Is it a nuclear deterrent in the sense that it deters a nuclear attack or is it a nuclear deterrent that is in fact nuclear and can/will be used in retaliation to any major attack (Pearl Harbour-sequel)?
How is the second scenario in any way a deterrent?
I just don't have any confidence in our our intelligence giving the correct information of an impending attack. (See Chilcot Report on Iraq) They will be watching a Hollywood movie and think it's the real thing. War of the worlds breaks out.
To be honest, it doesn't matter if you push the button or not in terms of Trident. Your people are dead already! But you can't say you won't or it is pointless. It is all a bit ridiculous really as it is pointless anyway! Spend the money on the threat/ If the Russians nuked Switzerland it would start World War 3. That is the Swiss deterrent and it works just as well for us! They don't need Trident! Nor do we for the same reason!
If Russia nuked Switzerland for no reason it is quite possible we could nuke Russia in retaliation. That's why it's an important deterrent, not just for us, but for our European neighbours.
People give the arguement if we use trident we'd be dead anyway so what's the point, but should we condemn our neighbours to be bullied by a mad nuclear power? If we had nuclear weapons and wouldn't use them, that crazy nuclear state will go "well hey, no ones using their nuclear weapons, I can do what I want to everyone else too!"
I just think being anti nuclear deterrent is so inward and insular looking it's unreal. And trident is probably our best bet (considering we're surrounded by water)
I'm not anti it - the Americans have loads of nuclear deterrents. The flag on the missile is irrelevant! I think not being realistic is even more unreal!
It didnt deter Paris,7/7 , Germany last night etc etc. It didnt stop the Argies and it didnt stop Iraq invading Kuwait. It wouldnt be used on ISIS even if the filth used weapons of mass destruction on us.
However im sure it stopped the USSR from their imperialistic expansions and im sure the fact that we have it might make Putin think twice about ever using his.
Morally i just cant see how its justified to slaughter tens and tens of thousands of people.
i think the arguement for having this deterant is weak and yet i feel we must have it ?
Corbyn was hammered by his own people yesterday-----he bleats on as all socialists do about the "party" and when it was pointed out "The Party" voted to support the replacement of Trident his only response was "we said we would hold a review"---so Jezza its still your partys policy--yet you voted against it.
The SNP what a fecking sad bunch of twats they are----------shut ALL the military bases in Scotland and do it NOW bring all those jobs to England Wales and Northern Ireland and let the Scottish people know its what the SNP want. Socialist Nationalist Party.
Weird thing is about £3/4 billion has already been spent on this project ! and the docks/workshops in Barrow have already been built !
If I were being vaporised in a nuclear attack, I doubt that in my last few milliseconds of awareness I would be thinking 'good, do it to them too'.
Not at all, but if you attack them back, killing potentially hundreds of thousands of their civilians it's also possible the civilian population will turn on their government (the aggressors). It would also make them think twice about attacking anyone else with nuclear weapons, saving millions of other people's lives by killing a few hundred thousand.
The thing is it's not a case of the world having them or not having them, unilateral disarmament around the world is impossible. You can't unlearn decades of nuclear science.
If I were being vaporised in a nuclear attack, I doubt that in my last few milliseconds of awareness I would be thinking 'good, do it to them too'.
Not at all, but if you attack them back, killing potentially hundreds of thousands of their civilians it's also possible the civilian population will turn on their government (the aggressors). It would also make them think twice about attacking anyone else with nuclear weapons, saving millions of other people's lives by killing a few hundred thousand.
The thing is it's not a case of the world having them or not having them, unilateral disarmament around the world is impossible. You can't unlearn decades of nuclear science.
That may be true until you consider the impact of nuclear war. My understanding is that nuclear war wipes out the planet. After a nuclear war the concepts of governments, countries, and any kind of organization is finished. We re enter a new stone age for the handful of survivors who remain.
If we got rid of our nukes, American nukes would be a big enough deterrent to stop any nation invading/bombing us. Works for Germany and it would work for us too.
To be honest, it doesn't matter if you push the button or not in terms of Trident. Your people are dead already! But you can't say you won't or it is pointless. It is all a bit ridiculous really as it is pointless anyway! Spend the money on the threat/ If the Russians nuked Switzerland it would start World War 3. That is the Swiss deterrent and it works just as well for us! They don't need Trident! Nor do we for the same reason!
