Renewing Trident?

[Chinahand]

Gordon Brown has come out in favour of the UK updating its Trident Nuclear missiles and submarines: BBC Story

 

The UK has a Treaty Commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to reduce and eventually phase out its nuclear deterent (link). In actual fact this has sort of occurred with the UK reducing its nuclear weapons stock piles significantly since the end of the cold war ... but with real politic will the UK ever really reduce its nuclear stock to an extent it undermines its deterent abilities?

 

Updating Trident will more than likely significantly increase the power and reach of the UK's nuclear arsenal ... is this a good thing in an uncertain world, or does it just encourage the likes of North Korea and Iran to try to get the Bomb as well?

 

What do people think?

[ermo]

Ask yourself this... Did Trident stop the Argentineans invading the Falklands, bring a halt to ethnic cleansing in the Balkans or force Saddam back into fold?

 

This is what gets me about this country, We can’t afford to fund the NHS but we can afford to give £25BN to the US for system we don’t even own... It would seem there's always enough money for war

 

Tad hypocritical too…. I mean we scold the likes of Iran for pursuing nuclear weapons whilst we upgrade our ‘own’… Maybe its time we led by example.

[Rog]

The ONLYargument against investing in a 'son of Trident' is that though we have the means to address the barbaric of this world we consistently fail to use it.

[Static]

The ONLY argument against investing in a 'son of Trident' is that though we have the means to address the barbaric of this world we consistently fail to use it.

 

I take it Rog that you feel we should have "bombed the bastards" years ago? Suppose it depends on your politics and personal hatreds as to which ones the bastards are, doesn't it? If I had my way I'd wipe both the Israeli and Palestinian controlled parts of Israel off the planet to put a stop to a lot of the tensions in the middle-east.

 

So what would you suggest then....drop a nuclear warhead on Tehran? Or Libya? Or wherever else people that you don't like live. Maybe that's what the USA should have done with Castro years ago?

 

Just dropping a warhead on Tehran would contaminate a lot of the middle east, just look at the effects of Chenobyl 20 years on. And where would Bush get his oil then if most of the middle east was contaminated?

 

You can sometimes post quite intelligent responses on here which though not agreeing with you I can respect because they are well thought out. In this case you're posting reactionary shit mate.

 

And I wouldn't waste any money on a "son of trident" as the USA has enough of a nuclear arsenal to "protect" all of us threefold.

[Rog]

I take it Rog that you feel we should have "bombed the bastards" years ago? Suppose it depends on your politics and personal hatreds as to which ones the bastards are, doesn't it? If I had my way I'd wipe both the Israeli and Palestinian controlled parts of Israel off the planet to put a stop to a lot of the tensions in the middle-east.

 

That shows that you don’t even start to understand the issues involved.

 

So what would you suggest then....drop a nuclear warhead on Tehran? Or Libya? Or wherever else people that you don't like live. Maybe that's what the USA should have done with Castro years ago?

 

Just dropping a warhead on Tehran would contaminate a lot of the middle east, just look at the effects of Chenobyl 20 years on. And where would Bush get his oil then if most of the middle east was contaminated?

 

 

Well there’s another subject that you plainly know nothing about – the difference between the nuclear chain reactor in meltdown and consequential releases (from Chernobyl) and the releases from a nuclear explosion!

 

Anyway, maybe not on tehran (at least not at first) but how about on one of their nuclear instalatiosn? Or a high altitude burst and let the EMP send a message?

 

You can sometimes post quite intelligent responses on here which though not agreeing with you I can respect because they are well thought out. In this case you're posting reactionary shit mate.

 

There’s a time and a place where being reactionary is precisely the right stance to adopt, especially when dealing with an enemy who is 1300 years behind modernity. Then there is a need to communicate in a language that he understands.

 

Let’s just think through what might have happened if the West HAD used nuclear armaments in (say) the Suez crisis. The moslem brotherhood would have been given a real slap that would have put their ambitions at least on hold rather than being tacitly condoned as they saw what took place.

 

Then there’s the matter of the Mau Mau wars in Kenya for another example of where a single nuclear device could well have changed the direction and the outcome of the fighting. The ONLY open issue would have been the reaction of the USSR as it might have escalated the Cold war but who can really say at this time.

 

And I wouldn't waste any money on a "son of trident" as the USA has enough of a nuclear arsenal to "protect" all of us threefold.

 

But would they actually do so?

 

The situation during WW2 wasn’t what was promoted in the press both during and especially post WW2.

 

For a good six months it was only that the UK was effectively powerless and neutralised and not worth the cost of overrunning that kept her Schickelgruber and his forces from invading as we were simply no longer worth bothering with. Especially with the main chance – Russia – the destruction of which and subsequent acquisition of lebensraum which was after all one of his primary war aims being on the table having protected his back by the successes of the war to date in Europe..

