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
Starters? Do you think there will be a main course and a dessert after starting to vaporise people?
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
Starters? Do you think there will be a main course and a dessert after starting to vaporise people?
Not by the way he can't even get past Ukraine. He won't be no match for us Brits
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
Starters? Do you think there will be a main course and a dessert after starting to vaporise people?
Nope. Game over but your stance assumes that every world government think like you do. I can tell you off the top of my head a few that would absolutely use nukes if it served their purpose and they knew they could get away with it.
I'm surprised that this news is even published instead of being kept as a secret. What purpose does it serve to let the world know that your nuclear weapons don't work??? Transparency is more important than strategies for arm force information?
I'm surprised that this news is even published instead of being kept as a secret. What purpose does it serve to let the world know that your nuclear weapons don't work??? Transparency is more important than strategies for arm force information?
There's always an agenda for news stories.
Countries round the world will know the outcomes of such tests regardless of whether it appears in the media as it's likely everyone monitors everyone and everything in this respect.
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
Starters? Do you think there will be a main course and a dessert after starting to vaporise people?
Nope. Game over but your stance assumes that every world government think like you do. I can tell you off the top of my head a few that would absolutely use nukes if it served their purpose and they knew they could get away with it.
I'm surprised that this news is even published instead of being kept as a secret. What purpose does it serve to let the world know that your nuclear weapons don't work??? Transparency is more important than strategies for arm force information?
There's always an agenda for news stories.
Countries round the world will know the outcomes of such tests regardless of whether it appears in the media as it's likely everyone monitors everyone and everything in this respect.
Yes that crossed my mind too. Guess it's just the media in the UK is really good at what they do...
I'm surprised that this news is even published instead of being kept as a secret. What purpose does it serve to let the world know that your nuclear weapons don't work??? Transparency is more important than strategies for arm force information?
There's always an agenda for news stories.
Countries round the world will know the outcomes of such tests regardless of whether it appears in the media as it's likely everyone monitors everyone and everything in this respect.
Yes that crossed my mind too. Guess it's just the media in the UK is really good at what they do...
Well, the person who ends up gaining from the leak is really good at what they for, do themselves.
I'm surprised that this news is even published instead of being kept as a secret. What purpose does it serve to let the world know that your nuclear weapons don't work??? Transparency is more important than strategies for arm force information?
There's always an agenda for news stories.
Countries round the world will know the outcomes of such tests regardless of whether it appears in the media as it's likely everyone monitors everyone and everything in this respect.
Yes that crossed my mind too. Guess it's just the media in the UK is really good at what they do...
They're not. Point is Russia and China won't have found out about the failed test on the basis that Sun/ other journalists have published/ reported it so it's almost irrelevant whether it appears in the media in respect of rival military awareness as they'll likely know outcomes well before the media.
On the agenda point there appears to be a big drive from within the military to increase military spending which requires public support etc and all sorts of various agendas otherwise to broadcast it to the masses.
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.
and costs £17m a launch. according to BBC. Just like my last fireworks party.
This organisation below has been going all my life. I remember the Aldermaston marches being shown on Pathe News. Since then there has been other stuff like the Greenham Common protests.
If protest has achieved anything it has influenced moves towards non proliferation and to a degree the reduction of the number of nuclear warheads. Although the world has enough nuclear warheads to wipe out all life on earth many times over for thousands upon thousands of years.
Some people talk of ‘battlefield’ Nuclear weapons which are non existent, it is as delusional as a building company saying they will provide ‘affordable’ housing.
Somebody somewhere has to object to the existence and potential use of these weapons and the CND have been doing so for years. There is a good and honest constituency of people across all political persuasions, all ethnicities, all religions, and all ‘nationalities’ who wish to point out the absolute stupidity of the existence of all these boys toys.
Those who get off on weapons porn love ‘em (Nukes) and judging by gun ownership in America ban the bombers are on a loser. However I know which people I believe to be on the ‘right side of history’, trouble is a nuclear war will not only end the future but wipe out any notion of history too.
