# The Case For Trident



## Doon frae Troon (May 21, 2015)

A few years old now but the scenario is still the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE


----------



## DCB (May 21, 2015)

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm glad we've got them and am convinced that their existence, however you look at it, is the reason we  are still here.

No one can win with Nuclear weapons which is probably why they haven't been deployed and used in any of the wars or conflicts since the first fateful use way back in 1945.

A necessary evil that maintains the scales in a balanced position IMO.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (May 21, 2015)

I think everybody would prefer that they didn't exist, but they do. And if Putin and some potentially unstable foreign powers have them, then I want them too.

They are the intimate deterrent to them being used

A bigger problem is a terrorist group or nutcase gets hold of a nuke or the materials to make a dirty bomb.


----------



## Sweep (May 21, 2015)

A necessary evil, but if the other side have them, we have to have them. 
Whilst it's all very noble of the SNP to want them gone from Scottish soil, I am sure everyone in Scotland will be screaming for protection from the rest of the UK if it all kicks off.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 21, 2015)

Sweep said:



			A necessary evil, but if the other side have them, we have to have them. 
Whilst it's all very noble of the SNP to want them gone from Scottish soil, I am sure everyone in Scotland will be screaming for protection from the rest of the UK if it all kicks off.
		
Click to expand...

If it all kicks off with them, I would imagine that no one would be bothered as they will all be dead.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 21, 2015)

Having them makes sure it doesn't all kick off


----------



## SocketRocket (May 21, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			If it all kicks off with them, I would imagine that no one would be bothered as they will all be dead.
		
Click to expand...

Would you sleep safer in your bed knowing countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan etc have them and we don't?


----------



## williamalex1 (May 21, 2015)

Honest question , is the Trident upgrade really necessary .


----------



## SocketRocket (May 21, 2015)

williamalex1 said:



			Honest question , is the Trident upgrade really necessary .
		
Click to expand...

Technology moves on and systems like this reach an end to their lifespan such that they cost more to maintain than replace.  A bit like cars.


----------



## williamalex1 (May 21, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Technology moves on and systems like this reach an end to their lifespan such that they cost more to maintain than replace.  A bit like cars.
		
Click to expand...

Seems a waste to scrap a 15 year car that's never been used or even out of its garage. Maybe we should sell them " buyer beware" on some advertising site.


----------



## gazr99 (May 21, 2015)

I would rather have a deterrent we are unlikely to use than not, especially considering the amount Russian planes are going into our airspace recently. Who said the Cold War is over?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 21, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Would you sleep safer in your bed knowing countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan etc have them and we don't?
		
Click to expand...

Do Germans lose sleep over not having a nuke capability?


----------



## SocketRocket (May 21, 2015)

williamalex1 said:



			Seems a waste to scrap a 15 year car that's never been used or even out of its garage. Maybe we should sell them " buyer beware" on some advertising site. 

Click to expand...

I think you will find that the submarines have gone round the clock a few times.   As I said technology becomes redundant after a time and more difficult to maintain.   Just like golf clubs


----------



## c1973 (May 21, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Do Germans lose sleep over not having a nuke capability?
		
Click to expand...

Probably not, but they do sleep safe and sound under the NATO umbrella.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 21, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Do Germans lose sleep over not having a nuke capability?
		
Click to expand...

I believe Germany was restricted to the type of defence they could have at the end of WW2.  As part of NATO we stationed a very large Army of the Rhine in Germany during the cold war, this Army was protected by the NATO nuclear deterrent.   Germans did not sleep easy in their beds, especially the ones in the East.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 21, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Probably not, but they do sleep safe and sound under the NATO umbrella. 

Click to expand...

As we would surely also?


----------



## SocketRocket (May 21, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			As we would surely also?
		
Click to expand...

Thats a somewhat hypocritical view!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 21, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Thats a somewhat hypocritical view!
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - don't know why you say that.  We know the USA are never going to disarm and as part of NATO they have a duty to protect the UK.  We can play our part in NATO in other ways useful to ther USA and rest of NATO.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 21, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Sorry - don't know why you say that.  We know the USA are never going to disarm and as part of NATO they have a duty to protect the UK.  We can play our part in NATO in other ways useful to ther USA and rest of NATO.
		
