David Lock

Not sure I would vote for Trident but I guess it will be approved. So I naively ask why can't UK have half a dozen nukes strategically placed in friendly countries around the world? Security would be paramount but they could have a disabling device if there were problems. Wouldn't this be as big a threat as being hidden in a yellow submarine? And a hell of a lot cheaper surely?


I think my preference would be to spend the money on intercept methods to take them out before they landed on Wiltshire or wherever my kids were living at the time. Selfish - me? Too right


David

c_maguire

And the motivation for these 'friendly' countries to paint a bullseye on their back is.................?
The deterent has to be either UK land based or 'mobile'. Mobile is far and away the most secure option. The power of the deterent is that it will happen if the decision is taken, but that happening is a last resort.

Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's no different to insurance in general. You pay the premium but never intend to make a claim.
The state the World is in now we need it more than ever.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Your first idea won't happen, who would be daft enough to allow that?

And having intercepted the incoming missiles (employing a currently non existent technology) what do you propose we do then? Sit and wait for the next lot to arrive? Apart from being jolly cross we certainly couldn't do anything about it.

scoobypaul_temp

iTrader: (2)

This is pretty much spot on (imho) it obviously will not help us fight 'terrorism' (an argument that is often used) but I cannot see any point in the near future where giving up our deterrent is likely to happen....

David Lock

OK - fair comments. But the quid pro quo would be that we would offer protection to the countries that allowed a couple of our nukes. Say Australia and say in 20 years China looked threatening to them. Sod all the Australians could do but if China knew that they were facing a nuclear retaliatory attack they might change their minds. And attacking regimes would still go for the main target i.e. the UK and not a missile base - if they went for that first it would be game over.


As for taking out missiles I thought Israel did exactly that and USA were developing the technology? Give them a decade and they'll have it refined.


Or split the submarine costs with Europe? Would be nice to be friends again.


David

c_maguire

It isn't an independent nuclear deterrent if you start trying to share it, and who says the sharers will still share the same ideals in 30 years?
Non-starter.

There really is no choice on this at the moment.
Unless you're Jeremy Corbyn.

David Lock

The sooner we wake up and realise that the UK is an integral part of Europe the better. They don't design nukes that stop at the channel.


David

Paben

iTrader: (5)

In your first paragraph you suggest a plan and then rubbish it; a pointless exercise if the UK is easily knocked out owing to a lack of its own missiles.

Patriot didn't work, just a propaganda exercise to keep the Israelis out of the Iraq war.

ICBMs can be effectively attacked during initial burn and before they head out of earth's atmosphere. Unfortunately the burn has first to be detected, identified as aggressive and countered in less than 3 minutes or so (It's gone soon after). There is no hope of this unless a) these requirements are satisfied and b) the anti missile system is located close to the launch area. Mobile ICBM launchers would require a massive and unrealistic anti-missile deployment.

Knowing where the ICBM has gone once out of earth's atmosphere requires blanket space sensors, made more difficult as modern ICBMs have multiple individually targeted warheads and have various electronic and physical countermeasures to avoid interception. Once they re-enter the atmosphere at around 25,000kph it's really game over, and with multiple launches only one has to succeed.

A few nuclear submarines are a much cheaper option, with all the world's oceans to hide in. Seems our MPs agree.

scoobypaul_temp

iTrader: (2)

Sorry David - I don't get your train of thought? What has Trident got to do with us being part of Europe? It's about us retaining our own deterrent surely?

Martin2005

I get the arguments for Trident, in fact I used to be in favour, but as I've got older I just struggle with the whole concept. They represent the worst in us, they're an abomination, and could never be used.
Why specifically does the UK need this?
Most countries manage to carry on without them.
The whole idea that the UK could independently use them is nonsense BTW.

scoobypaul_temp

iTrader: (2)

We need it as a deterrent, to those other Nuclear capable (and aspiring) nations.

Why is it nonsense that we could use them independently?

Paben

iTrader: (5)

So would you feel secure if the West (USA, France, UK etc) gave up nuclear weapons while Russia, North Korea and China retained them?

Martin2005

We need to stop other countries acquiring them. It's a touch hypocritical for us at the same time to upgrade ours.

The UK could never independently deploy nukes. The consequences for our allies would be too enormous.

Martin2005

About as secure as the 95% of countries on the planet that don't have them.

scoobypaul_temp

iTrader: (2)

I can see your point on the hypocrisy - but the genie is already out of the bottle, and I don't think we will ever realistically deter others from acquiring them (as they are the ultimate deterrent).

Consequences for our allies - entirely irrelevant - if we get to the point of needing to use them, the combined 'power' of us and our Allies has failed, and will not be worth worrying about.

Martin2005

Under what circumstancestors could the UK ever independetly use nukes?
BTW at that point they've already failed miserably as a deterrent.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

The UK suffers a nuclear attack at the hands of country X, but none of the UK's allies are attacked. The UK then retaliates against country X. Too simple for you?

btw, what did you do to p!sh your spellchecker off so badly?

scoobypaul_temp

iTrader: (2)

Under what circumstances - whenever we needed to (hopefully never). I really don't understand your thinking here:

If we ever got to that point where deployment was considered, I really don't think we would be thinking "but what about our allies if we do"?!?!

If we had to deploy the deterrent would have failed - yes, I agree, but it still puts us in a stronger starting position than those other 95%.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

The UK can launch nuclear weapons without any reference to the USA, if that is what you are suggesting. The very existence of such weapons has kept the major powers from each other's throats for 50+ years, with first launch probably being reserved for the lunatics of North Korea.

Martin2005

If we used nukes we'd be basically committing our allies to nuclear war. That could never happen independently.

scoobypaul_temp

iTrader: (2)

Sorry mate, totally disagree. If we get to that point, nobody will be able to stop us. Simple as that

Martin2005

I agree with you that nuclear weapons have kept the peace. I totally get that. However it certainly wasn't the UK's capability that had anything to do with that.

Martin2005

Probably the best reason I've seen for not having them😀

scoobypaul_temp

iTrader: (2)

Equally the best reason to keep them, to deter those in the same position

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Really? How so? I would say that 60+ sub launched nuclear missiles represents quite a capability. Do you not think the EU rather liked having the UK's nuclear umbrella erected over it?

Martin2005

The fact that the US had THOUSANDS of missiles pointed at the USSR and visa versa was what kept the peace.
The EU is under the umbrella of NATO, not the UK.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

I couldn't tell you if it's as good, but the French have their own (mostly because they never quite trusted or liked the Americans 100%).

Paben

iTrader: (5)

And NATO's nuclear capability is provided by who exactly? France, UK and the USA, that's who. And do you believe the USA will hurl itself into nuclear war to protect, say, Ukraine? Oh hang on . . . .

Martin2005

Are you saying we would?

The UK and France combined make up a vanishingly small percentage of NATO's nuclear capability.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Not at NATO's command we wouldn't.