UK to renew Trident nuclear weapons

[Kwasaki]

Not read through thread but my thoughts are with people who support the decision to renew trident are :-

A Nuclear attack from whatever small or large threat breaks out against UK and nuclear missiles are heading for UK so 2 UK Nuclear submarines respond and fire back at wherever they came from.

Oh !! <deleted> great where do the Subs return to then. ?

Why not spend the dosh on developing an intervention device to hack into missile guidance systems to return them from where they came from making them ineffective but i guess that's too hard to do so why not let the world powers obliterate themselves along with the planet.

[Boon Mee]

Read the novel "On The Beach" recently have you?

[mania]

Pick 'em, 1,2,3, in order of likely to use 'em first.

You mean pick 'em who will be 2nd to use them right?

Because we already know who used them 1st right?

[Publicus]

Not read through thread but my thoughts are with people who support the decision to renew trident are :-

A Nuclear attack from whatever small or large threat breaks out against UK and nuclear missiles are heading for UK so 2 UK Nuclear submarines respond and fire back at wherever they came from.

Oh !! F`````` great where do the Subs return to then. ?

Why not spend the dosh on developing an intervention device to hack into missile guidance systems to return them from where they came from making them ineffective but i guess that's too hard to do so why not let the world powers obliterate themselves along with the planet.

an intervention device to hack into missile guidance systems to return them from where they came from

Air Force One has 'em since Reagan and so does the USAF and the anti-missile systems of the US military. So does Israel and a few other high tech allies of the US. They'd be used against ICBMs under numerous specific circumstances but there's still the problem of the ICBMs being nuclear armed. If destroyed before re-entering the earth's atmosphere, then that's better even if it's still not so great. If destroyed in their descent, it could be bad news anyway (varying according to point of downward trajectory on interception).

Good idea though (even if you're a day late and a dollar short so you might want to apply to NASA.

US subs have these countermeasures for enemy torpedoes. The USAF Hawk recon drone has a guidance system that receives all jamming (intercept) messages as instructions to continues the programmed mission. Putin's forces have super high tech too but they're still in a catch up rat race. One saving feature is that Putin won't share what he has with CCP China (just in case ).

[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.

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

I advise. You're saying that is not allowed?

The point is that decisions made by both are dangerous, and this decision comes from the latter.

Nobody is going to launch a nuclear attack the UK. Nukes deter nothing - just as the death penalty doesn't deter murder. The button is pressed in rage, or derangement.

World tension is the problem and tension breeds more tension. The UK should de-escalate by example.

As to cynicism and nihilism though - spot on. I didn't get wise till I stopped believing in all of mankind's nonsense.

[Hammock]

There won't be any winners in the WWW number 3.

[RuamRudy]

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?

I know that I am probably whistling in the wind here, but the ignorance of the above post is exactly what is driving more and more people in Scotland (not only those born there) to want to leave the union.

Why on earth should Scotland thank you for anything? What exactly should we acknowledge? I assume that you are English (forgive me if I am wrong)? Trident is not English but British. It is not paid for by English money but by British money. It isn't even based in England so it is the English who enjoy the security of a defense system that others may have to pay the price for.

Get your head out of your arse. The Great left Great Britain a long time ago, and all you have to look forward to is to be a proud citizen of Little England.

[Chicog]

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.

But it might stop governments slipping nukes to terrorist groups.

[bkkcanuck8]

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.

But it might stop governments slipping nukes to terrorist groups.

What typically stop governments from slipping nukes to terrorist groups is that they are still free agents and many of these governments are also on the terrorist hit list.... give them a few and they might use one against the country that gave it to them (or sell one to another organization that would for funding).

[Publicus]

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.

I advise. You're saying that is not allowed?

The point is that decisions made by both are dangerous, and this decision comes from the latter.

Nobody is going to launch a nuclear attack the UK. Nukes deter nothing - just as the death penalty doesn't deter murder. The button is pressed in rage, or derangement.

World tension is the problem and tension breeds more tension. The UK should de-escalate by example.

As to cynicism and nihilism though - spot on. I didn't get wise till I stopped believing in all of mankind's nonsense.

I advise. You're saying that is not allowed?

Fear not, as this poster was but advising readers that there are (great) risks in cynicism and nihilism, in matters of nuclear weapons especially. (I'd though the fact of offering advice of the danger of 'em combined was obvious.)

So let me say specifically that cynicism and nihilism are inherently destructive...sooner or later. Inwardly and outwardly.

The world tension your post references is a part of everyday life and tension has always been a part of life, to include globally in relations among the other(s). One only adds to his own tension by being hostile toward 'mankind'. It adds the element of distress.

On the Beach and the Mad Max movies entertainment et al were, if anything, advisory not a presentation of the inevitable or the unavoidable. (An English Lit major might tend to take 'em literally however.)

[Boon Mee]

.