 

The US simply kept SELLING us materials until Japan bombed Pearl Harbour leaving Adolph with no alternative other than to declare war on the US. Our preservation during WW2 is far more down to the Russian sacrifices than the interest in us by the US up to that point. People often forget the more than 25 MILLION war dead suffered by Russia against an invading Germany.

 

I remain convinced of the need to retain our nuclear arsenal though I also recognise that it is a strategic weapon that has little use when the battlefield is on our own soil as is increasingly the situation today. There we are not only massively unarmed but actually disadvantaged by our own laws that, in conjunction with the damm fool sign-up to the ECHR leaves us with laws that hinder us and help our enemy.

 

It will be --- interesting --- to see what happens as the UK economy increasingly falters due to it being built of the sand of massive and unsustainable debt and domestic social tensions build ad eventually erupt – as they will – and along not just social but now ethnic lines.

Yes, we need son-of-Trident, but now mostly thanks to Bleah we need much more besides.

 

Starting with walking away from the ECHR.

[Static]

Quite detailed reply Rog and what I would normally expect from you. I don't agree with your viewpoints (very often they I have once or twice) but I do respect the general intelligence of your arguments. What you put forward here, though covering lots of areas, is a lot better than your one-liner that I replied to. but then my reaction prompted a decent reply from you which was what I was after.

 

I don't pretend to fully understand the conflict in Palestine, I only really know what I have seen on the telly and read in articles (and of course the multiple posts in the past from yourself and others). My comment was throwaway to get the reaction that it did.

 

Nuclear warheads versus meltdowns - again got a reaction, there was some ignorance from me on the contamination but I don't see how any of the examples you quote would have been stopped by nuclear weapons. They may have actually provoked the USSR into reacting.

 

1300 years behind modernity...unfortunately Islam does seem to have got stuck in the past though 1000 years ago they were more culture advanced than we were.

 

Mau Mau wars in Kenya - I dn't know a great deal about this area of history but wasn't tis the Kenyan people fighting for their independance beasue the great occupying power who they had fought in WWII wouldn't give them their independance? WTF would nuclear weapons have achieved here?

 

and what does the European Convention on Human Rights have to do with a Nuclear deterrant?

 

Tell you what, I'm glad your finger was nowhere near the magic button during any of the past cold war crises. we wouldn't be here now if it had.

[LoneWolf]

I voted yes for this.

Possession of a nucleur deterrent is, in my opinion, essential, if Britain is to survive in what looks to be a much more dangerous world than during the cold war years.

Politically unstable countries now the have the ability and the will to acquire nucleur weapons and we must assume some of them already have or will soon have those weapons.

I believe Britain has demonstrated over many years it knows how to utilise its deterrent in the best interests of everyone.

The world would be a much more dangerous place if Britain wasnt in possession of nucleur weapons (IMHO)

[VinnieK]

Ask yourself this... Did Trident stop the Argentineans invading the Falklands, bring a halt to ethnic cleansing in the Balkans or force Saddam back into fold?

 

No, but to imagine that they would have, or could be used in such a capacity is to completely misunderstand the policy that surrounds a nuclear deterrant.

 

Everybody, including potential aggressors know that any rational country would never deploy nuclear warheads in an offensive capacity except in the most desperate of situations. There are all manner of reasons why to do so would be counter productive, including the political (both domestic and international) consequences of mass casualties and needless deaths of innocents thanks to an irresponsible use of nuclear weaponry. Nuclear weapons are crucial for two purposes:

 

1. As a deterrant to other potentially hostile nuclear states.

 

2. In a desperate situation where the only recourse is to use nuclear weaponry to destroy large military complexes, vital infrastructure, and potentially 'shock' the enemy into capitulation.

 

In none of the examples you cite was the United Kingdom at an immediate risk that could not be solved by conventional means (the preferred choice). The Falklands weren't big enough to wipe out thousands of people in the blink of an eye, nuking serbia would have defeated the purpose of waging war to save the lives of innocents, whilst Iraq (as demonstrated) could easily be conquered by less controversial warfare. Nuclear weapons are a highly specialized supplement to conventional warfare, not a replacement or a magic wand, something that all states, including Argentinia and Iraq are and were aware of.

 

 

This is what gets me about this country, We can’t afford to fund the NHS but we can afford to give £25BN to the US for system we don’t even own... It would seem there's always enough money for war

 

It's necessary to spend money on defensive and offensive capabilities. No quantity of warm fuzzy thoughts is going to change that for the immediate future.

 

Tad hypocritical too…. I mean we scold the likes of Iran for pursuing nuclear weapons whilst we upgrade our ‘own’… Maybe its time we led by example.

 

That's to make the error of assuming that the UK government and that of Iran are morally equivalent. Despite whatever anyone may think about the Iraq war, the fact is that the UK government still derives its authority from the people and can be held accountable by its electorate for its mistakes.

