Trident

[GS]

Where do you stand on Trident and the idea of an independent nuclear deterrent?

[Lee]

Trident isn't properly independent, is it? I've always been led to believe that we couldn't fire one off without Uncle Sam telling us it was okay to do so.

Anyway, I'd scrap it. I don't see the point. The reason we haven't been nuked isn't because we have nukes ourselves; it's because the Americans have them and they're our mates. No non-nuclear nation has been nuked since WW2 so the MAD justification doesn't really wash with me. It just seems a massive waste of money.

It isn't something I'm especially passionate about though. It would be nice of everybody held hands and got rid of them together but that's never happening.

[Spammer]

I reckon they got rid of it years ago :gs:

Genuinely though, I don't see much point in it either. I'm not sure what it 'deters' exactly, as we're never really going to actually use it and everyone knows as much.

[Lewis]

I think it is 'without strings' (as they used to say), so in theory we could nuke Spain without telling anybody.

It's a bit pointless in this day and age. It made sense during the Cold War to have an independent nuclear deterrent (not that we ever built a credible one without American help), if only so we could swagger around as a nuclear power; but who and what is it deterring now? It's sort of ironic in a way, since the reduced yield of modern nuclear weapons makes them a lot more 'functional' than the things that entrenched the deterrence mindset.

[Jeet]

I thought this was gonna be about the gum :D

[Shindig]

I think it is 'without strings' (as they used to say), so in theory we could nuke Spain without telling anybody.

It's a bit pointless in this day and age. It made sense during the Cold War to have an independent nuclear deterrent (not that we ever built a credible one without American help), if only so we could swagger around as a nuclear power; but who and what is it deterring now? It's sort of ironic in a way, since the reduced yield of modern nuclear weapons makes them a lot more 'functional' than the things that entrenched the deterrence mindset.

I'd like to think Britain was the nuclear deterrent. I.e. the thing that persuaded an Alzheimers sufferer that the button wasn't to play with.

[Smiffy]

.....

[QE Harold Flair]

It's about sending a message more than anything. If we get rid of it we're seen as a soft touch not just by the illegal immigrants but by the bastard nations they come from, and others.

I think the poster above me misses the point. Those who were going to attack might think twice if we can obliterate them as a result.

[Yevrah]

Until such time when there's a unilateral world-wide agreement to bin them all we'd be mad to ditch ours.

Ok, we don't need it now and nor can I foresee a time in my lifetime when we would, but then I can't predict the future.

[Lewis]

The Soviet Union used to propose disarmament schemes all the time, because they knew they had greater (and cheaper) 'conventional' capabilities than the West, and we used to deliberately sink them with stupid demands and look like shits for ruining peace.

[Spammer]

It's about sending a message more than anything. If we get rid of it we're seen as a soft touch not just by the illegal immigrants but by the bastard nations they come from, and others.

I think the poster above me misses the point. Those who were going to attack might think twice if we can obliterate them as a result.

Are you really tying this in with immigration? Personally I think we can scrap Trident and still be tough on immigrants if we needed to be.

We can obliterate someone yeah, but we never would, and everyone knows it.

Anyway, I quite like the idea that we got rid of Trident decades ago and we're just pretending we still have it.

[Yevrah]

Anyway, I quite like the idea that we got rid of Trident decades ago and we're just pretending we still have it.

If we are/were doing that then Corbyn's even more ill prepared for government than even Jimmy could possibly imagine.

[Lewis]

We couldn't 'obliterate' anybody. The British deterrent was based on the idea of being able to attack 'priority targets'. Initially this meant things the Americans probably wouldn't bother with, like the airfields from which they might bomb Hull, but eventually it just meant x amount of cities. We were very much going down if it kicked off (especially since we effectively gave the Soviet Union the first punch by swearing not to initiate hostilities). The idea was to spite the bastards after it.

[QE Harold Flair]

We can obliterate someone yeah, but we never would, and everyone knows it.

I imagine if someone nuked London the pressure would be pretty high to liquidate that country.

