Trident - Should It Be Updated Or Not?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Rog seems to be obsessed with tactical nukes and using them at every opportunity. I'm the opposite - these are weapons of last resort for use in existential struggles. Will the UK be involved in any such struggles over the next 30 years - who knows. Will Taiwan, Israel, the Baltic Republics, Kuwait etc. If the UK or our allies and partners are threatenned with Tyranny I think we have a duty to stand up against this tyranny.

I definitely agree but I don't think this requires deterrence with nuclear weapons. Deterrence was an overly complicated and somewhat flawed strategy of the Cold War, the extent of its utility is unclear but it is uniquely a Cold War strategy.

Britain's intentions with Trident are that if SOMEHOW there emerges a problem that SOMEHOW cannot be solved with diplomacy or conventional forces then SOMEHOW we can threaten ot even more shockingly use these weapons to resolve the problem. This sort of thinking sounds unsure to me and I do not think nuclear weapons stocks should be held when Britain does not even have an idea of whether they are useful or not.

 

Also if we have nuclear weapons in the face of such uncertainty on their use that only draws attention to the importance we place on them. If Britain has the bomb then why not Iran? Or any country for that matter. It justs strikes me Chinahand that you condone upgrading Trident but feel non-proliferation is important. You either have one or the other.

 

The situation with China-Russia and India-Pakistan is one of balance by each having nuclear weapons. In these respects it is hardly a factor in deciding their spats. With Britain the future is uncertain. We are a declining country relative to a lot of others and maybe this is a way of maintaining a cheaper defence force but it is an impractical one.

 

 

There is not going to be anything tactical about the Trident system. Trident centres around strategic capabilities.

 

Also Chinahand you mention that nuclear weapons make wars less likely but I do not see how this is true.

 

Crumbling vestigates of "our" [thought you were a proud manxman Lonan3!] status as a world power - interesting. The UK is a small country, we've found that trade and openness have provided us great wealth - there was some stealing along the way, but far more building - as a result we are far more at risk from external shocks than the huge continental countries that have made the world's history in the last century and which will make it in this.

 

Why do you say this?

 

A hard one, but far more connected with regional instability than the UK maintaining its capablilty

 

...and this? In neither case can I see your point.

[Gladys]

We haven't used the nuclear missiles we have yet so it seems a bit rich to want more.

 

In order to use them up I suggest the following Targets:

 

Swindon

Slough

Jurby

Heysham

France

The Big brother house (and Emdamol's headquarters)

Evil dictators Mugabe, Bush and Blair

Gary Glitter

and Jamie Oliver

 

Once these have been nuked and we have bought our new missiles I should be consulted for a new list.

But the pratice runs should be on Norwich.

[Lonan3]

But the pratice runs should be on Norwich.

Intelligence sources suggest that you'll find your intended target has moved to an underground bunker in Tenerife. Best to target both, just to be on the safe side.

[Chinahand]

Crumbling vestigates of "our" [thought you were a proud manxman Lonan3!] status as a world power - interesting. The UK is a small country, we've found that trade and openness have provided us great wealth - there was some stealing along the way, but far more building - as a result we are far more at risk from external shocks than the huge continental countries that have made the world's history in the last century and which will make it in this.

 

Why do you say this?

 

A hard one, but far more connected with regional instability than the UK maintaining its capablilty

...and this? In neither case can I see your point.

 

La Dolce Vita - the point I was trying to make is that I don't think maintaining Trident is to do with our past - its to do with our future. We are an open nation which engages with the world - far more so, in percentage terms, than the US, Russia etc. Trade is a far more important percentage of our economy than in these countries which have much larger internal economies - I admit an exception is China, but this will change as China develops - as its internal economy grows it will become less trade dependent and this is one of the factors that makes analysts worry about the future "China Threat".

 

Who knows how conflicts may develop in the future - but because the UK is dependent on the outside world it faces threats that can affect it disproportionately.

