Trident
With the state of the world nowadays I can see why people are voting out/trump etc. It's madness.. All over some imaginary person in the sky. As an athiest i just for the life of me cant see why people would kill each other over ''god'' etc.
I know it's happened for hundreds of years but surely technology is here now and we know we didnt all come from adam and eve etc.
Dont' get me wrong ive nothing against people believing in a higher power and if thats what helps you get through your day and gives you strength then good on you, but stop killing people in the street and stop bombing buses and blowing up buildings for your ''beleifs''.
im all for trident i mean the stuff thats going on in the east of europe and far east is pretty insane tbh
I know it's happened for hundreds of years but surely technology is here now and we know we didnt all come from adam and eve etc.
Dont' get me wrong ive nothing against people believing in a higher power and if thats what helps you get through your day and gives you strength then good on you, but stop killing people in the street and stop bombing buses and blowing up buildings for your ''beleifs''.
im all for trident i mean the stuff thats going on in the east of europe and far east is pretty insane tbh
18 June 1815 - Waterloo
iTrader: (31)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 19,156
Likes: 15
From: To the valley men!
http://www.dosits.org/people/history/SOSUShistory/
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...wn/index.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milford_Haven
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...mbroke-8750977
Caerwent was/is a massive nuclear bunker site not far from the Severn Bridge near Chepstow, still there and used for training by the Military and filming of various films/TV series.
Not a difficult move really.
Last edited by The Trooper 1815; Jul 19, 2016 at 03:37 PM.
18 June 1815 - Waterloo
iTrader: (31)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 19,156
Likes: 15
From: To the valley men!
With the state of the world nowadays I can see why people are voting out/trump etc. It's madness.. All over some imaginary person in the sky. As an athiest i just for the life of me cant see why people would kill each other over ''god'' etc.
I know it's happened for hundreds of years but surely technology is here now and we know we didnt all come from adam and eve etc.
Dont' get me wrong ive nothing against people believing in a higher power and if thats what helps you get through your day and gives you strength then good on you, but stop killing people in the street and stop bombing buses and blowing up buildings for your ''beleifs''.
im all for trident i mean the stuff thats going on in the east of europe and far east is pretty insane tbh
I know it's happened for hundreds of years but surely technology is here now and we know we didnt all come from adam and eve etc.
Dont' get me wrong ive nothing against people believing in a higher power and if thats what helps you get through your day and gives you strength then good on you, but stop killing people in the street and stop bombing buses and blowing up buildings for your ''beleifs''.
im all for trident i mean the stuff thats going on in the east of europe and far east is pretty insane tbh
I recommend you read The Kill List by Fredrick Forsyth, be afraid, very afraid.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
This thread is somewhat missing the point!
We are not replacing Trident, we're replacing the Vanguard class submarines that carry Trident missiles with the Successor class.
Trident itself is not an nuclear weapon, it's a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads with Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV). In theory it could also carry other non-nuclear payloads, but I'm not aware of any that have been developed for the Trident platform so far, although it has been discussed.
Personally, I would love to for the whole world to abandon nuclear weapons but that's unlikely to happen in my lifetime. There are very good arguments to maintain the UK's nuclear capability as there are to decommission it - after all, do we really need it when we are allies with France and USA? I really don't know what the right answer is about the UK's nuclear capability - I accept both sides of the argument!
But ask the question of weather we should replace the Vanguard class of submarines and my answer is definitely yes! Not necessarily for launching nuclear weapons, but for the capability of launching long range, non-nuclear, SLBM's from anywhere is also a very powerful weapon to have in your arsenal. Not to mention, these submarines can carry out an extremely varied range of operations other than carrying Trident. Add to that all the jobs that are secured in Barrow where the ships will be built and it all becomes a no-brainer IMHO!
Go ahead and decommission the nuclear warheads if you want, but we should definitely keep the Trident SLBM's and build the Successor class submarines to carry them! We should also develop new non-nuclear payloads for the Trident platform to increase the usefulness of the submarine launch platform.
We are not replacing Trident, we're replacing the Vanguard class submarines that carry Trident missiles with the Successor class.
Trident itself is not an nuclear weapon, it's a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads with Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV). In theory it could also carry other non-nuclear payloads, but I'm not aware of any that have been developed for the Trident platform so far, although it has been discussed.
Personally, I would love to for the whole world to abandon nuclear weapons but that's unlikely to happen in my lifetime. There are very good arguments to maintain the UK's nuclear capability as there are to decommission it - after all, do we really need it when we are allies with France and USA? I really don't know what the right answer is about the UK's nuclear capability - I accept both sides of the argument!