If Russia nuked Switzerland for no reason it is quite possible we could nuke Russia in retaliation. That's why it's an important deterrent, not just for us, but for our European neighbours.
People give the arguement if we use trident we'd be dead anyway so what's the point, but should we condemn our neighbours to be bullied by a mad nuclear power? If we had nuclear weapons and wouldn't use them, that crazy nuclear state will go "well hey, no ones using their nuclear weapons, I can do what I want to everyone else too!"
I just think being anti nuclear deterrent is so inward and insular looking it's unreal. And trident is probably our best bet (considering we're surrounded by water)
Unless Switzerland is contributing to the huge cost of our nukes I can't see why we should use them to defend or retaliate on its behalf. It seems that Britain and its affiliated country allies have always had to fight battles for which others benefit and contribute nothing to the financial and human cost. The only saving grace these days is the US usually picks up the larger slice of the tab though that may change when Trump comes to power. Anyway, i suspect Russian nukes if ever deployed are more likely to be used on China and the former soviet states in between than they are on Europe.
The Cold War will return in some form or another over the next 25 years. Russia wants its empire back and is ruled by a nutter. It is testing NATO all the time to see how "the west" responds. It would go after Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia given half a chance.
In my humble opinion now is about the worst possible time that GB could choose to weaken its defence.
The Cold War will return in some form or another over the next 25 years. Russia wants its empire back and is ruled by a nutter. It is testing NATO all the time to see how "the west" responds. It would go after Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia given half a chance.
In my humble opinion now is about the worst possible time that GB could choose to weaken its defence.
If we got rid of our nukes, American nukes would be a big enough deterrent to stop any nation invading/bombing us. Works for Germany and it would work for us too.
Today maybe. How do you know what will happen tomorrow ? Trump could be American president in a years time, God knows who in five years and it could be a Martian in charge in 20 !
Our country needs to ensure its own defences to the greatest extent that it reasonably can, relying on America or France to guarantee our integrity is a dreadful strategy.
we cant give it to much moral bollox---we used depleted uranium shells in the war in Iraq, we used cluster bombs in the Falklands and we developed the neutron bomb which could be fired by artillary or large morters.Nice that was only killed the people but left the buildings standing.
The Cold War will return in some form or another over the next 25 years. Russia wants its empire back and is ruled by a nutter. It is testing NATO all the time to see how "the west" responds. It would go after Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia given half a chance.
In my humble opinion now is about the worst possible time that GB could choose to weaken its defence.
On the flip side, is the fact that Russia have their own nukes making the west less aggressive in response to Russian posturing?
The Cold War will return in some form or another over the next 25 years. Russia wants its empire back and is ruled by a nutter. It is testing NATO all the time to see how "the west" responds. It would go after Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia given half a chance.
In my humble opinion now is about the worst possible time that GB could choose to weaken its defence.
On the flip side, is the fact that Russia have their own nukes making the west less aggressive in response to Russian posturing?
I'm not sure that the west would ever be aggressive. Putins build up of arms near the Baltic has been met with NATO exercises. Strong response without any hint of aggression.
The Cold War will return in some form or another over the next 25 years. Russia wants its empire back and is ruled by a nutter. It is testing NATO all the time to see how "the west" responds. It would go after Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia given half a chance.
In my humble opinion now is about the worst possible time that GB could choose to weaken its defence.
It's testing the UK, not NATO, for two reasons, one because the RAF knows the rules of the game and welcomes the practice. Testing other countries gets a bit more tricky, Turkey shot down a Russian jet when they stepped over the mark. The other reason is it is a bargaining ploy, crank up the tension and see what gets offered to bring it down again.
The world changes at a constant and rapid pace, with emerging threats appearing all the time. Nobody knows what state may go rogue and find themselves in possession of nuclear weapons. Pakistan? North Korea? Had Israel not pre-empted Iranian proliferation, would Iran be on that list?
Turkey looks set to be undergoing a huge change at the moment; is it out of the question for a country of their size, and with their aspirations of being a regional power, to acquire nuclear weapons? Not to mention, as @ShootersHillGuru has correctly pointed out, with Putin in control of Russia we are essentially entering a new Cold War.
Renewal of trident is a safety policy for the next 20 or 30 years against just these forms of emerging threat. The only thing certain about tomorrow is the uncertainty of what it holds.
