Jump to content

Trident renewal?


observer

Recommended Posts

I mentioned them, merely cos they're a cheaper and more effective option for those who wish to eliminate enemy threats. But I wonder in what circumstances we would launch nuclear weapons (the US allowing of course) and just how they would actually safeguard our population? A terrorists attack: as I asked, where would you target your counter strike? An attack by a super-power: assuming Russia or China made a pre-emptive strike, to take out any nuclear threats to themselves; well we wouldn't be around to see how our Trident submarine counter strike faired anyway. A strike by a rogue State: would Korea or Iran target the UK, when the Yanks have enough nukes to evapourate them several times over. So, why do these emerging nuclear powers want these weapons too? Is it the same rational that we are using to keep ours, ie. a deterent; in which case, how can we deny them? :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the idea of Trident Obs. Being on a submarine makes it difficult, if not impossible, for an agressor to take them out with a pre-emptive attack. The rogue state you have in mind is probably Iran which has Israel in their sights. If Iran were to threaten Israel with a nuclear attack I would hope that the fact that the USA and the UK have a nuclear arsenal would deter any attack.

 

What does EI a deterent mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they don't save our population from a nuclear attack Asp; they only give some banzai satisfaction that we got them back; the subs would return to an island of rubble. As for Israel, they've got their own nukes, and are more than ready to use them in a premptive attack; which presumably justifies the Arabs wishing to have them to create the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction. And when eventually, everyone gets tooled up, some idiot will use them. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asp

 

I have been following your posts on this thread and agreeing with you, up till the last one, where you slipped up badly, you used the word logic when talking about Observer. Now I get pulled up for my spelling, so it is only right that I take issue with your use of words. I am sure it was just an error on your part. But due to the massive size of said error, I felt steps had to be taken :wink:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about "defence" Asp, actually protecting the civil population from harm; conventional forces traditionally do that; nuclear weapons don't. The logic lies in the fact Kije, that your mates in Europe (except the French), havn't paid a penny in taxes towards the political kudos of having nukes, but have enjoyed peace for 60 years. :wink:

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned them, merely cos they're a cheaper and more effective option for those who wish to eliminate enemy threats.

 

 

Wrong as usual Obs.

 

Bio weapons are AT LEAST as expensive to design, manufacture and store safely as nuclear warheads, and FAR more unpredictable when used. It only takes a couple of infected people from a target area to get on planes, boats or trains and flee to other countries and you've got epidemics popping up all over the world.

 

Plus they have the major drawback that if you DO use them then by infecting your enemies population you've just given them perfectly viable samples of your bio weapon, which your enemy can fairly easily harvest and fire straight back at you!

 

The vast bulk of the cost in Trident or its replacement is in the delivery system, the subs and the missiles. This is the only sort of delivery system which is guaranteed capable of getting a warhead accurately to any point on the globe - UK land based missiles couldn't do it, neither could bomber aircraft - and yes that sort of capability is very expensive. But these costs are fixed regardless of what sort of warhead you strap onto the top of your missile - nuclear, chemical, biological, or anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You presume the same delivery system would be required for bio agents as nukes, you also presume the nature of the bio-weapons we have in stock; the details of which will be highly classified. But as I said, that's an option for those who wish to put their reliance in WMDs; the rest of Europe (bar France) have no such weapons and thus don't have to pay for the expense of delivering them, and have remained perfectly safe for 60 years. Interestingly, Michael Prtillo, ex-Defence Minister, seems to agree with me; as he said last night on TV, an independent nuclear deterent was concieved as, and remains a political status symbol. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You presume the same delivery system would be required for bio agents as nukes, you also presume the nature of the bio-weapons we have in stock; the details of which will be highly classified. But as I said, that's an option for those who wish to put their reliance in WMDs; the rest of Europe (bar France) have no such weapons and thus don't have to pay for the expense of delivering them, and have remained perfectly safe for 60 years. Interestingly, Michael Prtillo, ex-Defence Minister, seems to agree with me; as he said last night on TV, an independent nuclear deterent was concieved as, and remains a political status symbol. :wink:

 

So how else would you guarantee the survivability, accurate targeting, delivery, and dispersal of a bio weapon to any point on the globe at mere minutes notice?

 

I would point out that I'm probably far better placed than you to be familiar with current classified weapons systems - unless of course you also spent years being trained in their characteristics, effects, limitations and delivery systems, and still hold a relatively high level security clearance?

 

And of course an independent nuclear deterrent is a political status symbol.

 

It is symbolic of our ability to blow the crap out of anyone who tries sufficiently hard to p*** us off!

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...
×
×
  • Create New...