For or against Trident

For or against Trident (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MariaB -> For or against Trident (10/3/2015 9:30:07 AM)
I don't know if we have enough interested bodies on here for this debate but lets see. If Britains new Labour leader (Jeremy Corbyn) was to get into power, he would rid us of our nuclear defence system 'Trident'. On a personal level I'm all for it (getting rid of it) but I would be interested to know what others think?

mnottertail -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 9:56:50 AM)
Those Trident IIs? The sub based missles? You could lose them that wouldn't hurt.

KenDckey -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:13:57 AM)
I see them as a strategic deterant. I also hope they are never used.

PeonForHer -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:18:06 AM)
Useless waste of money. They should go.

blnymph -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:24:28 AM)
what else should/could be done with those 3 billion pounds the renewal of the submarines and missiles will cost?

kdsub -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:29:09 AM)
It is hard to give up a defense when you are a small insignificant country without this leverage? Butch

MariaB -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:33:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph what else should/could be done with those 3 billion pounds the renewal of the submarines and missiles will cost? They estimate the cost of refurbishment to be around 25 billion British pounds blnymph.

MariaB -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:40:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is hard to give up a defense when you are a small insignificant country without this leverage? Butch Our small 'insignificant' country is part of NATO kdsub. This means we can give up our nuclear deterrent without sacrificing our vulnerability. Trident doesn't keep our peace, it keeps us on a leash to the US.

Abductor -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:43:40 AM)
I'm surprised that Britain ever let go of control of the seas. Granted the face of war is changing, but as a student of Victorian area, WWI and WWII, your island nation thrived and was nearly conquered twice over it. I guess we face different types of enemies these days, but I wonder: would a Russian/Chinese alliance would make England fair game again, some decades from now?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:47:18 AM)
I can't see the point in having a 'deterrent' if the enemy know that nobody is ever going to push the button. The whole point of a deterrent is that it is the ultimate weapon that would be used if it came to the crunch. If it is never going to be used, it is no longer a deterrent. And like Jeremy said, with all the nuclear power of the US, it didn't help with 9/11 did it? It didn't help us with 7/7 either! So what is the point in having a nuclear deterrent?? Unless there is a nuclear war, I really don't see the point at all. And it'll save on the military budget for other more useful stuff. If you want some sort of deterrent, keep what we already have. But to spend £billions on upgrading it..... don't bother.

blnymph -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:50:38 AM)
one can hardly call 4 (or 3) submarines "control of the seas" ...

kdsub -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 10:54:56 AM)
Sure let the rest put out the money to protect you... Personally i wish we would dump NATO and just concentrate on protecting ourselves... maybe then we could afford free healthcare and rebuild our roads and bridges. Butch

Nthrall -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 11:10:37 AM)
"Trident for or against?" is a context-free question. I'm reminded of the joke in which a driver stops next to a local and asks for directions. The local replies, "Well, I wouldn't start from here". Trident is just a delivery system, and a suitcase or hang glider might do just as well. Trident is archaic and we didn't have cruise missiles or small nukes when it was designed. On the other hand we do need some submarines, so how do Tridents compare with other subs? I can envisage a situation in which a right wing USA president threatens to exclude Britain from the USA's nuclear umbrella if Britain ditches its nukes, but Britain does so, and then a North Korean Loony gives Britain an ultimatum backed by a nuclear threat. Unlikely but just possible? Trident would be an enormous price to pay for handling (?) so small a risk. Suppose the North Korean Loony makes his/her threat while Britain still has nuclear weapons? Could we ever strike first? What would be the point of striking back? Would we be justified in killing hundreds of thousands, because one loony has made a bad decision? A nuclear attack is indiscriminate and has effects that last for generations. It is a dreadful weapon, but its use against Japan in 1945 was arguably justifiable because Japan was a whole nation of loonies (if the regimented, god-emperor, kamikaze, no surrender mentality is classed as insane). Similarly ISIS is afflicted by mass insanity, and perhaps they need to be jolted out of their hysteria by something major... ...but Iran is now communicating with us, so it's a good job we didn't bomb them when they were at their most annoying. So maybe Jeremy Corbyn is right to choose dialogue rather than death. I, for one, intend to give him that chance.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 11:14:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph one can hardly call 4 (or 3) submarines "control of the seas" ... Are you aware of the capability of a Trident-equipped sub?? Without leaving its base in Scotland, the range of each missile is capable of reaching all of the USA and right down to Argentina, the whole of Asia (including China), Russia, Africa, and everything in-between. It stops just short of Australia. For each Vanguard-class sub - The missile has a range of 11,300 km (7,000 mi), a top speed of over 21,600 km/h (13,400 mph) (Mach 17.4) and a CEP (accuracy) of less than 120 m (390 ft). The missile uses an inertial guidance system combined with star-sighting, and is not dependent on GPS. The Trident system is made up of 58 leased Trident II D-5 missiles, four native Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines and 160 operational thermonuclear weapon warheads, together with command-and-control and other supporting infrastructure. Each of the submarines can carry up to 16 Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), with each missile capable of carrying up to 12 independently targetable nuclear warheads. This makes for a potential maximum of 192 warheads per submarine. The US Ohio-class subs can carry 24 SLBM's.

