Thats it, Putin will be at us soon, get your tin hats ready and clear out your under stairs cupboards
Joking aside, the Putin threat is being taken very, very seriously here in Sweden. Already my wife (who is a nurse, so is in the military numbers) has been given her war postings, in the event of an outbreak of war. My brother-in-law (also a nurse, but in the reserve army), has been in recent military exercises and is being issued an assault rifle to be kept in the house, so that nobody is off guard, and that if in the event of an outbreak, the Swedish munitions stations were to be bombed, then there are stocks with every soldier.
It's all very serious here and a conversation nobody wants to discuss as being a reality, but many are expectant about, is an outbreak of war with Russia within the next year, similar to Ukraine.
I think that is the reason why Sweden is keen to get the NATO deal over the line.
One advantage, if you can call it that, is that Swedes continue to do National Service in their later teens and so learn the basics of combat. Even the nephew who is a passifist, has done a few tours in Afghanistan.
My friends in Lithuania tell me they've been busy to.
I am unlikely to be thinking ‘that’s all right then because some other poor sod is being vaporised too, that’ll learn ‘em’. Conflict goes on all over the place, nuclear weapons haven’t seemed to have stopped that, what conflict has the existence of Trident deterred? It’s like Schrödinger’s weapon. Except the box has now been opened revealing that it is empty. Wouldn’t it actually be better to put all that wasted money into conventional forces and cyber type stuff?
rust never sleeps !! .. this elderly system must be showing it's age and a launch every decade or so can't be a proper test of its reliability .. the UK's Trident carrying submarines are around 30 years old now and not due to be replaced until the early 2030s which probably means the late 2040s .. as said the system is old and creaky and will cost a large number of billions to replace .. is it worth keeping/upgrading ? .. it's a dangerous world and could be getting more dangerous, so there is a need a t m for a deterrent, however, SEE BELOW lol I m o, to paraphrase Trump, the Nato countries excluding us and the US get a free ride 'hiding under our "nuclear umbrella" ' .. we should demand that the rich Euros, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden and the rest cough up for the Royal Navy to continue to provide a nuclear deterrent that they are getting for free, when/if Trident is either replaced and/or the submarine fleet upgraded to keep the deterrent viable, in fact make them start paying NOW (If only)
With Trident, we no longer have an independent nuclear deterrent as, unlike Polaris, we need the permission of the Yanks to defend ourselves with this system! Utterly pointless and yet MAD is still required.
Perhaps you should ask the Ukrainians how they now feel about renouncing their nuclear weapons in the 90's Seth.
I suppose you may think their answer would be 'I wish we had nuclear weapons, and then when Russia crossed our borders we could've nuked them into the stone age, or olden times before'.
Well my understanding is that Chernobyl is in Ukraine, and when that meltdown happened the contamination spread mainly across Northern Europe, especially Poland and got as far as the sheep farms in the uplands of the British Isles, and that's without the boys playing with their Nuclear toys in a war!
If the Ukrainians feel that Nuking Russia would have been the answer to Russian forces coming inbound all that would have resulted in would be a global nuclear winter lasting thousands of years.
In other words it wouldn't have done anybody any good.
To an extent the supply of conventional forces (now running out) has been effective in stopping Russia fully taking over, and I don't buy the notion that if Ukraine had ICBM's things would be better.
The best deterrent lies somewhere in the minds of human beings, but activating that moral channel is the hardest challenge humanity faces.
The UK having their own nuclear deterrent systems doesn't really matter because NATO (the US) has nukes and NATO has nukes stationed in Europe. Under Article 5, if the UK is attacked, NATO countries will respond. So they're kind of good for throwing your weight around, but not much else. But using them to throw your weight around against another nuclear power, say, I don't know, Russia, doesn't really work because Russia has a lot more nukes than you and also MAD. So um, sorry if you were planning to use them to have the king rule the Falklands or something.
Also, in the event of a nuclear war, it's really not going to matter if the Nukes that end the human race are launched from Moscow, Paris, Montana, or Scotland. We're all dead one way or the other.
A test firing from a Royal Navy submarine of a Trident Nuclear Missile has ended in failure. Each missile and therefore test costs £17 million plus. The last test in 2016 also ended in failure. How confident are we that the U.K. actually has a functioning nuclear deterrent ? Bit embarrassing if on the day we all hope never comes, we press the button and all we get is the sound of a wet fart.
I'm pretty confident that in the event of the need to deploy a nuclear weapon, the combined forces of NATO's nuclear capable countries (US, UK, France) and their estimated 4,223 nuclear warheads would do the job they need to do, either as a limited tactical strike or as part of a comprehensive attack in the context of mutually assured destruction.
The nuclear deterrent has effectively held the peace between East and West for nigh on 80 years - and it's important that it remains a viable option, moreso now than ever.
It is strange how nonplussed we are here. My cousin in law is from Latvia and her friends and family are very worried.
I spent 3 months worrying myself sick about the inevitability of ww3 and armageddon when Russia invaded Ukraine.
