Trident Poll

[The Wobbly Orange]

Trident is at the forefront of the news right now. The Conservatives in favour, the SNP against (almost as a single issue these days) and Labour divided. It has also come up many times recently in discussion on other topics in this very forum. So what do you guys think?

Personally I favour retaining Trident until multilateral disarmament can be achieved. To get rid alone would be an incalculable risk.
____________________
People tell me I am lovely. How wrong they are!

[Skudd]

It would be nice to know that we are all killed by conventional weapons instead of those nasty nuclear ones.
____________________
Famous last words of Humpty Dumpty. " Stop pushing me "
Petty Anarchists look at "1984".............. The Visionary looks at "Animal Farm".

[The Artist]

Renew/keep/invent at least some form of nuclear weapon. I can't see how getting rid of them would benefit the country in any significant way.

[stinkwheel]

I think it's a luxury we can ill afford.

It'll never be used, everyone knows it'll never be used.

All the MAD scenarios are lose-lose on all sides and everyone knows it.

A "first strike" scenario by a foriegn power would only be carried out by a dyed in the wool nutter. They would do it regardless of their targets ability to retaliate.

Strategic nuclear weapons do nothing for your international bargaining power. Too big a stick. It would be like threatening to settle a dispute over a game of darts by bulldozing the pub with everyone inside it.

A large part of the SNPs argument is that the UKs strategic nuclear arsenal shouldn't be located within 15 miles of Scotlands largest conurbation housing 1.2 million people. I think that's a valid point.

People always harp on about the employment they generate. I can't seem to get across to people how null this argument is. The system is funded from tax revenue and as such is entirely on the red side of the ledger. If they want to create employment, scrapping trident and spending the same amount on just about anything else instead would create more employment than maintaining a nuclear deterrant.

So yes, scrap it. Or downsize it to a tactical nuclear arsenal. We have other, massively flexible delivery systems able to deliver pinpoint nuclear strike anywhere in the world. We don't need a submarine carrying enough ICBMs to rain a spread of high yeild warheads down on a country.

All that nutter who's considering pushing the button needs to know is there'll an unmanned drone/cruise missile inbound to his location at 10 feet above ground level that's going to knock on the door then increase their local air temperature by six orders of magnitude.

Didn't vote as there is no option for downsizing our nuclear arsenal to a tactical rather than strategic one.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.

[Rogerborg]

^^^ That, and as per other threads.

We'd only use nuclear weapons in retaliation against nuclear strikes, because we're the Goodies, right?

In the situation where we're hit with one or even a few nukes, half a dozen land or surface ship based systems would be sufficient for measured eye-for-an-eye vengeance.

If we used them, which I'd seriously doubt, particularly as the threat is a bomb sailing up the Thames without anything as useful as a raving public declaration of war from North AfghanIslam.

In the situation where we're hit with dozens of nukes, enough to take out all land/ship systems, then first, what happens next won't matter to any of us, and second, in that scenario things will have kicked off globally to the extent that the Septics would be in and swinging, and nothing will matter to anyone.

Trident is overkill for a survivable nuclear war, irrelevant in an unsurvivable one. I can't see any realistic scenario in between "one nuke" and "all the nukes".
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike

[Polarbear]

I'm for it.....

MAD still holds true and even 1 submarine's worth could reduce Russia to a radioactive dump so whatever else Putin does, he has to be aware of that.

Who knows what countries are going to get their own nukes soon. Pakistan is a nuclear power as is Israel. Both as unstable as fuck. Throw Iran in the mix.

Oh and the SNP hate it so close the base in Scotland and move it to Portsmouth or Plymouth. Sod giving the jobs to the people who don't want them.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition

[stinkwheel]

[smegballs]

[stinkwheel]

[Polarbear]

[Ste]

Nukes are good, having control of another countries nukes would be better.

Computer warfare!!!

You don't even have to go after nukes to fuck people up. If Facebook goes offline for just five minutes, ordinary citizens think the end of the world is nigh.

Should Putin ever knock facebook and twitter offline at the same time then the consequences are unthinkable.

[stinkwheel]

[DrDonnyBrago]

I voted "renew", just because it winds up the lefties in my office.... and most of Scotland.

I live near a military base, an airport and a dock so in any scenario targeting the UK I'm likely to get bombed first and unlikely to be in a position to care if my corpse is avenged. That said, I'd like to avoid the queues at the pearly gates/gates of hell so if we could hold off on any nuclear retaliation until I've checked in that'd be great.

[Ste]

How unsafe / dangerous / risky are Aldermaston and Burghfield compared to Trident?

[staffo]

[Rogerborg]

[Im-a-Ridah]

Strategic nuclear weapons like Trident make a lot of sense. Tactical nukes make less sense due to the advancement in targeting meaning that waves of missiles like Brimstone can be dropped from strike aircraft and find their own targets (e.g tanks). Nukes would only be more efficient if there was a very high density of targets, preferably with little armour.

[The Shaggy D.A.]

Option (c) - get rid of them but don't tell anyone.
____________________
Chances are quite high you are not in my Monkeysphere, and I don't care about you. Don't take it personally.
Currently : Royal Enfield 350 Meteor
Previously : CB100N > CB250RS > XJ900F > GT550 > GPZ750R/1000RX > AJS M16 > R100RT > Bullet 500 > CB500 > LS650P > Bullet Electra X & YBR125 > Bullet 350 "Superstar" & YBR125 Custom > Royal Enfield Classic 500 Despatch Limited Edition (28 of 200) & CB Two-Fifty Nighthawk > ER5

[bamt]

Option (d) - inherit them from the previous gov, but tell the whole world that you'd never press the button, therefore having all the cost but none of the (perceived?) benefit in terms of MAD.

[Rogerborg]

Premier Corbyn's first act would be to blab that we went for option (c) a decade ago.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike

[stinkwheel]

[stinkwheel]

I'll pose the question I asked previously more directly.

If Syria sucessfully made an A-bomb, smuggled it into the UK and detonated it in central London. What good would a Trident nuclear missile be?

Would we really take out Damascus and everyone in it with a high yield warhead?

My answer. Of course we wouldn't. We'd go in there with overwhelming conventional force, backed by the US and the rest of the international community and dismantle their entire government and armed forces, occupy the couintry and start again from scratch. It wouldn't be a limited action or regime change pissanting round the edges like the gulf wars. It would be a full on invasion.

I am still at a loss as to why we (as in the international community) didn't stomp on their heads when they deployed mass-effect chemical weapons.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.

[Im-a-Ridah]

[Polarbear]

[staffo]