12-05-2016, 10:34 AM
1
Austerity -v- Trident replacement
According to Osborne we're still in 'austerity and need to very careful on what and how much 'we' spend, yet without so much as a by-your-leave, we can happily spend more than £200Bn in replacing Trident missiles.The BIG question is: Should we???
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...ar-disarmament
12-05-2016, 11:02 AM
2
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
HiI am opposed to replacing Trident, however I do not agree with the costings used by CND.
I believe that if we are to have a Nuclear Deterrent it should be ours to use independently.
Trident is not ours, we cannot use it without the permission of the USA.
I see no point at all in subsidising the USA.
We should have an independent deterrent, like the French have.
We already know exactly where the first Nukes will hit us in the event of a war, they will be tactical nukes, precisely targeted.
A simple thing to put our own land based missiles right where those targets are, they are going to be hit anyway, so no additional risk in having a land based system.
The logic for such a system is entirely rational, however there is no Political will, too many Tory Voters in those locations and house prices would suffer.
12-05-2016, 02:03 PM
3
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
The whole idea of a sub based trident system is one never knows where they are making them difficult to target . I've always been pro us having the nuclear option but it is dependant on Uncle Sam giving us permission to use our own weapon system and after Obama's comments I actually think it's now time to scrap it , tell USA we are last in the queue and spend the ££££ elsewhere . I know this may come as a shock to many world wide considering we the uk pay for anything and everything but maybe we should actually spend the trident cash on ourselves !12-05-2016, 02:30 PM
4
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
HiI appreciate the theory behind Trident, however it does have it's drawbacks.
We cannot respond in a rational measure to a tactical nuclear attack.
We would have to escalate immediately to all out Strategic War, targeting centres of population.
I want no part of that.
Once the sub has fired, even one missile, it is located, so much for stealth.
That really is a case of all your eggs in one basket, far too much of a risk.
There is no such thing as a completely undetectable submarine, plane, whatever.
It is not that long ago that the stealth planes were undetectable, not any more they aren't.
It is a once only use weapon
12-05-2016, 07:19 PM
8
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by Alien
->
Well I read we have 'smart bombs ' to kill smart people I guess, and I know we have 'dumb bombs' ... We just need a guy to invent one that only kills ' bad people' and we can all sleep well at night 
Personally I would like to see a bomb developed which only killed Politicians and left the rest of us alone.
It is Politicians who get us into this mess.
Failing that, we should revert to the Middle Ages when Kings led their troops into battle.
Substitute Political Leaders for Kings I would be a happy Womble.
George Bush Junior and Blair under Artillery fire would be a sight to see.
12-05-2016, 08:10 PM
9
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
HiI am opposed to replacing Trident, however I do not agree with the costings used by CND.
I believe that if we are to have a Nuclear Deterrent it should be ours to use independently.
Trident is not ours, we cannot use it without the permission of the USA.
I see no point at all in subsidising the USA.
We should have an independent deterrent, like the French have.
What I don't fully understand is how we can possess our own SLBM submarines, which are under our complete control, yet have missiles on board which, apparently, are not under our complete control.
I believe that the targeting data are set by us, but what control does America have over whether or not we can fire them?
If we should decide to tell the Yanks that we are taking full control, and make the necessary adjustments to the firing controls in the missiles, what could they do about it? Refuse to supply spare parts or assist with maintenance?
I believe that we have the necessary skills to make our own ballistic missiles, which we have definitely done in the past. We certainly have the necessary skills to make our own nuclear warheads, which we already possess anyway.
I suspect that if push came to shove, the Yanks would see it our way and remove any limitations as to who has control of them.
And if not, perhaps we can buy them from the Frogs!
12-05-2016, 09:15 PM
10
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
When people start throwing nuclear warheads at each other all is lost and nobody wins.I don't believe wars will be fought that way in the future. They are not being fought like that now. How good would our Army, Navy and Airforce be if we used some of the money from Trident, there would be plenty left over for bringing the country up to scratch. All we need now is a leader who is brave enough to tell the Americans to stick Trident up their noses and have the guts to make some big decisions.
|
|