It did me no good, quite the opposite in fact, and made fuck all difference to the situation.
I wouldn't say it's non plussed but more in the back of our minds as it was in 70s and 80s but a neurosis and preoccupation with it is futile as we have literally no power or control over such events.
I can completely empathise with residents of countries like Sweden with land boarders and former soviet states like Latvia and Lithuania as it probably seems more forthright.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and the human race can act like adults again.
rust never sleeps !! .. this elderly system must be showing it's age and a launch every decade or so can't be a proper test of its reliability .. the UK's Trident carrying submarines are around 30 years old now and not due to be replaced until the early 2030s which probably means the late 2040s .. as said the system is old and creaky and will cost a large number of billions to replace .. is it worth keeping/upgrading ? .. it's a dangerous world and could be getting more dangerous, so there is a need a t m for a deterrent, however, SEE BELOW lol I m o, to paraphrase Trump, the Nato countries excluding us and the US get a free ride 'hiding under our "nuclear umbrella" ' .. we should demand that the rich Euros, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden and the rest cough up for the Royal Navy to continue to provide a nuclear deterrent that they are getting for free, when/if Trident is either replaced and/or the submarine fleet upgraded to keep the deterrent viable, in fact make them start paying NOW (If only)
The USA have carried out 191 tests. I’m sure that Trident is fit for purpose but this is a little embarrassing.
Apart from world wars, British Governments always want to do defence on the cheap
And, yes, the amount of £££’s for defence is eye watering, but it is all relative
The British Army is now - in global terms - as in what the definition of what an ‘Army’ is - no longer an Army - its number of troops means it it is now a ‘Self Defence Force’
Shameful
When the baddies come knocking on the door, all those who don’t like the fact we have an Army (ignore above), Navy, RAF - hang your heads in shame
And yes - my family history goes back 5 generations serving in the British Army
And sorry - my post above - my point is (and idiotic because it was the key point of what I wanted to say 🤷) - I’m pretty sure I read that the last time we test fired a Trident missile was 2016 ???
And sorry - my post above - my point is (and idiotic because it was the key point of what I wanted to say 🤷) - I’m pretty sure I read that the last time we test fired a Trident missile was 2016 ???
WTF
You make good points. The missiles cost £17 million each to buy plus I assume the cost of the test. That’s why we (U.K.) don’t test much. It’s an American system so I assume again we piggyback on their results and technical expertise.
And sorry - my post above - my point is (and idiotic because it was the key point of what I wanted to say 🤷) - I’m pretty sure I read that the last time we test fired a Trident missile was 2016 ???
WTF
You make good points. The missiles cost £17 million each to buy plus I assume the cost of the test. That’s why we (U.K.) don’t test much. It’s an American system so I assume again we piggyback on their results and technical expertise.
But we only buy Trident - alongside the systems that make it work - all else is British (the submarine, engines etc etc)
You can’t piggy back on a Trident fired from a USA sub as a test and wait between 2016 and 2024 to fire from a UK sub (in fairness someone will correct me, I bet we have fired one between those dates)
On the world stage, we are becoming a joke nation - full of Bulldog Bravado - but eminatimg Bulldog farts
And sorry - my post above - my point is (and idiotic because it was the key point of what I wanted to say 🤷) - I’m pretty sure I read that the last time we test fired a Trident missile was 2016 ???
WTF
We last tested in 2016, but the US has tested since. Successfully. The missiles are drawn from a common stock and launch procedure is the same, so their tests are ours and vice versa.
To the point above, no we don’t have to ask permission from the US to use the missiles. They are operationally independent but common stock is held in the US, meaning that if we fell out, and couldn’t access more missiles, we’d only have those at sea at the time. But given the scenario in which it would be used, I guess that point is moot. I believe it is the ‘NATO’ deterrent that requires US acquiescence.
Could have been sabotaged by those sneaky Russkis.
It has also discussed here in Sweden over recent weeks that a jamming device was being used around southern Sweden in December and January, that basically fucked with the shipping navigation systems, resulting into them having to use old school instruments.
Thats it, Putin will be at us soon, get your tin hats ready and clear out your under stairs cupboards
Joking aside, the Putin threat is being taken very, very seriously here in Sweden. Already my wife (who is a nurse, so is in the military numbers) has been given her war postings, in the event of an outbreak of war. My brother-in-law (also a nurse, but in the reserve army), has been in recent military exercises and is being issued an assault rifle to be kept in the house, so that nobody is off guard, and that if in the event of an outbreak, the Swedish munitions stations were to be bombed, then there are stocks with every soldier.
It's all very serious here and a conversation nobody wants to discuss as being a reality, but many are expectant about, is an outbreak of war with Russia within the next year, similar to Ukraine.
I think that is the reason why Sweden is keen to get the NATO deal over the line.
One advantage, if you can call it that, is that Swedes continue to do National Service in their later teens and so learn the basics of combat. Even the nephew who is a passifist, has done a few tours in Afghanistan.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
The threat of impending nuclear Armageddon is indeed concerning but I just want to clarify something - your wife is a Swedish nurse? Lucky bugger!