The cost to replace Trident in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is at least two hundred and fifty billion pounds. Imagine the good things that money could be spent on rather than Schrödinger’s ‘deterrent’ which looks like it doesn’t work anyway.
In the private sector the money is on the world continuing to fragment/de-globalise in the short to medium term and uncertainty to increase. The move to onshoring after years of offshoring is real.
In the public sphere, we need a serious conversation about how self sufficient we want the UK to be and how much we’re prepared to spend. Who knows to what extent press articles like the Trident test failure and the MOD capex freeze (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mod-freezes-spending-budgets-spiral-210155956.html?guccounter=1) are part of driving/influencing a discussion.
We have the option to simultaneously support the strength of NATO and the UK’s own self sufficiency and resilience if we choose to invest. But if we’re going to do that we’ve got to have a plan for investing intelligently.
I'm surprised that this news is even published instead of being kept as a secret. What purpose does it serve to let the world know that your nuclear weapons don't work??? Transparency is more important than strategies for arm force information?
To be honest Jessie, I think regardless of any announcement or concealment by the authorities, both Russia and any other interested powers would be fully aware of what the U.K. has and is doing and of any tests conducted. By definition this type of test has to be carried out in at least semi public view and the satellite images of submarine movements would know exactly what’s going on.
Most people want a world without war and certainly nuclear weapons and the potential destruction they bring Seth.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone does.
Whilst the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, fundamentalist nutters like Iran etc pose military might and nuclear weapons and would potentially use them to achieve their goals without a second thought if it meant there would be no response then the awful reality is that a robust deterrent is required.
This was tragically underlined by the recent invasion of Ukraine who gave up their stockpile and ultimately deterrent and don't have NATO membership to rely on.
It's awful but the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle as it has been since 1945 and unfortunately not only limited to being in the hands of (relatively) rational actors in the USA and Soviet Union but nutters like North Korea etc.
If we didn't have the NATO nuclear deterrent it's very unlikely that the UK or many parts of Europe would be safe from threat of the likes of Putin and expansionist objectives.
So until we somehow work out a way that no one has them then they're a necessary evil. And even if they didn't exist for anyone what would stop military superpowers like the USA or China doing what they want around the world unfettered beyond what is done already with no one or nothing to deter them.
It's grim but an awful reality that not everyone values good and human life the same.
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
Starters? Do you think there will be a main course and a dessert after starting to vaporise people?
Nope. Game over but your stance assumes that every world government think like you do. I can tell you off the top of my head a few that would absolutely use nukes if it served their purpose and they knew they could get away with it.
Nobody could get away with it. Including the UK.
That’s exactly my point isn’t it. They couldn’t get away with it because of exactly the same retaliation. That’s the whole deterrent point.
Just to be clear, more or less every major power on earth would have been notified this test was happening. The last thing you want is someone picking up a missile launch and thinking the end of the world is coming!!!
Regarding Trident, it is too one dimensional to say that the world is over anyway, it is a preventative weapon.
Back in the olden days it was common for 2 previously belligerent nations to demand hostages from each other, eg the kings son would go and live in the court of a previous belligerent. This helped prevent wars because people knew that if they went to war, their children would be murdered.
Trident is about preventing wars, not out of some lust to fry Moscow to 3,000 degrees. I'm surprised given what we have seen in the past couple of years that people would be willing to unilaterally disarm. To me, Trident is proving more worthwhile than ever....
Most people want a world without war and certainly nuclear weapons and the potential destruction they bring Seth.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone does.
Whilst the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, fundamentalist nutters like Iran etc pose military might and nuclear weapons and would potentially use them to achieve their goals without a second thought if it meant there would be no response then the awful reality is that a robust deterrent is required.
This was tragically underlined by the recent invasion of Ukraine who gave up their stockpile and ultimately deterrent and don't have NATO membership to rely on.
It's awful but the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle as it has been since 1945 and unfortunately not only limited to being in the hands of (relatively) rational actors in the USA and Soviet Union but nutters like North Korea etc.
If we didn't have the NATO nuclear deterrent it's very unlikely that the UK or many parts of Europe would be safe from threat of the likes of Putin and expansionist objectives.