On the Beach and the Mad Max movies entertainment et al were, if anything, advisory not a presentation of the inevitable or the unavoidable. (An English Lit major might tend to take 'em literally however.)

Are you saying to all the TEFLER's aboard here with an English Lit Major is somehow substandard?

That they take "Red Dawn" literally as well?

There's a passel of them boys posting on here...

[Kiwiken]

Russia will not disarm while the USA has nukes and vice versa France and the UK have nukes because the USA sparking a nuclear exchange in the case of a major conflagration in Europe is dubious . India and Pakistan have Nukes because they hate each other. Israel has and Iran wants for the same reason. China has them because they distrust both the USA and Russia. Plus India. North Korea has them because they are Nutters. Several other Countries also have them but are not telling. Chances of a Nuclear war very slim. It is really just the most expensive phallic symbol ever kept. Regional squabbles will come and go. Big Nations will continue to Bully smaller Nations. This is Our world. And how it has been for over 5000 years.

I do not lose sleep worrying about WW3 that will only happen in Hollywood and on TV series. Bruce , Arnie and the others will save the Day

[Alive]

The UK must really be in fear to want these. In fact, all of Europe must have much greater fear than the US of war and invasion since you folks are going to be invaded long before the US ever is. That's doesn't seem to be true but it must be. It must. I imagine Europeans fear the communist threat much more than the crazy right wingers in the US. How do you sleep at night? Is it the US bases there that make you forget the red threat? Personally, I think the US should close its bases the UK and Europe or at least make them pay more for their presence, but of course the US military and its suppliers will say no. Military corruption rules. They like all that wasted money going into their pockets.

[Kiwiken]

The UK must really be in fear to want these. In fact, all of Europe must have much greater fear than the US of war and invasion since you folks are going to be invaded long before the US ever is. That's doesn't seem to be true but it must be. It must. I imagine Europeans fear the communist threat much more than the crazy right wingers in the US. How do you sleep at night? Is it the US bases there that make you forget the red threat? Personally, I think the US should close its bases the UK and Europe or at least make them pay more for their presence, but of course the US military and its suppliers will say no. Military corruption rules. They like all that wasted money going into their pockets.

Communists? Are the Cubans and China and Vietnam,lao and Cambodia going to invade Europe? These are the only Communist Countries left. And most of them are more Capital dominated than true Communist. I do not think 62,750 US Military personal dotted between Turkey and the UK pose a deterrent to anyone. More of tokenism. Like the UK the USA is drawing down in Europe why? Because there is no current European threat.

[Ricardo]

The UK must really be in fear to want these. In fact, all of Europe must have much greater fear than the US of war and invasion since you folks are going to be invaded long before the US ever is. That's doesn't seem to be true but it must be. It must. I imagine Europeans fear the communist threat much more than the crazy right wingers in the US. How do you sleep at night? Is it the US bases there that make you forget the red threat? Personally, I think the US should close its bases the UK and Europe or at least make them pay more for their presence, but of course the US military and its suppliers will say no. Military corruption rules. They like all that wasted money going into their pockets.

The UK is the world's most-densely-targeted country, we've lived since the 1980s (and a land-mark BBC-film called "Threads" about what happens when two nukes hit Sheffield) with the wide-spread knowledge that WW3 will not be survivable, and (speaking for myself) yes I really have lived much of my life fearing that it might break out.

For example I saw the banned BBC-film "The War Game" when at school, and later spent fifteen-years living just-down-the-road from RAF-Manston, which was (and probably still is thanks to its disused-runway) on the target-list.

But the major fear seems to be on the decline, nukes are gradually being scrapped by the major powers, and South Africa even chose to dismantle its own half-dozen weapons, an example to the rest of us ? The threat of M.A.D. got us through the Cold-War era alive, that's now history, Thank God !

Having got through those dangerous decades, we now know that owning nukes will not save us from terrorist-attacks like 9/11, or cyber-attack from the PRC's military, or religious-hate-crimes like Nice & Paris. So should we continue to put our faith and borrowed-money, after the current-fleet wears out, in one new nuclear-armed sub on-patrol (supported by three more on maintenance/rest/training) to deter attack, or should we switch tactics and spend the money on other defence-measures ?

Lastly just to point out that the USA has already pulled-out most of its UK-bases & assets years ago, as the Cold-War threat declined, and that our own military/industrial complex (aka BAe) also likes juicy contracts like this one.

[JDGRUEN]

I find this debate on this subject to be pointless. Of all the most serious and numerous other problems we face - this one is least imminent. This back and forth is a waste of time as it could do nothing to deter a problem.

[ddavidovsky]

I advise. You're saying that is not allowed?

Fear not, as this poster was but advising readers that there are (great) risks in cynicism and nihilism, in matters of nuclear weapons especially. (I'd though the fact of offering advice of the danger of 'em combined was obvious.)