 

Iran on the other is a theocratic police state that has called for the assassination of people who offend its sensibilities (famously Salman Rushdie, but also everyone who worked on his book 'The Satanic Verses', some of whom have been killed by people acting on the Ayatollah's fatwa), and has pledged itself to working towards the complete destruction of Israel and violent slaughter of its populace, and answers to nobody but itself.

 

I voted yes.

[P.K.]

Voted yes. These days it's more of a political statement than a military one.

 

When proliferation is taking place in non-democratic societies e.g, China, N Korea, Iran then I think you have to have the ultimate means to deter. Having said that the likes of China and N Korea can easily figure out that any celebrations over a first strike are not liable to last for long. Like VinnieK it's the religious nutters who don't care and might even sacrifice their countries to Glorify Allah that are the worry.

[ermo]

Ahhh, So maybe that's the idea the UK bankrupts itself buying weapons it wont ever use and countries like Iran see our example and spend their money on RPGs etc instead.

 

Of course it's an independent deterent, we can use it whenever the USA say.

[VinnieK]

Ahhh, So maybe that's the idea the UK bankrupts itself buying weapons it wont ever use and countries like Iran see our example and spend their money on RPGs etc instead.

 

No, the idea is to buy weapons it hopes never to use, but may, god forbid, find itself in a situation where it has to. A one off (excluding maintenance costs) payment of £25 Billion is hardly going to bankrupt Britain, since it's annual budget revenue is over thirty times that amount.

 

Also, do you really believe it is the case that Britain's 'bad example' is leading poor innocent Iran astray?

 

Of course it's an independent deterent, we can use it whenever the USA say.

 

Where are you getting the idea the the USA have control over British nuclear deterrent policy? Just because you buy a pair of shoes from a shop instead of making them yourself doesn't then mean that the shop owner can tell you when and where you can use them. Of course Britain's not going to start slinging nukes all over the place without considering international opinion, which includes the USA, but that's no bad thing.

[ermo]

Where are you getting the idea the the USA have control over British nuclear deterrent policy? Just because you buy a pair of shoes from a shop instead of making them yourself doesn't then mean that the shop owner can tell you when and where you can use them. Of course Britain's not going to start slinging nukes all over the place without considering international opinion, which includes the USA, but that's no bad thing.

 

 

Times Online

The FPC report says that Britain’s independent deterrent is an illusion. The missiles are stored in the United States and have to be collected by a British submarine before it goes on patrol.

 

Aldermaston is run by a consortium headed by Lockheed Martin, a US company, and there are 92 Americans working there, including the managing director and four of his senior managers.

 

“The UK should cease to try to keep up appearances and adopt a policy based on the reality that it is not an independent nuclear power,” the FPC report concludes. “Trident should not be replaced and should be phased out now.”

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2081800,00.html

 

 

 

I also found this which is quite an interesting read

 

UK Parliament - Memorandum from Dan Plesch

 

6. There has long been a general understanding amongst specialists that while Trident is a US missile system, its independence can be sustained by two ideas. These are that Trident can always be fired independently and that the warheads are independently British. My evidence is that the facts do not sustain these propositions.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...6-i/ucm0202.htm

[VinnieK]

That doesn't then mean that the US has control over the UK's use of the missiles. The article fails to recognise that nuclear retaliation would only come after a significant period of mounting tensions and brinkmanship between the UK and an aggressor. If it came to this, UK submarines would be patrolling and ready to deploy, fully armed, nearly 24 hours a day, i.e. their warheads wouldn't be in storage. If anything it's not that bad a deal - in a serious nuclear war, the first target of any hostile nation's missiles is primarily it's opponent's own stash of nuclear warheads. The present arrangement goes someway to appeasing those who object to Britain having a nuclear deterrant on the basis that it then makes the UK a target, without seriously compromising the strategic value of Trident.

 

In any case, this is irrelevent, surely. Would you be any happier if the UK was investing billions in developing and manufacturing missiles themselves, and storing them on British soil? If you're opposed to nuclear weapons on principle, then what do the specific arrangements matter?

[ermo]

"Today's British submarines need US generated computer software, some supported by US satellites, to provide navigational, weather and targeting data."

 

"If Britain retains a US sourced nuclear capability for the twenty first century then it is not reasonable to expect that Britain could use it in circumstances where the US were either actively neutral as in 1940 or actively opposed as in 1956 at Suez, let alone where the US were an adversary. Such circumstances are as undesirable as they are unlikely, and yet this is precisely the test that an independent force must pass to be worth the expenditure of financial and political capital."

 

The current & the proposed sytem is utterly reliant on US sourced parts, manpower, software & targeting data...

Hardly independent. What if the US were to become an adversary (unlikely I know) or we went to war with a US client state? would the US switch our deterent force off? disable access to the targetting data etc?

 

So I suppose the only form of independent deterrent would have to be a home-grown one.

[Ringwraith]

There is always 1 fully armed UK nuclear submarine on patrol ready to deploy it's weapons.