But ask the question of weather we should replace the Vanguard class of submarines and my answer is definitely yes! Not necessarily for launching nuclear weapons, but for the capability of launching long range, non-nuclear, SLBM's from anywhere is also a very powerful weapon to have in your arsenal. Not to mention, these submarines can carry out an extremely varied range of operations other than carrying Trident. Add to that all the jobs that are secured in Barrow where the ships will be built and it all becomes a no-brainer IMHO!
Go ahead and decommission the nuclear warheads if you want, but we should definitely keep the Trident SLBM's and build the Successor class submarines to carry them! We should also develop new non-nuclear payloads for the Trident platform to increase the usefulness of the submarine launch platform.
However this is kinda hard when the world is killing each other :/
My two cents is just really if it came down to the ''whos got a bigger gun'' contest I know which side I'd rather be on.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
To say the UK and France have a "vanishingly small percentage" of NATO's nuclear capability hides the fact that with a combined count of over 500 warheads, it is still enough to do massive amount of damage and destruction globally. The problem is that a nuclear programme such as Trident has a life cycle covering many decades and to abandon it would leave the UK vulnerable over that period. At a time when there such instability in the world, particularly in the middle east, and a growing nuclear ambition from rogue states, to decommission our nuclear capability would be fool hardy. The UK is not like the 95% of other countries, not least due to UK's obligation to NATO and it's allies, the UK remains a high on the list of tactical targets and whilst we have adhered to the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, other countries have not.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6874096.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17823706
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6874096.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17823706
Yes I get the argument, there's no need to reiterate it.
The reality is though (and the point I was responding to) is that 'peace' was maintained by 2 superpowers facing off against each other, and definitely not by the UK and France holding 'independent' nuclear arsenals.
If nuclear weapons are so important to maintaining the peace, then why doesn't South Korea have them, they are far more at risk that we are. Why doesn't Japan have them, they are threatened by China AND North Korea.
I don't get the 'tactical target' thing either, you might need to expand on this for me.
Last edited by Martin2005; Jul 19, 2016 at 05:13 PM.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
From: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
From a non-expert armchair viewpoint I would say risks of a nuclear attack are low at present.
I think Saddam was so evil that had he been able to buy a bomb he might well have used it even knowing the damage that would result to his own country.
Israel are the only country in the ME region with nukes but they won't bomb us.
I have a concern that the Taliban could hijack a Pakistan bomb and could just use it although there are a hell of a lot of Pakistanis in UK that would be taken out.
Iran - bit of an unknown quantity
N Korea what would be the point of bombing us even if they get their rockets past the November 5th stage?
In a few decades to come China might be a real danger as they take over the world and are big enough to takes a few hits themselves whilst they do so.
Just some random thoughts
David
I think Saddam was so evil that had he been able to buy a bomb he might well have used it even knowing the damage that would result to his own country.
Israel are the only country in the ME region with nukes but they won't bomb us.
I have a concern that the Taliban could hijack a Pakistan bomb and could just use it although there are a hell of a lot of Pakistanis in UK that would be taken out.
Iran - bit of an unknown quantity
N Korea what would be the point of bombing us even if they get their rockets past the November 5th stage?
In a few decades to come China might be a real danger as they take over the world and are big enough to takes a few hits themselves whilst they do so.
Just some random thoughts
David
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 22
From: K
It does seem we are still living in a post Cold War world - the old certainties no longer with us
And we have yet to come to terms with this fact, the world seems more and more chaotic at the moment
Slightly frightening if you stop to think about it
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
Yes I get the argument, there's no need to reiterate it.
The reality is though (and the point I was responding to) is that 'peace' was maintained by 2 superpowers facing off against each other, and definitely not by the UK and France holding 'independent' nuclear arsenals.
If nuclear weapons are so important to maintaining the peace, then why doesn't South Korea have them, they are far more at risk that we are. Why doesn't Japan have them, they are threatened by China AND North Korea.
I don't get the 'tactical target' thing either, you might need to expand on this for me.
The reality is though (and the point I was responding to) is that 'peace' was maintained by 2 superpowers facing off against each other, and definitely not by the UK and France holding 'independent' nuclear arsenals.
If nuclear weapons are so important to maintaining the peace, then why doesn't South Korea have them, they are far more at risk that we are. Why doesn't Japan have them, they are threatened by China AND North Korea.
I don't get the 'tactical target' thing either, you might need to expand on this for me.