Click to expand...

I say it because it is. Why should France or the USA not say that they could save money and let the UK provide a nuclear deterrent that they can live safely under.  We are a permanent member of the UN security council and as such have certain International responsibilities.


----------



## Sweep (May 22, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			As we would surely also?
		
Click to expand...

That's OK then. Let everyone else pay to protect us and we will take no responsibility at all. Result! Sounds like an SNP party election broadcast.


----------



## USER1999 (May 22, 2015)

Surely though, if we had more money to spend on the rest of the defence, say ground troops, then we could contribute to NATO in a more useful way, than adding another 16 nuclear missiles to an already over stocked under used white elephant?

I believe that it's the submarines which primarily need replacing, and that's where most of the cost is.


----------



## JustOne (May 22, 2015)

I'd rather we had something that knocks nukes out of the sky.... and base them in France 

We need to be investing in 'remote' technology so we can kill people worldwide from an armchair in Whitehall.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 22, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			Surely though, if we had more money to spend on the rest of the defence, say ground troops, then we could contribute to NATO in a more useful way, than adding another 16 nuclear missiles to an already over stocked under used white elephant?

I believe that it's the submarines which primarily need replacing, and that's where most of the cost is.
		
Click to expand...

Ground troops aren't a deterrent to countries with nuclear arms


----------



## Ethan (May 22, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Technology moves on and systems like this reach an end to their lifespan such that they cost more to maintain than replace.  A bit like cars.
		
Click to expand...

Could they not just do a firmware update over the internet?

Military spending is one of the under the radar (no pun intended) ways of making big bucks for arms and equipment companies. The US (and RAF) has spent loads of money on useless planes, including the F35-B which can't fly near lightning in case its fuel tanks explode, and the F22 which doesn't fly very well at all.

http://gerarddirect.com/2013/03/10/...les-the-victims-of-arrogance-and-appeasement/

Even the US generals don't want some of the stuff the Congress is funding, but the military-industrial lobby, warned of 50 years ago by former WW2 General and later President Eisenhower, lobbies hard to get funding anyway and all the congressmen and senators who have manufacturing in their districts push it through.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html

Likewise, Trident and its replacement aren't all, or possibly even much, about defence. They are a lot about business.


----------



## USER1999 (May 22, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ground troops aren't a deterrent to countries with nuclear arms
		
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. But adding our measly number of missiles to what the Americans have makes no real difference, and we wouldn't fire them without first asking the Americans anyway.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 22, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			No, they aren't. But adding our measly number of missiles to what the Americans have makes no real difference, and we wouldn't fire them without first asking the Americans anyway.
		
Click to expand...

Imagine a Russian nuclear bomb hit Birmingham, do you think we would wait for permission from the USA to retaliate.  Somehow I don't think we would.

I can remember reading a book some years ago based on that exact scenario, quite interesting read.   Think it was called WW3.


----------



## c1973 (May 22, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			As we would surely also?
		
Click to expand...

Yep. 

But you see, I prefer (if required) to throw my own punches and not rely on others to do it for me. There's something......I don't know.....honest and non hypocritical about that imo.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 22, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



*Imagine a Russian nuclear bomb hit Birmingham*, do you think we would wait for permission from the USA to retaliate.  Somehow I don't think we would.

I can remember reading a book some years ago based on that exact scenario, quite interesting read.   Think it was called WW3.
		
Click to expand...

Have to say that I'm struggling with the idea of the world without Brummies


----------



## HomerJSimpson (May 22, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Have to say that I'm struggling with the idea of the world without Brummies
		
Click to expand...

But I'm coming around to the idea! Necessary evil and we need to keep it upgraded and viable


----------



## ColchesterFC (May 22, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Have to say that I'm struggling with the idea of the world without Brummies
		
Click to expand...




HomerJSimpson said:



			But I'm coming around to the idea! Necessary evil and we need to keep it upgraded and viable
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd be posting on a public forum that Brummies are a necessary evil. 

First of all I'm not convinced they are necessary and secondly I'm not sure how you would upgrade one of them to make them viable.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 22, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Could they not just do a firmware update over the internet?