[Lewis]

Nobody is going to attack London in isolation though. You would do so as part of a plan to knock Britain out of a Third World War, which I don't suppose anybody has the inclination to do, and those with the capability to do so wouldn't be particularly troubled by any response we might be able to conjure up.

[QE Harold Flair]

Until other countries give up theirs, I see no need to. The way things are going, it's only a matter of time before several parts of the Middle East will need nuking.

[Spammer]

Yeah but if you do that then you'll radicalise the remaining mutants, and they could have superpowers and everything.

[Toby]

Framing the discussion as being about an independent nuclear deterrent always strikes me as a diversion. As others have said, we don't have that, never have, and almost certainly never will.

Who would be a realistic target for a nuclear strike, if it came to that? People tend to bring up Russian aggression when talking in support of it, but is it not questionable that a Trident missile could even realistically hit Russia given the strength of their missile defence systems? That's assuming we go for a pre-emptive first strike. If they decide to strike first, couldn't they just completely obliterate us before we knew what was going on?

Chuck in the multiple US defence experts who have said on record the UK and France should give up their nuclear deterrents to focus on having proper conventional militaries, and it all seem like a massive waste of money with no function beyond an ego-stroking 'seat at the table'.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I wouldn't mind getting rid if the money saved wasn't inevitably going to be wasted on absolute shite.

If they put the savings into rebuilding sports pitches for schools, restoring old buildings, and providing activities for the elderly I'd be all for scrapping it, but I'd rather have nuclear capabilities than, say, Black History Month and ugly blocks of flats everywhere.

[Davgooner]

We could get some planes for those carriers.

[Lewis]

Framing the discussion as being about an independent nuclear deterrent always strikes me as a diversion. As others have said, we don't have that, never have, and almost certainly never will.

Who would be a realistic target for a nuclear strike, if it came to that? People tend to bring up Russian aggression when talking in support of it, but is it not questionable that a Trident missile could even realistically hit Russia given the strength of their missile defence systems? That's assuming we go for a pre-emptive first strike. If they decide to strike first, couldn't they just completely obliterate us before we knew what was going on?

Chuck in the multiple US defence experts who have said on record the UK and France should give up their nuclear deterrents to focus on having proper conventional militaries, and it all seem like a massive waste of money with no function beyond an ego-stroking 'seat at the table'.

It is independent. The Americans build it for us (we chip in), but we can use it as we please and have full control over the warheads. It would also get through Russian defences easily enough. There are no problems with it as hardware. It's seriously good stuff.

Targeting is the main point as you say. Remember when David Cameron supposedly made a twat of himself in that 2010 election debate by using China as a reason to keep it? That was actually a better reason than deterring Russia from doing anything. Expansive and aggressive Asiatic superpower sustained by a hostile economic system... Sounds familiar.

[Toby]

I'll cede to your superior knowledge then, but I was under the impression the Americans still held very significant influence over its operation. Articles like this (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk) and this (http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence) certainly suggested as much.

[Lewis]

Independence refers to control. The Americans don't have 'dual control' over it (like they did with their Thor deployments), so, in spite of the fact that we're obviously never going to act unilaterally, in theory we could. That makes it an independent nuclear capability. We certainly depend on them for service and parts, as we have always done, but if we fell out it wouldn't actually be that hard (it might be expensive) to keep it all going.

[phonics]

My favourite thing about nukes is how old the technology is as they're not going to rebuild them every 5 years and older technology actually makes it harder to hack.

Nuclear missiles run by these bad boys :cool:

https://defensesystems.com/~/media/GIG/Defense%20Systems/Web/2014/MarApril/FloppyDisk.png


In a “60 minutes” report (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-minding-the-nuclear-weapons/) Sunday, correspondent Leslie Stahl visited an Air Force launch control center in Wyoming and discovered that Cold War-era facilities still have Cold War-era technology, including analog phones and, yes, 8-inch floppy disks that are used in issuing launch commands for the Minuteman missiles.

ICBM missile silos went up in the 1960s and ‘70s and have remained pretty much frozen in time. The missiles themselves have undergone regular upgrades, but the facilities haven’t changed much. One reason is money—according to one estimate (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/americas-nuclear-arsenal-still-runs-off-floppy-disks), it would cost $352 billion over the next decade to modernize the facilities. But another reason is the security provided by old IT.


Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein, commander of ICBM forces, told Stahl that the old hardware and software, and the lack of an Internet connection, provides solid security for the missile bases.

That makes sense, since it’s unlikely that a hacker today would have much experience with an 8-inch floppy. In fact, one of the “missileers” at the base told Stahl she had never seen one before arriving there.

The disks also have a built-in protection against portable-storage attacks likeStuxnet (http://gcn.com/articles/2012/04/13/stuxnet-planted-by-iranian-double-agent-israel.aspx), which was introduced to Iran’s Natanz nuclear plant via a thumb drive, since the disks don’t have nearly enough space to hold such a sophisticated piece of malware.

[Henry]

It's basically a penis enlarger for national security fetishists who still harbour imperialist/great power delusions. Waste of money.

[Magic]

Lol @ an analogue phone being branded as 'cold-war technology'.

And why overload it if you don't need to? If that's all you need to issue commands, brilliant. Hack that, motherfuckers.

[Yevrah]

It's basically a penis enlarger for national security fetishists who still harbour imperialist/great power delusions. Waste of money.

Given the national budget doesn't work on the basis of an individual's beer fund, how is it a waste of money?

[Toby]

That doesn't really make sense. There are countless ways the money could be spent that would have a more positive outcome in economic terms.

[Magic]

Benefits for junkies right? Ya SNP dawfty.

[Toby]

Why would I want you getting any of my money?

[Yevrah]

That doesn't really make sense. There are countless ways the money could be spent that would have a more positive outcome in economic terms.

It creates jobs, or at least the unions seem to think so. So what are all those out of work people going to do?

[Magic]

Why would I want you getting any of my money?

Lol @ the idea of you paying any sort of contribution to society with your minimal tax input.

[Toby]

It creates jobs, or at least the unions seem to think so. So what are all those out of work people going to do?

Of all the numbers that were floating around last year, when this was a hot topic due to the Scottish independence referendum, the absolute best case those supporting it managed to come up with was that 590 jobs depend on it.

Even accepting that figure - and its debatable that it is even that high - it's creating close to fuck all given the level of investment. Any number of infrastructure projects could employ far more people and bring added economic benefit as a result.

[Yevrah]

Of all the numbers that were floating around last year, when this was a hot topic due to the Scottish independence referendum, the absolute best case those supporting it managed to come up with was that 590 jobs depend on it.

Even accepting that figure - and its debatable that it is even that high - it's creating close to fuck all given the level of investment. Any number of infrastructure projects could employ far more people and bring added economic benefit as a result.

So why are 'the unions' opposed to scrapping it?

[Toby]

Lol @ the idea of you paying any sort of contribution to society with your minimal tax input.

If you're going to start dick measuring contests like this you should probably have stronger reason to believe you earn more than me, especially given only one of us has the drain on public finances that is a child in Scotland.

[Toby]

So why are 'the unions' opposed to scrapping it?

I don't know, and I don't accept the suggestion that 'the Unions' necessarily have a rational argument for anything.

[QE Harold Flair]

'The Unions'

[Yevrah]

I don't know, and I don't accept the suggestion that 'the Unions' necessarily have a rational argument for anything.

Neither do I, but I'm pretty Henry does, which is why I brought this up with him.

[Lewis]

The unions probably like to think having their members involved with the nuclear deterrent makes them more powerful than they are. I can't see how they could really make a sensible economic (skills!) case for it.

[Henry]

It creates jobs, or at least the unions seem to think so. So what are all those out of work people going to do?

If creating jobs was a good enough reason for spending money, we'd be better paying people to dig holes and fill them back up.

Or alternatively, we could pay them to do something useful.

[GS]

Until such time as everyone else fucks the weapons off, I'm quite happy paying the money for Trident.

A last resort, the final resort, but it's there nonetheless.

[Byron]

Unless Russia/China launch a pre-emptive strike, in which case we've been blown to fuck before we can do anything.