 

The equations and debates this generates are very complex - take Taiwan - the US says it will defend it if China attacks - China has responded by telling the US that LA is within range of its nuclear arsenal. But that is a double edged threat - if China was to nuke LA the US would do the same to Shanghai - and the risk of MAD escallates exponentially. Does this mean that the two sides go - there is no risk of it going nuclear so we can make our plans concerning Taiwan ignoring deterence - or do are they more cautious and worry that a "minor" incident could by miscalculation blow up into a major one.

 

I've attended forums and debates with the military people who make these types of decisions - my belief they take it into account and so worry about the risk of a minor conflict growing out of control - making them more cautious about starting a minor conflict. There are counter examples - I mentioned them - but I believe deterence works - you don't and can argue against me, keep on trying, I'm not totally convinced on my position.

 

That links into your second query - what makes countries want to have nuclear weapons - If the UK can have them why can't Sweden (it did have a nuclear weapons program at one point and abandoned it), or Iran. I say this is more to do with security threats the country faces than the fact other countries already have nukes.

 

For me this goes down to alliances and security agreements. The US's nuclear umbrella does not only cover itself, but also its allies. So does the UK's. Countries have to calculate whether they have security or not, if not they tend to take measures to improve their security - though unfortunately this can develop into an arms races and instability.

 

Sweden has multiple implicit security guarantees - even though its a neutral country and not a member of any communal defence organization like NATO - NATO would view an attack on Sweden as being destabilizing to its interests and would intervene.

 

Iran doesn't have these advantages - quite the opposite - it has powerful countries making statements explicitly against its security. Obviously there is a chicken and egg in this - if Iran behaved it wouldn't get threatenned - but this is where gaining mutual trust is so difficult and complex - its a highly recursive process.

 

But the main point I want to make is that I do not think it would change Iran's security considerations one jot if the UK disarmed.

 

I think the UK's foreign and trade policies will mean it will bump into difficult situations in the future - lets play with the crystal ball - the US goes isolationist - Hong Kong demands democracy and the PRC threatens to send in the tanks. Sweden would have very little say in trying to stop a massacre occuring. The UK, without having to make explicit threats would have more influence. Having a frigate in Kowloon harbour would have far more symbolic meaning than it just being a frigate - because their might be a boomer underneath it.

 

Hitler and Poland are important historical events - as are Hussein and Kuwait. Allies have a duty to stand up for each other. Hussein wasn't deterred, but he had met with the US embassador the day before and HADN'T been given any reason to feel he was being deterred from acting. I honestly feel that the UK has a role in deterring conflict and that its independent nuclear forces have a role to play in that.

 

In the grand scheme of things its cheap - cheaper than the BBC.

 

I feel the UK can be a force for good in the world and can stop tyrants getting their way.

 

Having deterence is helpful in doing this.

 

Enough - I've gone on too long - as usual.

[Alias]

Sweden has multiple implicit security guarantees - even though its a neutral country and not a member of any communal defence organization like NATO - NATO would view an attack on Sweden as being destabilizing to its interests and would intervene.

Interesting that you mentioned Sweden, given how close the USSR was to launching nuclear missile at Sweden over the U137 incident. Little would NATO help have done for Sweden if the swedish forces had raided that sub.

[RC-Drift.com]

Funny how a government so vehemently opposed to trident whilst in opposition, now has it's spin machine in full flow getting us used to the idea whether we want it or not (also see olympic flexi budget)

[P.K.]

Rog is a troll, rather a collective troll. 'He' is really a group of youngsters having a laugh at our expense, don't give them the oxygen of publicity..

Please tell me of an instance when possession of a 'nuclear deterrent' has stopped any group attacking the UK or its' forces.

Well, for about 50 years in Europe i.e. otherwise theCuban Missile Crises would probably have engulfed us all. Dear me, what do they teach them in the schools these days?

 

So now we know Rog is in favour of the mass killing of civillians.

 

Nuclear weapons during the Falklands - interesting one Rog - where do you think a kilotonne device would have been useful during that little local difficulty? If you'd dropped one on Tumbledown the result would be to melt Stanley. Liberating a nuclear waste land - very good.

