Jump to content

Trident renewal?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

First question: is it "indepenent", could we launch a nuke without US permission? Second question: under what circumstances would it be used? Third question: how have the rest of European Countries (except France), remained secure without such a weapon? As Albert Einstein said: "the fourth world war will be fought with bows and arrows!" :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obs the clue is in the word "deterrent". i.e. it isn't intended that it would ever be used. The rest of Europe has been under the protection of NATO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asp; "deterents" only work when your dealing with rational people or States; why do you think the Israelis etc are panicking about Iran or Pakistan. Eventually more nutter States will get hold of these things, and who are we to deny them, when we have one. MAD means just that and the genies out of the bottle - thus such weapons only provide retaliation in kind, NOT security. Kije, I'm sure there are peacefull products that could engage our skilled workforce. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An independent(?) nuclear deterent is clearly an expensive piece of kit when the Country is skint; is it a worthwhile use of tax-payer's money? :unsure:

 

Not much else to protect us these days Obs with the didminishing navy fleets, troups and figher jets etc etc (Yes I know we do still have quite a lot though :unsure: ).

 

The £350 million trident (or however much it's supposed to cost as I've not read anything other than one news report so I don't know much about it really or the relevance of your word 'independant' and too late to google ) might be part of the protection for the £20 billion pounds worth of investemnt the Jap company Hitachi are now reported as putting in after taking over from the other companies to building more new nuclear power stations in the UK.

 

Any reason WHY they want to invest such large sums to build reactors over here rather than on their own turf in Japan where they would have full control ?

 

Like I said I know nowt about it so that's just an off the cuff reply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kije, I'm sure there are peacefull products that could engage our skilled workforce. :wink:

 

windmills?

 

Didn't spot that one and just nearly choked on my drink. "I saw a mouse... where ? there on the stair....BOOM"

 

bloody hell that song will be going around in my head all night now, cheer Baz !!! :evil::P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Obs you think that giving up our nuclear deterrent will stop the nutcases using their own? Best of luck with that :roll: :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although there are quite a few states around who appear to be "nutters" I am not convinced that, when it came to the crunch, they would behave like nutters if they knew that to do so would result in annihilation.

But if they knew they could use their nukes against somebody who did not have the ability to hit back, they could act with impunity without really being nutters! In their own eyes, anyway.

 

But I think all this is missing the point really. The immediate benefit is the jobs and the technology that a Trident replacement will bring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are cheaper, and much more deadly weapons options,without residual contamination or collateral damage

 

More deadly than a set of 12 independently targetable nukes, each 6 times bigger than the one which took out Hiroshima, each accurate to within 100 meters, delivered at over 13,000mph from over 7000 miles away by a single ballistic missile which is invisible to radar????? With each of 4 subs carrying 16 such missiles?????

 

:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

 

Now I KNOW you've lost the plot!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passed it with flying colours actually Obs.

 

YOU specified "without residual contamination or collateral damage". Pretty much rules out all chemical or biological weapons.

 

Doesn't leave that much from the NBC options!

 

What else do you suggest?

 

Thermobaric weapons? Useless against hard targets, nothing like as deadly.

 

MOABS? Nice big bang, but a slow moving and vulnerable delivery system.

 

GBU-57's? Localised hard targets only, no use against spread out areas.

 

Lasers or particle beam weapons? Not as long range, and certainly not as deadly.

 

Space based kinetic energy weapons? Banned by international law, much more expensive, and much easier to track and counter.

 

At the end of the day nothing gives you quite as much bang for your buck as a good old fashioned nuke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think you'll find that biological agents kill people (lots more than nukes), leaving the infrastructure intact, and they've designed organisms that will rapidly deplete, unlike radiation. And the beauty is, the recipients wouldn't know they've been attacked, untill the hospitals start filling up. btw, assuming some nut case terrorist would use a WMD against us, perhaps you could advise as to where to target our nukes?! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...