Military spending is one of the under the radar (no pun intended) ways of making big bucks for arms and equipment companies. The US (and RAF) has spent loads of money on useless planes, including the F35-B which can't fly near lightning in case its fuel tanks explode, and the F22 which doesn't fly very well at all.

http://gerarddirect.com/2013/03/10/...les-the-victims-of-arrogance-and-appeasement/

Even the US generals don't want some of the stuff the Congress is funding, but the military-industrial lobby, warned of 50 years ago by former WW2 General and later President Eisenhower, lobbies hard to get funding anyway and all the congressmen and senators who have manufacturing in their districts push it through.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html

Likewise, Trident and its replacement aren't all, or possibly even much, about defence. They are a lot about business.
		
Click to expand...

Would you sleep safer in your bed if we didn't have any business?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 27, 2016)

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ar-weapons-systems/ar-BBq3wIg?ocid=spartandhp

Slightly worrying.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ar-weapons-systems/ar-BBq3wIg?ocid=spartandhp

Slightly worrying.
		
Click to expand...


If if were true, but I very much doubt it is


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 27, 2016)

chrisd said:



			If if were true, but I very much doubt it is
		
Click to expand...

It's nowhere near true - need a damn sight more than just a military ID


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 27, 2016)

I was once waved into a USAF nuclear base with a letter from a school, so I would not be too complacent.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I was once waved into a USAF nuclear base with a letter from a school, so I would not be too complacent.
		
Click to expand...

How many years back now are you talking ? 1950's and which base was that Doon. 

You cannnot to the nuclear sub or anywhere near the warheads with just an ID.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 27, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How many years back now are you talking ? 1950's and which base was that Doon. 

You cannnot to the nuclear sub or anywhere near the warheads with just an ID.
		
Click to expand...

Mildenhall........Just checked and there would not have been nuclear weapons on that site at the dates I refer to.
I remember being astonished at how lax the security was, our car was not checked in or out of the double trip through the main entrance to the base.circa 1980's


----------



## Imurg (Feb 27, 2016)

In the mid 80's I worked at RAF Strike Command near Wycombe.
I turned up on my first day in my car - which had a Northern Irish number plate....several guns pointed in my general direction and an armed escort to verify identity and reason for being there followed....
If you have decent fake ID you can get almost anywhere - it's not News...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Mildenhall........Just checked and there would not have been nuclear weapons on that site at the dates I refer to.
I remember being astonished at how lax the security was, our car was not checked in or out of the double trip through the main entrance to the base.circa 1980's
		
Click to expand...

Well Mildenhall has two parts to it - the main airbase and the domestic base - we stayed at Mildenhall in the 80's when my dad was over at Lakenheath. You could get into the domestic area but Airbase - no chance. And certainly can't remember having any nuclear warheads on site at any stage. Since the 50's or think 60's it's mainly be used by USAF for their refuelers and heavy lift AC - also used as "stop over for US Troops" on their way elsewhere.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ar-weapons-systems/ar-BBq3wIg?ocid=spartandhp

Slightly worrying.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing more than a scaremongering story to get readership. If it was that easy, someone would have had a go at some point already (IRA, ISIS etc).


----------



## Duckster (Feb 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ar-weapons-systems/ar-BBq3wIg?ocid=spartandhp

Slightly worrying.
		
Click to expand...

So all it would take is for one of the highly vetted personnel just happens to work on the boat to carry a bomb on board.

Yet another case of bad journalism.

I know people who've been on Vanguard, Astute and also HMS Daring and they are anything but easy to get even close, nevermind on to.  A fake ID simply doesn't cut the mustard.


----------



## Grogger (Feb 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ar-weapons-systems/ar-BBq3wIg?ocid=spartandhp

Slightly worrying.
		
Click to expand...

Security got ramped up round the Dockyards a few years ago due to it being slightly lax to say the least. I got in by showing a piece of chicken from a well known fast food chain a few years ago. 

If you manage to get through the gate with a fake ID you still have extremely little chance of getting onto one of the ships or subs. I met McNeilly the whistleblower last year whilst he was in transit before being booted out. Strange chap to say the least. But then I suppose you have to be to want to spend time on a submarine??