There seems to be a lot of ignorance around this. The NATO tactic to defend Europe was based on Crust, Sponge and Killing Zone. Basically the Nazis showed that punching through a defensive line - Blitzkreig - was very effective. So you let them get through the Crust and into the Sponge. The idea of the Sponge area is to slow them up and try and send them into a certain direction to hold them up and bottle-neck them - The Killing Zone. Because of the nature of Blitzkreig they pile into the gap and then concentrate in the known area as they are held up - making the perfect nuclear target. Battlefield nuclear are various weights but nuclear artillery (firing a nuclear shell from a "cannon") was tested to yield the equivalent of 75 to 200 tons of TNT. It's a big bang but not that big. However it's perfect for Crust, Sponge and Killing Zone.

[Tugger]

I don't know why people bother with Rog. If he's not trolling then he simply is the most despicable example of a human being that I have ever encountered

[Gladys]

Seconded! I thought he had forsaken MF, but it looks like he is creeping back in now.

 

A word of warning to newer members that haven't been 'Rogered' before: beware his apparently authoritative links; they are usually links to completely unrelated topics or research. His posts look like he has thoroughly researched evidence for his malevolent views, but they are probably only the product of a quick Google and, most likely, he hasn't even read the links himself.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

La Dolce Vita - the point I was trying to make is that I don't think maintaining Trident is to do with our past - its to do with our future. We are an open nation which engages with the world - far more so, in percentage terms, than the US, Russia etc. Trade is a far more important percentage of our economy than in these countries which have much larger internal economies - I admit an exception is China, but this will change as China develops - as its internal economy grows it will become less trade dependent and this is one of the factors that makes analysts worry about the future "China Threat".

Now your moving my opinion back the other way. I was for the upgrade, then unsure, then against and now I am thinking again.

 

A lot of my opinion is not upgrading is from the current trends that seem to mark low-intensity conflict and 'gunboat diplomacy' as being the most efficient expedient. Deterrence can easily be achieved without the use of nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons there lingers the uncertainty of their use but with, say, limited naval action in a deterrent role the victim KNOWS the threat is real. Nuclear weapons unnecessarily raises the stakes.

 

Nonetheless, I do understand the problem that if a nation state has its survival at threat deterrence can be crucial. Though I am still not convinced of the utility of nuclear deterrence, specifically. So far nuclear deterrence has been overly theorised by some great minds in the context of the bipolar geopolitics of the Cold War. I would be concerned as to how nuclear deterrence would be employed against nuclear and non-nuclear countries respectively in the 21st century. In that not having a well-though out deterrence strategy with quick political decision making would make the 21st century EXTREMELY dangerous IF nuclear weapons are to be relied upon for deterrence.

 

It is the problem with nuclear deterrence that if countries make pledges with one another to use nuclear weapons against an attacker if there are any doubts about their use in future then the strategy might as well be discarded. This was the problem with America's guarantee to Western Europe. This led to huge flaws in NATO's strategies, both extended deterrence and Flexible Response. This could be avoided but that depends on how much Britain will be willing to rely upon nuclear weapons if its allies are under threat.

 

Your example of mentioning China sending tanks into Hong Kong sounds completely frightening. I would not want nuclear weapons having anything to do with such a diplomatic showdown there. If nuclear weapons have to be used it should be only for Home Island security (whether that be maintaining trade, etc.). The thought of threatening China with nuclear weapons over Hong Kong (whether it is an old colony or not) in this day and age sounds barmy. Would Britain really use nuclear weapons on behalf of Hong Kong's democracy? I hope not. I doubt that bluff would work.

 

As to Iran disarming I would completely agree. Clearly Iran would not if Britain did though I find it hypocritical for Britain to go for upgrading yet it is formulating the best methods to employ sanctions against Iran. The Middle East is incredibly important to Britain and understand how Britain would not wish for any Middle Eastern state to have the bomb but still it is hypocritical.

 

I honestly feel that the UK has a role in deterring conflict and that its independent nuclear forces have a role to play in that.

