hope a tree may bare

Well then we see the only country that has ever used multiple nukes on civilian populations are not those we are led to fear.

So these that have committed atrocities we continue to trust with such devices????

If they want such things as a deterrent it is fine yes?

Because well although they have a terrible track record...Still we can imagine others yet to be factual records will be worse yes?

555

This thinking is well placed in a Thai forum...fits in rather nicely

Edited July 20, 2016 by mania

[Ricardo]

Total waste of money, which the dis-united-kingdom can little afford, they'll also cost a couple-of-billion a year to operate ... yet the UK can't find half-a-billion a year for its cheated expat-pensioners, and still runs a massive spending-deficit every week ?

And don't tell me about lost jobs in shipyards or weapons-manufacture, it would be cheaper to just pay them all a living-wage for life, to not do anything.

It would have been better IMO to retire the current subs, at the end of their life (several to ten years more ?), and not replace them.

Our own moral gesture (remember them ?) to nuclear-arms-reduction. As if a nuclear-war was ever 'win-able' in any meaningful sense anyway !

But no, Gordon Brown's wet-dream of the UK remaining a global-military-power goes on, and is still supported by the vast majority of MPs and the new Conservative-administration. But we're not that important anymore, the Empire is long gone, get over it guys !

Theresa May MP wouldn't hesitate to push the Big Red Button, well that's because she's sitting in a nice rural nuclear-bunker, you or I would not be.

Happily my taxes won't be supporting this.

Well I will tell you about lost jobs. The workforce in Barrow was reduced from over 15,000 to under 5,000 in a very short time frame. That devastated the town that has been providing the Royal Navy with ships since before the 1st World War. Do you even realise what it means for a town of 70,000 to virtually overnight have 10,000 put on the dole. The sub in the Falklands was built in Barrow. HMS Sheffield, sunk in the same conflict was built in Barrow. One of the aircraft carriers was built in Barrow. Barrow earned billions of pounds over the last century building ships for other navies, just ask the Japanese, the Israelis, the Chileans, to name but a few. Barrow was subject to heavy bombing in WW2 and the people there are under no illusion if WW3 ever happens Barrow is a prime target, more so because Sellafield is just a few miles up the coast. Living on the dole as you wish them to do, means people lose pride, lose dignity, lose self respect. I don't know where you come from, but would you wish the same for your school mates, your friends and your family ?

"Living on the dole as you wish them to"

Please re-read my post, I said that it would be far cheaper to pay them their normal on-going wages to do nothing, not to throw them on the dole.

Do you really expect the modern-day country to pay for un-needed useless nuclear-armed subs out of their taxes, just to keep the workers in jobs which don't contribute anything useful anymore ? It's the deep-coal-mining industry, all over again. No dignity or self-respect in make-work !

I'm sorry if my views offend you, but this is the modern-day, when we don't even have enough local patrol-boats & frigates to guard our own shores properly, when we build new aircraft-carriers knowing that it'll be a decade before we have anything to fly off their decks, and when the RN has great difficulty in manning what it does have left.

Better to build replica wooden warships, which might be good for tourism, or a museum showing the proud history of Barrow, to which you rightly allude, as they did at my own local ex-naval-port of Chatham.

[Ricardo]

The UK has zillions of quid to send to countries that don't know what to do with it in aid, has sent zillions of quid to bolster EU countries that don't know what they are doing, but our nuclear arsenal that costs us zillions of quid have kept us safe for a long time..

Famous last words ?

The truth is that in any proper nuclear war, we're all toast, whether we have these subs or not. Who needs revenge, after we're all dead ? Not me.

The UK simply cannot afford this stuff anymore, it's all being funded with borrowed-money, and one day that will need to be repaid, with interest.

This vote costs 31-Billion, plus a couple-of-billion a year to maintain the fleet, to protect 5,000 jobs ... simply no case, on that basis.

Better to invest scarce & valuable capital in growth-industries, especially as we try to rebuild the economy after Brexit, you can't live on a proud history forever.

As I already said earlier, the Empire is Gone !

Time to look to the future, whatever it might be, not the past.

All just one man's opinion.