So let me say specifically that cynicism and nihilism are inherently destructive...sooner or later. Inwardly and outwardly.

The world tension your post references is a part of everyday life and tension has always been a part of life, to include globally in relations among the other(s). One only adds to his own tension by being hostile toward 'mankind'. It adds the element of distress.

On the Beach and the Mad Max movies entertainment et al were, if anything, advisory not a presentation of the inevitable or the unavoidable. (An English Lit major might tend to take 'em literally however.)

More inherently destructive is political and religious dogma.

As to tension - I don't recall in the past having to remove items of clothing just to get on a plane.

You are creating a fake world to suit your own failed theories. It's called cognitive dissonance. You've actually devised an argument to the effect that anyone who disagrees with you is not entitled to an opinion. Is it any wonder I am cynical of human twaddle?

Go ahead, have the last word. I'm sure you crave it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.

[Boon Mee]

What's the problem?

Those Sweatys in and around Holy Loch need the jobs?

Edited July 21, 2016 by Boon Mee

[Rancid]

Seems many in the UK military think they are too expensive to maintain and a really a leftover tech from the cold war. Apparently drone subs are well on the way and will be able to track and destroy these monoliths. Personally I wonder who these nukes are a deterrent against? If NATO and Russia are mad enough to go at each other, a few more bombs from the UK really won't make any difference to the uninhabitable radioactive slag our planet would become.

The argument about jobs is a bit shallow, same jobs would be created by building conventional warships. Also military infrastructure has no net benefit to GDP, building roads, ports etc does as it makes the economy more efficient, there is a long term net return o the investment. As always look to who benefits financially.

I remember when I was a young whippersnapper, the Labor parties were anti-war, these days they seem to be full of people biting at the bit to get the workingman's children into body-bags. How the times change...

[Basil B]

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.

May not have 4 subs to sell by the time the new subs come on line...

Sub drivers are not as careful as they used to be:

UK nuclear submarine collides with merchant vessel off Gibraltar

One of the UK's newest nuclear-powered submarines has docked in Gibraltar after a collision with a merchant vessel during a training exercise.

The Royal Navy said it has launched an immediate investigation after HMS Ambush was involved in the "glancing collision" while submerged off the coast of the British territory.

-- BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36852365

[dick dasterdly]

Seems many in the UK military think they are too expensive to maintain and a really a leftover tech from the cold war. Apparently drone subs are well on the way and will be able to track and destroy these monoliths. Personally I wonder who these nukes are a deterrent against? If NATO and Russia are mad enough to go at each other, a few more bombs from the UK really won't make any difference to the uninhabitable radioactive slag our planet would become.

The argument about jobs is a bit shallow, same jobs would be created by building conventional warships. Also military infrastructure has no net benefit to GDP, building roads, ports etc does as it makes the economy more efficient, there is a long term net return o the investment. As always look to who benefits financially.

I remember when I was a young whippersnapper, the Labor parties were anti-war, these days they seem to be full of people biting at the bit to get the workingman's children into body-bags. How the times change...

Its a 'power trip' for politicians.

On the other hand, nuclear weapons can't be un-invented unfortunately - so of course all countries are going to want these last resort weapons .

The non-proliferation treaty has always made me laugh as those with nuclear weapons try to stop other countries from gaining them....

There are examples of leaders in supposedly civilised Western countries who would have been as happy to use a nuclear bomb as the USA - if they had them at their disposal.

Things are even worse now that a few countries have the 'nuclear deterrent'.

[RabC]

Seems many in the UK military think they are too expensive to maintain and a really a leftover tech from the cold war. Apparently drone subs are well on the way and will be able to track and destroy these monoliths. Personally I wonder who these nukes are a deterrent against? If NATO and Russia are mad enough to go at each other, a few more bombs from the UK really won't make any difference to the uninhabitable radioactive slag our planet would become.

The argument about jobs is a bit shallow, same jobs would be created by building conventional warships. Also military infrastructure has no net benefit to GDP, building roads, ports etc does as it makes the economy more efficient, there is a long term net return o the investment. As always look to who benefits financially.

I remember when I was a young whippersnapper, the Labor parties were anti-war, these days they seem to be full of people biting at the bit to get the workingman's children into body-bags. How the times change...

Please support your comments about many UK military thinking it's too expensive, also without referring to Comrade Corbyn can you give any proven facts about these amazing new drone subs?

I don't think you can supply facts for either because they are both pieces of CND propaganda.

[Neurath]

The English want and need this Trident System to deter Scottish independence and to stop Tonga from leaving The Commonwealth.

[xineohp]

"... these days they seem to be full of people biting at the bit to get the workingman's children into body-bags".

What an unfortunate turn of phrase and particularly distasteful to all those who have lost loved ones whilst serving their country. "Workingman's" graphically displays your heavy and totally unfounded bias of which nothing could be further from the truth.