Regarding South Korea and Japan, these two countries are signatories of the NPT and CTBT. However, Japan does have a massive stockpile of weapons grade plutonium, remainants of its nuclear energy program. China has already demanded that Japan decommission its stock pile and drop plans for any more breeder reactors for reprocessing spent nuclear material. South Korea may not have the stockpile of plutonium, but I'm guessing they're also conducting their own secret research behind their nuclear energy program, especially given that North Korea has already and continue to openly conduct their nuclear testing. Both Japan and South Korea have the means and the technology and some say could build a device within 6 months.
On UK being a tactical target, the UK has allowed itself to be a tactical target when it allowed the USAF to be stationed and fly from bases within the UK.
The reality was that peace was maintained by not by USA facing off USSR, it was NATO, of which you well know that the UK is a part of, facing off the Warsaw Pack. It is this military and political standoff between these two alliances that brought about the Cold War.
Regarding South Korea and Japan, these two countries are signatories of the NPT and CTBT. However, Japan does have a massive stockpile of weapons grade plutonium, remainants of its nuclear energy program. China has already demanded that Japan decommission its stock pile and drop plans for any more breeder reactors for reprocessing spent nuclear material. South Korea may not have the stockpile of plutonium, but I'm guessing they're also conducting their own secret research behind their nuclear energy program, especially given that North Korea has already and continue to openly conduct their nuclear testing. Both Japan and South Korea have the means and the technology and some say could build a device within 6 months.
On UK being a tactical target, the UK has allowed itself to be a tactical target when it allowed the USAF to be stationed and fly from bases within the UK.
Regarding South Korea and Japan, these two countries are signatories of the NPT and CTBT. However, Japan does have a massive stockpile of weapons grade plutonium, remainants of its nuclear energy program. China has already demanded that Japan decommission its stock pile and drop plans for any more breeder reactors for reprocessing spent nuclear material. South Korea may not have the stockpile of plutonium, but I'm guessing they're also conducting their own secret research behind their nuclear energy program, especially given that North Korea has already and continue to openly conduct their nuclear testing. Both Japan and South Korea have the means and the technology and some say could build a device within 6 months.
On UK being a tactical target, the UK has allowed itself to be a tactical target when it allowed the USAF to be stationed and fly from bases within the UK.
Having a nuclear device is one thing; having a satisfactory long range delivery system is quite another as the North Koreans are discovering.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 9,465
Likes: 0
From: The Cheshire end of the emasculated Cat & Fiddle
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
The reality was that peace was maintained by not by USA facing off USSR, it was NATO, of which you well know that the UK is a part of, facing off the Warsaw Pack. It is this military and political standoff between these two alliances that brought about the Cold War.
Regarding South Korea and Japan, these two countries are signatories of the NPT and CTBT. However, Japan does have a massive stockpile of weapons grade plutonium, remainants of its nuclear energy program. China has already demanded that Japan decommission its stock pile and drop plans for any more breeder reactors for reprocessing spent nuclear material. South Korea may not have the stockpile of plutonium, but I'm guessing they're also conducting their own secret research behind their nuclear energy program, especially given that North Korea has already and continue to openly conduct their nuclear testing. Both Japan and South Korea have the means and the technology and some say could build a device within 6 months.
On UK being a tactical target, the UK has allowed itself to be a tactical target when it allowed the USAF to be stationed and fly from bases within the UK.
Regarding South Korea and Japan, these two countries are signatories of the NPT and CTBT. However, Japan does have a massive stockpile of weapons grade plutonium, remainants of its nuclear energy program. China has already demanded that Japan decommission its stock pile and drop plans for any more breeder reactors for reprocessing spent nuclear material. South Korea may not have the stockpile of plutonium, but I'm guessing they're also conducting their own secret research behind their nuclear energy program, especially given that North Korea has already and continue to openly conduct their nuclear testing. Both Japan and South Korea have the means and the technology and some say could build a device within 6 months.
On UK being a tactical target, the UK has allowed itself to be a tactical target when it allowed the USAF to be stationed and fly from bases within the UK.
1941?
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 79
From: Glasgow
Probably an accurate representation of how screwed we would all be if such a disaster were to happen,
People in Japan still remember the war crime Nuking of their country and that was with the very early basic design,
Modern ones are literally thousands of times bigger and there are thousands of them scary o think about it sometimes
People in Japan still remember the war crime Nuking of their country and that was with the very early basic design,
Modern ones are literally thousands of times bigger and there are thousands of them scary o think about it sometimes
18 June 1815 - Waterloo
iTrader: (31)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 19,156
Likes: 15
From: To the valley men!