To those who have underlined the fact that our main threats are internal actors: I agree, albeit with the caveat that the threats above still exist and/or could come to fruition. Personally I'd love to see the Home Office getting some cash to ensure that we're not only equipped to prevent another 7/7 for a further 11 years, but we're also equipped to deal rapidly and effectively when our lucky streak eventually ends. Unfortunately the presence of a threat within our own borders doesn't negate the potential of threat outside those borders.
It's a weird proposition: purchasing a weapon of last resort, the type which would only ever be deployed after the nation has already been dealt a crippling blow and been largely obliterated. Sadly, there lies the crux of MAD: you don't attack another nuclear power with nuclear weapons as you're going to consequentially be obliterated.
When people point out that nuclear weapons haven't stopped war, they're right - but they've certainly stopped wars between nuclear states, and they've certainly ensured that everyone who has access to such weapons understands that to press the button is to commit suicide.
Interestingly even during the Cold War, plans for a Soviet Invasion were largely conventional: a war of attrition triggered by pushing sheer numbers through Germany. For a period of time that can be summarised as the world's Nuclear Powers facing each other off, it's rather telling that the plans of aggression still didn't include nuclear weapons as anything other than a retaliatory action.
The Cold War will return in some form or another over the next 25 years. Russia wants its empire back and is ruled by a nutter. It is testing NATO all the time to see how "the west" responds. It would go after Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia given half a chance.
In my humble opinion now is about the worst possible time that GB could choose to weaken its defence.
It's testing the UK, not NATO, for two reasons, one because the RAF knows the rules of the game and welcomes the practice. Testing other countries gets a bit more tricky, Turkey shot down a Russian jet when they stepped over the mark. The other reason is it is a bargaining ploy, crank up the tension and see what gets offered to bring it down again.
In 1981 was in the TA (10 Para) we were part of the force to be place/dropped etc into Holland. You were to be issued with 3 viles of a drug i think was called atroppean (sic) inthe event you survived a chemical or nuclear attack you stabbed your thigh with these every 30 mins. It wouldnt cure anything but slowed your heart rate down----so you could kill more russians !! the force opposing us would be mechanised--ie fecking tanks--you were Paras--we were TOLD that we would have 3/4 hours life expectancy (at a push)-- it was to attempt to hold the red army back untill the low countrys could be flooded.What happened to the people in Belguim,Holland etc wasnt ever discussed, nor was the point that we wouldnt be able to get back after the area was flooded !!!
So the use of "weapons of mass distruction" was part of military thinking in 1981 all be it flooding.
I failed pre para selection twice re ligament so never received my red lid
The world changes at a constant and rapid pace, with emerging threats appearing all the time. Nobody knows what state may go rogue and find themselves in possession of nuclear weapons. Pakistan? North Korea? Had Israel not pre-empted Iranian proliferation, would Iran be on that list?
Turkey looks set to be undergoing a huge change at the moment; is it out of the question for a country of their size, and with their aspirations of being a regional power, to acquire nuclear weapons? Not to mention, as @ShootersHillGuru has correctly pointed out, with Putin in control of Russia we are essentially entering a new Cold War.
Renewal of trident is a safety policy for the next 20 or 30 years against just these forms of emerging threat. The only thing certain about tomorrow is the uncertainty of what it holds.
To those who have underlined the fact that our main threats are internal actors: I agree, albeit with the caveat that the threats above still exist and/or could come to fruition. Personally I'd love to see the Home Office getting some cash to ensure that we're not only equipped to prevent another 7/7 for a further 11 years, but we're also equipped to deal rapidly and effectively when our lucky streak eventually ends. Unfortunately the presence of a threat within our own borders doesn't negate the potential of threat outside those borders.
It's a weird proposition: purchasing a weapon of last resort, the type which would only ever be deployed after the nation has already been dealt a crippling blow and been largely obliterated. Sadly, there lies the crux of MAD: you don't attack another nuclear power with nuclear weapons as you're going to consequentially be obliterated.
When people point out that nuclear weapons haven't stopped war, they're right - but they've certainly stopped wars between nuclear states, and they've certainly ensured that everyone who has access to such weapons understands that to press the button is to commit suicide.
Interestingly even during the Cold War, plans for a Soviet Invasion were largely conventional: a war of attrition triggered by pushing sheer numbers through Germany. For a period of time that can be summarised as the world's Nuclear Powers facing each other off, it's rather telling that the plans of aggression still didn't include nuclear weapons as anything other than a retaliatory action.
pakistan already has nuclear weapons, the fact that india also has them has stopped them both going to war with each other, even though tensions between the two are always quite high. Those two countries are great examples of what a good thing a nuclear deterrent is.