 

Maybe, but I hope it is last resort and does not parellel any form of nuclear deterrence strategies developed during the Cold War. I can only see nuclear deterrence having any form of credibility for Britain if its nuclear forces are used for Home Security. I do agree that the UK has a role to play in deterring conflict but this should not be undertaken with nuclear weapons unless these potential conflict threaten Britain's security. Moreover, I see little reason for Britain getting involved independently when using conventional forces. I would rather see efforts to develop a European force as well as having independent forces.

 

I feel the UK can be a force for good in the world and can stop tyrants getting their way.

It could. It rarely has. Other than World War 2 I can see little altruism in Britain's foreign policy. The Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq would be poor examples.

 

QUOTE(Chinahand @ Mar 14 2007, 03:55 PM)

So now we know Rog is in favour of the mass killing of civillians.

 

Nuclear weapons during the Falklands - interesting one Rog - where do you think a kilotonne device would have been useful during that little local difficulty? If you'd dropped one on Tumbledown the result would be to melt Stanley. Liberating a nuclear waste land - very good.

 

There seems to be a lot of ignorance around this. The NATO tactic to defend Europe was based on Crust, Sponge and Killing Zone. Basically the Nazis showed that punching through a defensive line - Blitzkreig - was very effective. So you let them get through the Crust and into the Sponge. The idea of the Sponge area is to slow them up and try and send them into a certain direction to hold them up and bottle-neck them - The Killing Zone. Because of the nature of Blitzkreig they pile into the gap and then concentrate in the known area as they are held up - making the perfect nuclear target. Battlefield nuclear are various weights but nuclear artillery (firing a nuclear shell from a "cannon") was tested to yield the equivalent of 75 to 200 tons of TNT. It's a big bang but not that big. However it's perfect for Crust, Sponge and Killing Zone

 

There were some very grand ideas about the utility of tactical nuclear weapons but overall they were more of a problem for NATO strategy. When one side starts using nuclear weapons it has to be questioned how much is enough until you start using the bigger bombs. Though the strategy of Flexible Reponse tried to incorporate tactical nuclear weapons in the 'chain of escalation' they still presented a level of uncertainty because of the damage they could wreak: you just don't know how the enemy will react to their use.

 

I thought you were joking about their use in Falklands. It would have been lunacy to use them in the Falklands War. The Falklands campaign was a LIMITED campaign completely different to anything that might have happened if the Soviet Union invaded Western Europe. It would be completely impractical to just drop a bomb on the Argentinians. The international implications would be huge and Argentinia would have formally declared war. Britain would lose any support it had.

 

Please tell me of an instance when possession of a 'nuclear deterrent' has stopped any group attacking the UK or its' forces.

 

Well, for about 50 years in Europe i.e. otherwise theCuban Missile Crises would probably have engulfed us all. Dear me, what do they teach them in the schools these days?

 

It'sa bit difficult to say. To an extent Britain and France's nuclear stocks did complicate the situation for the Soviet Union. It certainly made sure France did not have to rely upon Extended Deterrence. However, nobody knows exactly what would have happened if nuclear weapons were never created. Would the Soviet Union have invaded Western Europe? Besides if Britain did not have nuclear weapons would it really have made a difference to British security. I am unsure, I suppose it all depends on how likely it was that America would defend us using nuclear weapons.

 

I don't know what you mean about the Cuban Missile Crisis though. That was more about coercion rather than deterrence and I think had more to do with deals about removing the Jupiter missiles in Turkey than of Kennedy threeatening Khrushchev with American bombs.

 

Tired now.

[Rog]

I don't know why people bother with Rog. If he's not trolling then he simply is the most despicable example of a human being that I have ever encountered

 

Tugger, in all honesty if that IS your opinion then you really should get out more and open your eyes to the world around you.

 

To (very loosely) paraphrase Frodo from The Lord of the Rings “If I were in actuality a despicable example of a human then I would seem fairer yet be fouler”

 

Gladys, we have recently bought a place on Tenerife and I have been a bit busy for the last few months, no creeping back, simply now a little more time on my hands.

 

My views may be objectionable to some but they are perfectly legitimate though my utter abhorrence of the ‘politically correct’ and avoidance of it and its seemingly endless herd of sacred cows.