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 27, 2016)

Grogger said:



			Security got ramped up round the Dockyards a few years ago due to it being slightly lax to say the least. I got in by showing a piece of chicken from a well known fast food chain a few years ago. 

If you manage to get through the gate with a fake ID you still have extremely little chance of getting onto one of the ships or subs. I met McNeilly the whistleblower last year whilst he was in transit before being booted out. Strange chap to say the least. But then I suppose you have to be to want to spend time on a submarine??
		
Click to expand...

You have to be a little strange to want to spend time over it,  but to be under it???


----------



## Grogger (Feb 27, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			You have to be a little strange to want to spend time over it,  but to be under it???
		
Click to expand...




Never understood the attraction to the submarine service either!!


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 27, 2016)

Grogger said:





Never understood the attraction to the submarine service either!!
		
Click to expand...

Few quid a day and pirate rig.   So i'm informed.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 28, 2016)

Another case supporting an obsolete Trident.
How many Â£Trillions will Westminster spend on it only for it to be detected by cheap to manufacture drones.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ident-submarines-mps-to-be-told-a6900486.html


----------



## delc (Feb 28, 2016)

DCB said:



			Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm glad we've got them and am convinced that their existence, however you look at it, is the reason we  are still here.

No one can win with Nuclear weapons which is probably why they haven't been deployed and used in any of the wars or conflicts since the first fateful use way back in 1945.

A necessary evil that maintains the scales in a balanced position IMO.
		
Click to expand...

The saying used to be "Talk quietly but carry a big stick".  Trident is our big stick, but we don't seem to have many small sticks any more! Huge cuts to our armed forces, aircraft carriers without any aircraft and then aircraft with no carriers (unless we borrow one from the French). You couldn't make it up!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 28, 2016)

delc said:



			The saying used to be "Talk quietly but carry a big stick".  Trident is our big stick, but we don't seem to have many small sticks any more! Huge cuts to our armed forces, aircraft carriers without any aircraft and then aircraft with no carriers (unless we borrow one from the French). You couldn't make it up!  

Click to expand...

....and according to what the UK defense minister said recently, the big stick makes the UK a target for an even bigger stick.


----------



## delc (Feb 28, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			....and according to what the UK defense minister said recently, the big stick makes the UK a target for an even bigger stick.
		
Click to expand...

I went to a lecture last night by a young man who is a RN fast jet flyer and has been on loan to the US Navy carrier fleet for the last 3 years, to get experience for when we do have aircraft carriers again. Launching from and landing on a carrier in a fast jet looks pretty hairy stuff. The steam catapault launch is 0-180 mph in 3 seconds, and the landing area looks smaller than a postage stamp on the approach to landing. They also have to allow for the fact that the carrier is moving away from them at up to 30 knots, so they have to aim at a point in front of the deck. Apparently the US view is that manned aircraft will eventually be replaced by drones for actual combat.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2016)

delc said:



			The saying used to be "Talk quietly but carry a big stick".  Trident is our big stick, but we don't seem to have many small sticks any more! Huge cuts to our armed forces, aircraft carriers without any aircraft and then aircraft with no carriers (unless we borrow one from the French). You couldn't make it up!  

Click to expand...

Not a massive need for carriers at the moment anyway


----------



## delc (Feb 28, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Not a massive need for carriers at the moment anyway
		
Click to expand...

They are apparently a very good fast deployment force for areas where there are no friendly countries around where you could base land based aircraft and forces. Their surveillance aircraft can also carry out anti-submarine duties.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Not a massive need for carriers at the moment anyway
		
Click to expand...

Appreciate its a different platform, and weapon, but if there's no massive need for a carrier there's even less need for Trident.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2016)

delc said:



			They are apparently a very good fast deployment force for areas where there are no friendly countries around where you could base land based aircraft and forces. Their surveillance aircraft can also carry out anti-submarine duties.
		
Click to expand...

And with the amount of bases around the world we can fly from its prob quicker to get to most places with heavy lift AC


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Appreciate its a different platform, and weapon, but if there's no massive need for a carrier there's even less need for Trident.
		
Click to expand...

The no massive need for the carrier is because of the ability of most Air Forces to deploy from vast distances as opposed to being parked out at sea close.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The no massive need for the carrier is because of the ability of most Air Forces to deploy from vast distances as opposed to being parked out at sea close.
		