Probably an accurate representation of how screwed we would all be if such a disaster were to happen,
People in Japan still remember the war crime Nuking of their country and that was with the very early basic design,
Modern ones are literally thousands of times bigger and there are thousands of them scary o think about it sometimes
People in Japan still remember the war crime Nuking of their country and that was with the very early basic design,
Modern ones are literally thousands of times bigger and there are thousands of them scary o think about it sometimes
Unlike COD real soldiering involves carrying weight, fatigue, being committed, loading a rifle properly, aiming properly and you only die once.
Last edited by The Trooper 1815; Jul 21, 2016 at 01:59 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 79
From: Glasgow
Having lived through and been involved in the Cold War, the Cruise Missile crisis and watching the IGB come down I have seen real life. But how devoid of reality must you be if you think computer games are anything like real life!
Unlike COD real soldiering involves carrying weight, loading a rifle properly, aiming properly and you only die once.
Unlike COD real soldiering involves carrying weight, loading a rifle properly, aiming properly and you only die once.
Unlike coventional war Nuclear war doesnt require sodiers as much or rifles or aiming even as much,
So have you witnessed a nuke go off ?
Would we all be at work the next day if any of these got dropped
3rd degree burns within a 62 mile radius in the 60's
Wonder how it would be after 50 years of development.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
From: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Probably an accurate representation of how screwed we would all be if such a disaster were to happen,
People in Japan still remember the war crime Nuking of their country and that was with the very early basic design,
Modern ones are literally thousands of times bigger and there are thousands of them scary o think about it sometimes
People in Japan still remember the war crime Nuking of their country and that was with the very early basic design,
Modern ones are literally thousands of times bigger and there are thousands of them scary o think about it sometimes
I'd be surprised if Israel were not keeping a few as they would be ideal for taking out Iran's nuclear development without destroying the whole country. Of course the downside is that if an anti-UK rogue state got hold of one it would be so much easier to hit London or similar large city.
Google gives some interesting insights into all this.
David
18 June 1815 - Waterloo
iTrader: (31)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 19,156
Likes: 15
From: To the valley men!
Did i say it was real life Sarge ???
Unlike coventional war Nuclear war doesnt require sodiers as much or rifles or aiming even as much,
So have you witnessed a nuke go off ?
Would we all be at work the next day if any of these got dropped
//// The Largest Nuclear Bomb //// Tsar Bomba - YouTube
3rd degree burns within a 62 mile radius in the 60's
Wonder how it would be after 50 years of development.
Unlike coventional war Nuclear war doesnt require sodiers as much or rifles or aiming even as much,
So have you witnessed a nuke go off ?
Would we all be at work the next day if any of these got dropped
//// The Largest Nuclear Bomb //// Tsar Bomba - YouTube
3rd degree burns within a 62 mile radius in the 60's
Wonder how it would be after 50 years of development.
In fact tactical nuclear weapons have reduced ranges and areas of effect. Do you remember the neutron bomb? No damage just death.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
From: Enginetuner.co.uk Plymouth Dyno Dynamics RR Engine machining and building EcuTek SimTek mapping
18 June 1815 - Waterloo
iTrader: (31)
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 19,156
Likes: 15
From: To the valley men!
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 79
From: Glasgow
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,430
Likes: 1
From: Away from this place
Remote my ****. Its 25 miles from Scotland's largest city. And the subs have to navigate the entire Clyde estuary on the surface because its too shallow.
Don't overestimate the stealth of a submarine fleet that's under constant surveillance from other subs 24/7/365.
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 79
From: Glasgow
lol
Remote my ****. Its 25 miles from Scotland's largest city. And the subs have to navigate the entire Clyde estuary on the surface because its too shallow.
Don't overestimate the stealth of a submarine fleet that's under constant surveillance from other subs 24/7/365.
Remote my ****. Its 25 miles from Scotland's largest city. And the subs have to navigate the entire Clyde estuary on the surface because its too shallow.
Don't overestimate the stealth of a submarine fleet that's under constant surveillance from other subs 24/7/365.
Stealthy until they crash into local fisherman
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,430
Likes: 1
From: Away from this place
1) A military strike
2) Which claim are you refering too?
3) Because in the nightmare of where a hostile country(ies) would deploy a nuclear device, with the UK being one of the most powerful countries in terms of military capability, the hostile would gain advantage, both militarily, geographically and economically, with a tactical strike on the UK and against NATO given that the UK would no way to retaliate.
2) Which claim are you refering too?
3) Because in the nightmare of where a hostile country(ies) would deploy a nuclear device, with the UK being one of the most powerful countries in terms of military capability, the hostile would gain advantage, both militarily, geographically and economically, with a tactical strike on the UK and against NATO given that the UK would no way to retaliate.
And what, then , would be the risk of the UK wasn't one of the most powerful countries in terms of military capability?
Significantly less presumably?
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 79
From: Glasgow