 

Sacred cows that I delight in slaughtering so it may sit ill with those blinkered and indoctrinated individuals who are either unable or unwilling to think for themselves or who simply have so little experience of the REAL world that their ignorance skews their judgment.

 

Reading a thing should not be simply a thing you dfo whislt waiting tro reply. Try first THINKING THROUGH what you have read with an open mind and informed opinion and then reply.

[Tugger]

You can't honestly think that anybody's reaction to your posts is to move their position closer to yours? Honestly, you act as some sort of brilliant secret weapon for the politically correct

[hboy]

quote name='Rog' post='225011' date='Mar 14 2007, 03:38 PM']Not only should the UK have its own nuclear weaponry more to the point it should have already been used on more than one occasion in the past.

 

Well its a good job your skill and judgement do not form part of UK military policy. Where exactly should they have been used? Nuking Argentina over the Falklands?

 

The simple possession of them is insufficient, and the concept of MAD preventing outbreak of a nuclear exchange doesn’t apply when your enemy absolutely believes that if he or his are killed in a jihad they are on an express passage to eternal paradise.

Oh I see its a jihadi thing. As long as we nuke the muzzies then its alright by you then.

 

Personally I would have pressed the button on Argentina, on Iraq, and certainly by now on Iran and Afghanistan without a moments hesitation.

 

Oh so you would have nuked Argentina over a dispute over an Island with 2,967 inhabitants. Shows what a fuckwitt you really are then dosen't it. An Island has 3,000 inhabitants taken over by force so you nuke Argentina and kill a few hundred thousand just to teach them a lesson. What a retard. Straight out of the Ariel Sharon school of international diplomacy.

 

There is nothing particularly different about killing a few thousand with a nuclear missile and a few thousand by conventional arms beyond efficiency. Britain has the capacity to sterilize whole areas such as Afghanistan yet fails to do so instead sending in more and more young men to be minced by savages.

Yes. You're right we may as well take the easy option and just put up with all that cancer, leukemia, human mutations, and early death that mark the long term fallout of a nuclear strike.

 

Having the means to eliminate the problem at hand yet letting our own young people be killed and injured and not using the alternative that will get the job done without the young of our nation being so damaged is disgusting.

 

Yes. vapourising foreigners is so much more humane.

 

Once again, not a troll, an absolutely genuine opinion.

 

Well that makes you even more sad than I gave you credit for.

[Pragmatopian]

Ban the bomb.

 

[Rog]

“hboy” wrote ---

Well its a good job your skill and judgement do not form part of UK military policy. Where exactly should they have been used? Nuking Argentina over the Falklands?

 

There was a very good argument for the use of tactical low yield nuclear weapons against Argentinean forces and military resources.

 

“hboy” wrote ---

Oh I see its a jihadi thing. As long as we nuke the muzzies then its alright by you then.

 

If there is a location that is a base for jihadists then I would have not a single moments hesitation in glassifying it as I would for any terrorist base. Nothing to do with islam, everything to do with using the right tool for the job at the lowest cost to ourselves and that includes our young men who we would otherwise have to (and presently do) put in harms way.

 

“hboy” wrote ---

Oh so you would have nuked Argentina over a dispute over an Island with 2,967 inhabitants. Shows what a fuckwitt you really are then dosen't it. An Island has 3,000 inhabitants taken over by force so you nuke Argentina and kill a few hundred thousand just to teach them a lesson. What a retard. Straight out of the Ariel Sharon school of international diplomacy.

 

Two points. Firstly I would have fully supported the use of tactical nuclear devices against Argentinean troops and military resources. That is a very different thing from ‘nuking a country’.

 

Next you refer to Ariel Sharon as if in some way condemning him and his government during his time in office. That clearly shows that you know very little about the man or his time in office or the great progress that he made for both Israeli citizens AND the so called palestinians.

 

“hboy” wrote ---

Yes. You're right we may as well take the easy option and just put up with all that cancer, leukemia, human mutations, and early death that mark the long term fallout of a nuclear strike.

 

Maybe you should learn the facts and not simply react based on swallowing the propaganda.