As for your cash for the home office, they've already got it, it's the snooper's charter and the GCHQ facility in cornwall. Which is an even bigger waste of money as it's not guaranteed spying on all civilian communications would prevent a 7/7 attack. There's no way of effectively storing and looking through that data at all.
In 1981 was in the TA (10 Para) we were part of the force to be place/dropped etc into Holland. You were to be issued with 3 viles of a drug i think was called atroppean (sic) inthe event you survived a chemical or nuclear attack you stabbed your thigh with these every 30 mins. It wouldnt cure anything but slowed your heart rate down----so you could kill more russians !! the force opposing us would be mechanised--ie fecking tanks--you were Paras--we were TOLD that we would have 3/4 hours life expectancy (at a push)-- it was to attempt to hold the red army back untill the low countrys could be flooded.What happened to the people in Belguim,Holland etc wasnt ever discussed, nor was the point that we wouldnt be able to get back after the area was flooded !!!
So the use of "weapons of mass distruction" was part of military thinking in 1981 all be it flooding.
I failed pre para selection twice re ligament so never received my red lid
If we got rid of our nukes, American nukes would be a big enough deterrent to stop any nation invading/bombing us. Works for Germany and it would work for us too.
Not really as simple as that. The US would only step in if it was beneficial to them. I think you're overestimating how much this special relationship means.
I'm proper on the fence about the Trident debate. I honestly can see arguments for both sides (must come as a shock for those of you who have me down as a leftie). I guess we have to see it as an insurance policy. No one knows what the world will be like over the next 50 years, look how much it has changed over the last 50. That said it is a hell of a lot of money and no one can say for sure whether it really does act as a deterrent or not. Also the immediate threat is not from the nuclear powers of the world but terrorism, nuclear weapons do not deter that. It's an extremely complex but quite interesting debate and includes some thought provoking philosophical conundrums.
In 1981 was in the TA (10 Para) we were part of the force to be place/dropped etc into Holland. You were to be issued with 3 viles of a drug i think was called atroppean (sic) inthe event you survived a chemical or nuclear attack you stabbed your thigh with these every 30 mins. It wouldnt cure anything but slowed your heart rate down----so you could kill more russians !! the force opposing us would be mechanised--ie fecking tanks--you were Paras--we were TOLD that we would have 3/4 hours life expectancy (at a push)-- it was to attempt to hold the red army back untill the low countrys could be flooded.What happened to the people in Belguim,Holland etc wasnt ever discussed, nor was the point that we wouldnt be able to get back after the area was flooded !!!
So the use of "weapons of mass distruction" was part of military thinking in 1981 all be it flooding.
I failed pre para selection twice re ligament so never received my red lid
Se9---100% true---how about the fact that you had to let the first armoured PC drive past shoot between the first and second wheel where the driver was located and minimal armour or let it go right past and shoot at the back where the fuel was----only one thing wrong with this the 200 other fecing APCs wouldnt be behind you--you was in fact in front of them so DEAD. It was asked at least ten times "how do we get out" or "what about the locals?" ---by hard tough real Paras and the answer was always the same " soft c--t" or "if we got nucked / fall out of chemical shit what happens after the drugs run out?"---answer " your dead ! and anyway there will be fuck all left of England so there wouldnt be anything to come back to--soft c--t".
Comments
They will be watching a Hollywood movie and think it's the real thing.
War of the worlds breaks out.
Goodbye cruel world.
People give the arguement if we use trident we'd be dead anyway so what's the point, but should we condemn our neighbours to be bullied by a mad nuclear power? If we had nuclear weapons and wouldn't use them, that crazy nuclear state will go "well hey, no ones using their nuclear weapons, I can do what I want to everyone else too!"
I just think being anti nuclear deterrent is so inward and insular looking it's unreal. And trident is probably our best bet (considering we're surrounded by water)
It didnt deter Paris,7/7 , Germany last night etc etc. It didnt stop the Argies and it didnt stop Iraq invading Kuwait.
It wouldnt be used on ISIS even if the filth used weapons of mass destruction on us.
However im sure it stopped the USSR from their imperialistic expansions and im sure the fact that we have it might make Putin think twice about ever using his.