Abductor -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 11:18:00 AM)
I appreciate the responses to my post. Good points all.

blnymph -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 11:31:00 AM)
if one just needs something to launch a Trident missile from then land bases will do as well ... the crash of HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant has shown that the areas where a missile can be launched seem to be rather limited (and crowded) so the risk of submarines bumping into each other in the North Atlantic makes them rather ineffective - and hazardous but less so for North Korea ...

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 11:38:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph if one just needs something to launch a Trident missile from then land bases will do as well ... the crash of HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant has shown that the areas where a missile can be launched seem to be rather limited (and crowded) so the risk of submarines bumping into each other in the North Atlantic makes them rather ineffective - and hazardous but less so for North Korea ... The whole point of having them on submarines is that they are movable and mobile. You don't hear of so many submarines "bumping into each other" either. It's a bit like saying that flying is unsafe because of all the air disasters we hear about. But it has been proven to be one of the safest ways to travel. Having the odd "bump" at sea is quite rare. Being static on land means it becomes an easy-to-reach target for any number of enemies - including any terrorist groups and other missiles launched from anywhere. No, it needs to mobile and the best and safest way is at sea.

MariaB -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 11:47:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph one can hardly call 4 (or 3) submarines "control of the seas" ... Are you aware of the capability of a Trident-equipped sub?? Without leaving its base in Scotland, the range of each missile is capable of reaching all of the USA and right down to Argentina, the whole of Asia (including China), Russia, Africa, and everything in-between. It stops just short of Australia. For each Vanguard-class sub - The missile has a range of 11,300 km (7,000 mi), a top speed of over 21,600 km/h (13,400 mph) (Mach 17.4) and a CEP (accuracy) of less than 120 m (390 ft). The missile uses an inertial guidance system combined with star-sighting, and is not dependent on GPS. The Trident system is made up of 58 leased Trident II D-5 missiles, four native Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines and 160 operational thermonuclear weapon warheads, together with command-and-control and other supporting infrastructure. Each of the submarines can carry up to 16 Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), with each missile capable of carrying up to 12 independently targetable nuclear warheads. This makes for a potential maximum of 192 warheads per submarine. The US Ohio-class subs can carry 24 SLBM's. But the bottom line is, Trident isn't independent, its merely a subsidy for Americas forward defence. If we are going to have a deterrent, then at least let it be an independent one. What's the point in a nuclear deterrent when another country has such huge control over our defence system? America has the ability to disable Trident in one foul swoop. And all this stuff about Corbyn refusing to press the button. Even if Corbyn did press the button it would merely light up the real button in America and the American government would decide whether or not to press it.

thompsonx -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 12:23:28 PM)
ORIGINAL: KenDckey I see them as a strategic deterant. I also hope they are never used. Deterant of what. Who the phoque wants to attack g.b.?

thompsonx -> RE: For or against Trident (10/3/2015 12:24:30 PM)
ORIGINAL: kdsub It is hard to give up a defense when you are a small insignificant country without this leverage? Just who do they need to protect themselves from with nuclear weapons?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875