Edit to add, the "zillions of quid" that have "kept us safe for a long time", that is all 'sunk-cost' and history now, the renewal of our nuclear-armed fleet is a 'future-cost', and the question is whether one submarine on-station on-patrol will deter a likely aggressor or not. I don't think it will ... either they nuke us, as an aside in a global exchange, or they don't have that war at all.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Ricardo

[Publicus]

Sounds like a military coup in UK! Military industrial complex wants money now! War forever was Hitler's idea but the Allies like this idea too.

Nine countries have nuclear weapons so it might instead be fair to say nine military-industrial complexes and to leave Hitler out of it.

China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, UK, USA, Russia. Beyond this, Iran is trying hard.

Pick 'em, 1,2,3, in order of likely to use 'em first. The list would be predictable and UK would be at or near to the bottom of it.

Not sure which is more dangerous, the lunatic individual, or the insecure crowd.

March on, march on, ye lemmings. Not far to the cliff.

Cynicism exceeded only by nihilism. In respect of normal people, lead, follow, or get out of the way plse thx.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Publicus

[Publicus]

UK can do this and must do this so good on them. It strengthens UK independently as well as an integral part of Nato.

MAD remains as a deterrent, however, the problem of this century is with the small tactical nuclear weapons, the ones smaller yet more lethal than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Not Putin himself but Putin's top thugs in the Kremlin have spoken of dropping a small tac nuke on a place such as Vilnius then move Russian troops in to take over -- what's Nato to do?

If CCP Dictators dropped a tac nuke on Taipei, what's the US to do? (Or on a smaller city in Taiwan?)

The world continues to need the MAD 'understanding' but it's the 21st century deranged mind and its ways around MAD, or so they believe as avoiding MAD, that is perhaps the more immediate concern.

It is also the case that the four new UK 'boomer' subs means Russia and CCP China have to expend resources to maintain their own posture. (Despite the constant whining of the rightwhingers UK is in a superior fiscal and financial condition versus Russia or CCP China.)

[MaxYakov]

UK can do this and must do this so good on them. It strengthens UK independently as well as an integral part of Nato.

MAD remains as a deterrent, however, the problem of this century is with the small tactical nuclear weapons, the ones smaller yet more lethal than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Not Putin himself but Putin's top thugs in the Kremlin have spoken of dropping a small tac nuke on a place such as Vilnius then move Russian troops in to take over -- what's Nato to do?

If CCP Dictators dropped a tac nuke on Taipei, what's the US to do? (Or on a smaller city in Taiwan?)

The world continues to need the MAD 'understanding' but it's the 21st century deranged mind and its ways around MAD, or so they believe as avoiding MAD, that is perhaps the more immediate concern.

It is also the case that the four new UK 'boomer' subs means Russia and CCP China have to expend resources to maintain their own posture. (Despite the constant whining of the rightwhingers UK is in a superior fiscal and financial condition versus Russia or CCP China.)

"Not Putin himself but Putin's top thugs in the Kremlin have spoken of dropping a small tac nuke on a place such as Vilnius then move Russian troops in to take over -- what's Nato to do?"

The first thing I thought of was: Source, please?

The second thing I thought of was to get some opinions, such as HERE at quora.

It seems that a tactical nuclear attack (by Russia) is being discussed in terms of a "de-escalation" effort by the Russians when/if Russia were being overwhelmed by a conventional attack - not as a "first strike" attack by Russia. North Korea ... that could be another story, eh?

The third thing I thought of was:

Your "surprise" tactical nuclear attack on a city would have not much allure or value to a nuclear power. Why destroy a city with a tactical nuke, even a small one, if you could simply invade a country using conventional weapons? The invasion challenge to NATO or SEATO would be the same and it wouldn't be a tactical nuke response either. The invading country wouldn't have the onus of a "surprise nuclear attack" on them, the risk of a nuclear retaliation (probably on its military installations) as well and the risk of having such a potential tit-for-tat escalation that could get out of control.

The fourth thing I thought of was (or was it the first thing?):

Another of Publicus' inflated, poorly-conceived dramas punctuated with the usual "hip" terms such as "tac nuke".