So until we somehow work out a way that no one has them then they're a necessary evil. And even if they didn't exist for anyone what would stop military superpowers like the USA or China doing what they want around the world unfettered beyond what is done already with no one or nothing to deter them.
It's grim but an awful reality that not everyone values good and human life the same.
Do you mind if I sum up your post as saying we have to deal with the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be?
If that is true, then is there any point in anybody seeking rapprochement rather than the endless spending (and spread?) on Nuclear weapons?
Your point about the grim reality of not valuing human life applies as much to the UK as it does to North Korea when you contemplate the road that got us to where we are.
I'm surprised that this news is even published instead of being kept as a secret. What purpose does it serve to let the world know that your nuclear weapons don't work??? Transparency is more important than strategies for arm force information?
To be honest Jessie, I think regardless of any announcement or concealment by the authorities, both Russia and any other interested powers would be fully aware of what the U.K. has and is doing and of any tests conducted. By definition this type of test has to be carried out in at least semi public view and the satellite images of submarine movements would know exactly what’s going on.
Yes as I said in an earlier post I guess the people in the governments of other countries know. At first I thought it was maybe a case of media people obtaining big news and people's attention. Then RodneyCharltonTrotta's response made me realise such leak is probably done on purpose by the miliatry people who want financial boost.
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
Starters? Do you think there will be a main course and a dessert after starting to vaporise people?
Nope. Game over but your stance assumes that every world government think like you do. I can tell you off the top of my head a few that would absolutely use nukes if it served their purpose and they knew they could get away with it.
Nobody could get away with it. Including the UK.
That’s exactly my point isn’t it. They couldn’t get away with it because of exactly the same retaliation. That’s the whole deterrent point.
I would argue it is a ‘mutually assured destruction’ point rather than a point about deterrent. There have been plenty of suicide bombers around in recent times.
Just to be clear, more or less every major power on earth would have been notified this test was happening. The last thing you want is someone picking up a missile launch and thinking the end of the world is coming!!!
Regarding Trident, it is too one dimensional to say that the world is over anyway, it is a preventative weapon.
Back in the olden days it was common for 2 previously belligerent nations to demand hostages from each other, eg the kings son would go and live in the court of a previous belligerent. This helped prevent wars because people knew that if they went to war, their children would be murdered.
Trident is about preventing wars, not out of some lust to fry Moscow to 3,000 degrees. I'm surprised given what we have seen in the past couple of years that people would be willing to unilaterally disarm. To me, Trident is proving more worthwhile than ever....
Completely agree, would be quite nice if it worked though…
Most people want a world without war and certainly nuclear weapons and the potential destruction they bring Seth.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone does.
Whilst the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, fundamentalist nutters like Iran etc pose military might and nuclear weapons and would potentially use them to achieve their goals without a second thought if it meant there would be no response then the awful reality is that a robust deterrent is required.
This was tragically underlined by the recent invasion of Ukraine who gave up their stockpile and ultimately deterrent and don't have NATO membership to rely on.
It's awful but the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle as it has been since 1945 and unfortunately not only limited to being in the hands of (relatively) rational actors in the USA and Soviet Union but nutters like North Korea etc.
If we didn't have the NATO nuclear deterrent it's very unlikely that the UK or many parts of Europe would be safe from threat of the likes of Putin and expansionist objectives.
So until we somehow work out a way that no one has them then they're a necessary evil. And even if they didn't exist for anyone what would stop military superpowers like the USA or China doing what they want around the world unfettered beyond what is done already with no one or nothing to deter them.
It's grim but an awful reality that not everyone values good and human life the same.
Do you mind if I sum up your post as saying we have to deal with the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be?
If that is true, then is there any point in anybody seeking rapprochement rather than the endless spending (and spread?) on Nuclear weapons?
Your point about the grim reality of not valuing human life applies as much to the UK as it does to North Korea when you contemplate the road that got us to where we are.
Really? As much?