I am for us having Trident but if we have to use it in anger it has failed so if it mostly works, that is enough surely. I wouldn't like to take the chance of the UK not being able to deploy any Trident missiles if I was an enemy. If it costs £17m to deploy/test one, I would hope we do it as few times as possible. I accept we do need to test it but not too often.
I am for us having Trident but if we have to use it in anger it has failed so if it mostly works, that is enough surely. I wouldn't like to take the chance of the UK not being able to deploy any Trident missiles if I was an enemy. If it costs £17m to deploy/test one, I would hope we do it as few times as possible. I accept we do need to test it but not too often.
I am for us having Trident but if we have to use it in anger it has failed so if it mostly works, that is enough surely. I wouldn't like to take the chance of the UK not being able to deploy any Trident missiles if I was an enemy. If it costs £17m to deploy/test one, I would hope we do it as few times as possible. I accept we do need to test it but not too often.
'if we have to use it in anger'
What would that even achieve?
If Putin starts giving it Barislav Big Bollocks with us, he'll get a good farkin dose for a starters
I am for us having Trident but if we have to use it in anger it has failed so if it mostly works, that is enough surely. I wouldn't like to take the chance of the UK not being able to deploy any Trident missiles if I was an enemy. If it costs £17m to deploy/test one, I would hope we do it as few times as possible. I accept we do need to test it but not too often.
'if we have to use it in anger'
What would that even achieve?
That is the whole point. We won't have to. If we do have to, it being a deterent would be a false premise.
Comments
Conflict goes on all over the place, nuclear weapons haven’t seemed to have stopped that, what conflict has the existence of Trident deterred?
It’s like Schrödinger’s weapon.
Except the box has now been opened revealing that it is empty.
Wouldn’t it actually be better to put all that wasted money into conventional forces and cyber type stuff?
I m o, to paraphrase Trump, the Nato countries excluding us and the US get a free ride 'hiding under our "nuclear umbrella" ' .. we should demand that the rich Euros, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden and the rest cough up for the Royal Navy to continue to provide a nuclear deterrent that they are getting for free, when/if Trident is either replaced and/or the submarine fleet upgraded to keep the deterrent viable, in fact make them start paying NOW (If only)
Utterly pointless and yet MAD is still required.
Well my understanding is that Chernobyl is in Ukraine, and when that meltdown happened the contamination spread mainly across Northern Europe, especially Poland and got as far as the sheep farms in the uplands of the British Isles, and that's without the boys playing with their Nuclear toys in a war!
If the Ukrainians feel that Nuking Russia would have been the answer to Russian forces coming inbound all that would have resulted in would be a global nuclear winter lasting thousands of years.
In other words it wouldn't have done anybody any good.
To an extent the supply of conventional forces (now running out) has been effective in stopping Russia fully taking over, and I don't buy the notion that if Ukraine had ICBM's things would be better.
The best deterrent lies somewhere in the minds of human beings, but activating that moral channel is the hardest challenge humanity faces.
The UK having their own nuclear deterrent systems doesn't really matter because NATO (the US) has nukes and NATO has nukes stationed in Europe. Under Article 5, if the UK is attacked, NATO countries will respond. So they're kind of good for throwing your weight around, but not much else. But using them to throw your weight around against another nuclear power, say, I don't know, Russia, doesn't really work because Russia has a lot more nukes than you and also MAD. So um, sorry if you were planning to use them to have the king rule the Falklands or something.
Also, in the event of a nuclear war, it's really not going to matter if the Nukes that end the human race are launched from Moscow, Paris, Montana, or Scotland. We're all dead one way or the other.
It did me no good, quite the opposite in fact, and made fuck all difference to the situation.
I wouldn't say it's non plussed but more in the back of our minds as it was in 70s and 80s but a neurosis and preoccupation with it is futile as we have literally no power or control over such events.
I can completely empathise with residents of countries like Sweden with land boarders and former soviet states like Latvia and Lithuania as it probably seems more forthright.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and the human race can act like adults again.
Tale as old as time
Apart from world wars, British Governments always want to do defence on the cheap
And, yes, the amount of £££’s for defence is eye watering, but it is all relative
The British Army is now - in global terms - as in what the definition of what an ‘Army’ is - no longer an Army - its number of troops means it it is now a ‘Self Defence Force’
Shameful
When the baddies come knocking on the door, all those who don’t like the fact we have an Army (ignore above), Navy, RAF - hang your heads in shame
And yes - my family history goes back 5 generations serving in the British Army
WTF
You can’t piggy back on a Trident fired from a USA sub as a test and wait between 2016 and 2024 to fire from a UK sub (in fairness someone will correct me, I bet we have fired one between those dates)
On the world stage, we are becoming a joke nation - full of Bulldog Bravado - but eminatimg Bulldog farts
No surprise the fingers were all pointing East!
The threat of impending nuclear Armageddon is indeed concerning but I just want to clarify something - your wife is a Swedish nurse? Lucky bugger!
What would that even achieve?