Morally i just cant see how its justified to slaughter tens and tens of thousands of people.
i think the arguement for having this deterant is weak and yet i feel we must have it ?
Corbyn was hammered by his own people yesterday-----he bleats on as all socialists do about the "party" and when it was pointed out "The Party" voted to support the replacement of Trident his only response was "we said we would hold a review"---so Jezza its still your partys policy--yet you voted against it.
The SNP what a fecking sad bunch of twats they are----------shut ALL the military bases in Scotland and do it NOW bring all those jobs to England Wales and Northern Ireland and let the Scottish people know its what the SNP want.
Socialist Nationalist Party.
Weird thing is about £3/4 billion has already been spent on this project ! and the docks/workshops in Barrow have already been built !
The thing is it's not a case of the world having them or not having them, unilateral disarmament around the world is impossible. You can't unlearn decades of nuclear science.
My understanding is that nuclear war wipes out the planet. After a nuclear war the concepts of governments, countries, and any kind of organization is finished.
We re enter a new stone age for the handful of survivors who remain.
So all nutters basically.
In my humble opinion now is about the worst possible time that GB could choose to weaken its defence.
Our country needs to ensure its own defences to the greatest extent that it reasonably can, relying on America or France to guarantee our integrity is a dreadful strategy.
Turkey looks set to be undergoing a huge change at the moment; is it out of the question for a country of their size, and with their aspirations of being a regional power, to acquire nuclear weapons? Not to mention, as @ShootersHillGuru has correctly pointed out, with Putin in control of Russia we are essentially entering a new Cold War.
Renewal of trident is a safety policy for the next 20 or 30 years against just these forms of emerging threat. The only thing certain about tomorrow is the uncertainty of what it holds.
To those who have underlined the fact that our main threats are internal actors: I agree, albeit with the caveat that the threats above still exist and/or could come to fruition. Personally I'd love to see the Home Office getting some cash to ensure that we're not only equipped to prevent another 7/7 for a further 11 years, but we're also equipped to deal rapidly and effectively when our lucky streak eventually ends. Unfortunately the presence of a threat within our own borders doesn't negate the potential of threat outside those borders.
It's a weird proposition: purchasing a weapon of last resort, the type which would only ever be deployed after the nation has already been dealt a crippling blow and been largely obliterated. Sadly, there lies the crux of MAD: you don't attack another nuclear power with nuclear weapons as you're going to consequentially be obliterated.
When people point out that nuclear weapons haven't stopped war, they're right - but they've certainly stopped wars between nuclear states, and they've certainly ensured that everyone who has access to such weapons understands that to press the button is to commit suicide.
Interestingly even during the Cold War, plans for a Soviet Invasion were largely conventional: a war of attrition triggered by pushing sheer numbers through Germany. For a period of time that can be summarised as the world's Nuclear Powers facing each other off, it's rather telling that the plans of aggression still didn't include nuclear weapons as anything other than a retaliatory action.
http://www.politico.eu/article/putin-news-russia-turkey-nato/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29832879
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-10-30/why-russia-is-buzzing-nato
So the use of "weapons of mass distruction" was part of military thinking in 1981 all be it flooding.
I failed pre para selection twice re ligament so never received my red lid
As for your cash for the home office, they've already got it, it's the snooper's charter and the GCHQ facility in cornwall. Which is an even bigger waste of money as it's not guaranteed spying on all civilian communications would prevent a 7/7 attack. There's no way of effectively storing and looking through that data at all.
I'm proper on the fence about the Trident debate. I honestly can see arguments for both sides (must come as a shock for those of you who have me down as a leftie). I guess we have to see it as an insurance policy. No one knows what the world will be like over the next 50 years, look how much it has changed over the last 50. That said it is a hell of a lot of money and no one can say for sure whether it really does act as a deterrent or not. Also the immediate threat is not from the nuclear powers of the world but terrorism, nuclear weapons do not deter that. It's an extremely complex but quite interesting debate and includes some thought provoking philosophical conundrums.
Could have saved us from Roland though !
It was asked at least ten times "how do we get out" or "what about the locals?" ---by hard tough real Paras and the answer was always the same " soft c--t"
or "if we got nucked / fall out of chemical shit what happens after the drugs run out?"---answer " your dead ! and anyway there will be fuck all left of England so there wouldnt be anything to come back to--soft c--t".