We cannot forget the technology that Oppenheimer developed in the same way we cannot dis-invent the wheel. I, like you, would love a world free of nuclear weapons and free of armed conflict - but it will not happen as long as mankind exists.
Comments
That's an absolutely ridiculous assertion. The official report has clearly identified the malfunction as down to "human error".
Do you think there will be a main course and a dessert after starting to vaporise people?
There are quite a few actual buttons...(and a very long and complex chain of command to get anywhere near it).
think like you do. I can tell you off the top of my head a few that would absolutely use nukes if it served their purpose and they knew they could get away with it.
Countries round the world will know the outcomes of such tests regardless of whether it appears in the media as it's likely everyone monitors everyone and everything in this respect.
On the agenda point there appears to be a big drive from within the military to increase military spending which requires public support etc and all sorts of various agendas otherwise to broadcast it to the masses.
If protest has achieved anything it has influenced moves towards non proliferation and to a degree the reduction of the number of nuclear warheads. Although the world has enough nuclear warheads to wipe out all life on earth many times over for thousands upon thousands of years.
Some people talk of ‘battlefield’ Nuclear weapons which are non existent, it is as delusional as a building company saying they will provide ‘affordable’ housing.
Somebody somewhere has to object to the existence and potential use of these weapons and the CND have been doing so for years. There is a good and honest constituency of people across all political persuasions, all ethnicities, all religions, and all ‘nationalities’ who wish to point out the absolute stupidity of the existence of all these boys toys.
Those who get off on weapons porn love ‘em (Nukes) and judging by gun ownership in America ban the bombers are on a loser. However I know which people I believe to be on the ‘right side of history’, trouble is a nuclear war will not only end the future but wipe out any notion of history too.
The cost to replace Trident in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is at least two hundred and fifty billion pounds. Imagine the good things that money could be spent on rather than Schrödinger’s ‘deterrent’ which looks like it doesn’t work anyway.
In the public sphere, we need a serious conversation about how self sufficient we want the UK to be and how much we’re prepared to spend. Who knows to what extent press articles like the Trident test failure and the MOD capex freeze (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mod-freezes-spending-budgets-spiral-210155956.html?guccounter=1) are part of driving/influencing a discussion.
We have the option to simultaneously support the strength of NATO and the UK’s own self sufficiency and resilience if we choose to invest. But if we’re going to do that we’ve got to have a plan for investing intelligently.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone does.
Whilst the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, fundamentalist nutters like Iran etc pose military might and nuclear weapons and would potentially use them to achieve their goals without a second thought if it meant there would be no response then the awful reality is that a robust deterrent is required.
This was tragically underlined by the recent invasion of Ukraine who gave up their stockpile and ultimately deterrent and don't have NATO membership to rely on.
It's awful but the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle as it has been since 1945 and unfortunately not only limited to being in the hands of (relatively) rational actors in the USA and Soviet Union but nutters like North Korea etc.
If we didn't have the NATO nuclear deterrent it's very unlikely that the UK or many parts of Europe would be safe from threat of the likes of Putin and expansionist objectives.
So until we somehow work out a way that no one has them then they're a necessary evil. And even if they didn't exist for anyone what would stop military superpowers like the USA or China doing what they want around the world unfettered beyond what is done already with no one or nothing to deter them.
It's grim but an awful reality that not everyone values good and human life the same.
Regarding Trident, it is too one dimensional to say that the world is over anyway, it is a preventative weapon.
Back in the olden days it was common for 2 previously belligerent nations to demand hostages from each other, eg the kings son would go and live in the court of a previous belligerent. This helped prevent wars because people knew that if they went to war, their children would be murdered.
Trident is about preventing wars, not out of some lust to fry Moscow to 3,000 degrees. I'm surprised given what we have seen in the past couple of years that people would be willing to unilaterally disarm. To me, Trident is proving more worthwhile than ever....
If that is true, then is there any point in anybody seeking rapprochement rather than the endless spending (and spread?) on Nuclear weapons?
Your point about the grim reality of not valuing human life applies as much to the UK as it does to North Korea when you contemplate the road that got us to where we are.
There have been plenty of suicide bombers around in recent times.