Edited July 20, 2016 by MaxYakov

[Publicus]

UK can do this and must do this so good on them. It strengthens UK independently as well as an integral part of Nato.

MAD remains as a deterrent, however, the problem of this century is with the small tactical nuclear weapons, the ones smaller yet more lethal than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Not Putin himself but Putin's top thugs in the Kremlin have spoken of dropping a small tac nuke on a place such as Vilnius then move Russian troops in to take over -- what's Nato to do?

If CCP Dictators dropped a tac nuke on Taipei, what's the US to do? (Or on a smaller city in Taiwan?)

The world continues to need the MAD 'understanding' but it's the 21st century deranged mind and its ways around MAD, or so they believe as avoiding MAD, that is perhaps the more immediate concern.

It is also the case that the four new UK 'boomer' subs means Russia and CCP China have to expend resources to maintain their own posture. (Despite the constant whining of the rightwhingers UK is in a superior fiscal and financial condition versus Russia or CCP China.)

"Not Putin himself but Putin's top thugs in the Kremlin have spoken of dropping a small tac nuke on a place such as Vilnius then move Russian troops in to take over -- what's Nato to do?"

The first thing I thought of was: Source, please?

The second thing I thought of was to get some opinions, such as HERE at quora.

It seems that a tactical nuclear attack (by Russia) is being discussed in terms of a "de-escalation" effort by the Russians when/if Russia were being overwhelmed by a conventional attack - not as a "first strike" attack by Russia. North Korea ... that could be another story, eh?

The third thing I thought of was:

Your "surprise" tactical nuclear attack on a city would have not much allure or value to a nuclear power. Why destroy a city with a tactical nuke, even a small one, if you could simply invade a country using conventional weapons? The invasion challenge to NATO or SEATO would be the same and it wouldn't be a tactical nuke response either. The invading country wouldn't have the onus of a "surprise nuclear attack" on them, the risk of a nuclear retaliation (probably on its military installations) as well and the risk of having such a potential tit-for-tat escalation that could get out of control.

The fourth thing I thought of was (or was it the first thing?):

Another of Publicus' inflated, poorly-conceived dramas punctuated with the usual "hip" terms such as "tac nuke".

This is about UK and its Trident nuclear armed submarines which makes Putin and his nukes relevant and very probably material, to include Nato which any possible successor government to the UK would continue in its membership. So while there is a risk of going somewhat off topic, your related post requires some direct response.

As to your confused point number one here's a source: The article refers to a piece by Andrei Piontkovsky who is described at Foreign Policy by Jeffrey Tayler as a “former executive director of the Strategic Studies Center in Moscow and a political commentator for the BBC World Service. ..

Not a massive launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States or Western Europe, which would bring about a suicidal atomic holocaust, but a small, tactical strike or two against a NATO member that few in the West would be willing to die to protect.

Remember that tactical nuclear weapons, as opposed to strategic — the big ones — have a much lower yield, though, of course, they’re still devastating. Tayler continues.

Piontkovsky surmises that, in such a conflict, the nuclear-armed country with the “superior political will” to alter the geopolitical “status quo” and — most importantly — with the “greater indifference to values concerning human lives” would prevail. Any guesses which country that would be?

http://fpif.org/putin-defeat-nato-nukes/

As to your point #2, I'd read that some time ago which is why it is clear your point is, if Putin feared a nuclear attack by Nato in the event Putin were already losing a conventional war. The point I make is that Putin does this with no such factor involved. Putin does it on his own because he wants to do it.

Your third point is addressed by the quote in this post, i.e., Putin is both bold and mad. He'd initiate a lone and single tactical nuclear attack on a minor Nato city, such as in the Baltics, in his firm belief he'd paralyze Nato by such a lunatic move. This proposition would be consistent with the mindset of the Putin fanboyz who had touted the Brics before they collapsed and who try to sell Putin as a master strategist and genius chess player. The fanboyz are as contorted as Putin himself is.

In short, you're missing a lot about Valdimir Putin that others who have connections with him relate to others, particularly to those concerned with Putin's ego and grandiose and fringe nature. So do try to keep up plse thx.

[Boon Mee]

Sounds as if K. Publicus is doing a Dr. Strangelove on this thread?