Click to expand...

The parked out at sea close gives us consistent presence and the ability to react quickly and for humanitarian reasons, it may not be be possible to get heavy aircraft in, personally I believe we need both the Heavy lift and the Aircraft Carrier option to give us flexibility and trident as a deterrent.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			The parked out at sea close gives us consistent presence and the ability to react quickly and for humanitarian reasons, it may not be be possible to get heavy aircraft in, personally I believe we need both the Heavy lift and the Aircraft Carrier option to give us flexibility and trident as a deterrent.
		
Click to expand...

Oh don't get me wrong - having the carrier is very useful and does help IRT


----------



## delc (Feb 28, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And with the amount of bases around the world we can fly from its prob quicker to get to most places with heavy lift AC
		
Click to expand...

That sort of assumes that there is a friendly country (not many of those left) or a safe area to land nearby to the conflict zone!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2016)

delc said:



			That sort of assumes that there is a friendly country (not many of those left) or a safe area to land nearby to the conflict zone!
		
Click to expand...

I think it's a pretty safe assumption don't you as we seem to be able to fly the current conflict zones with no issues 

And there are plenty friendly countries left - in fact a damn sight more than unfriendly ones.


----------



## delc (Feb 28, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I think it's a pretty safe assumption don't you as we seem to be able to fly the current conflict zones with no issues 

And there are plenty friendly countries left - in fact a damn sight more than unfriendly ones.
		
Click to expand...

Can you name some friendly countries then, particularly Islamic ones in the Middle-East?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2016)

delc said:



			Can you name some friendly countries then, particularly Islamic ones in the Middle-East?
		
Click to expand...

Are you really going to go there Delc ? 

May I suggest you don't follow the line of subject you are doing right now because it's only going to go one way.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 28, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I think it's a pretty safe assumption don't you as we seem to be able to fly the current conflict zones with no issues 

And there are plenty friendly countries left - in fact a damn sight more than unfriendly ones.
		
Click to expand...

In the current middle east conflict we are fortunate to have our base in Cyprus.   If it wasn't for that we would probably need aircraft carriers.   The problem isn't always where you have a base, it can be what countries you have to fly over.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			In the current middle east conflict we are fortunate to have our base in Cyprus.   If it wasn't for that we would probably need aircraft carriers.   The problem isn't always where you have a base, it can be what countries you have to fly over.
		
Click to expand...

Well there is also Incirlik in Turkey , Ali and Udari in Kuwait , Dharhan and Riyadh in Saudi - even Thesselonki as well as Cyprus - lots of bases that we have flown out of over the years in both peace keeping and bombing runs. The whole area is littered with bases we can fly from


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 28, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well there is also Incirlik in Turkey , Ali and Udari in Kuwait , Dharhan and Riyadh in Saudi - even Thesselonki as well as Cyprus - lots of bases that we have flown out of over the years in both peace keeping and bombing runs. The whole area is littered with bases we can fly from
		
Click to expand...

Well yes but they are not RAF bases so we can only use them with the permission of their State.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 28, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Well yes but they are not RAF bases so we can only use them with the permission of their State.
		
Click to expand...

And we do have permission hence why we fly from them as do other counties.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2016)

delc said:



			Can you name some friendly countries then, particularly Islamic ones in the Middle-East?
		
Click to expand...

Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Dubai, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Can you name anywhere in the Middle East we can't reach from them?


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Dubai, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Can you name anywhere in the Middle East we can't reach from them?
		
Click to expand...

How about the Falklands?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			How about the Falklands?
		
Click to expand...

We can use Leuchars to reach all the Scottish Islands&#128515;


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 28, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			How about the Falklands?
		
Click to expand...

Or South Georgia.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 28, 2016)

As posted we need both Aircraft Carriers, Heavy Lift A/C and a Nuclear Deterrent imo, previous answer was direct response to Delc and The Middle East.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			How about the Falklands?
		
Click to expand...

Falklands is pretty well protected right now


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Or South Georgia.
		
Click to expand...

Are we expecting something to happen there ?


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 29, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Falklands is pretty well protected right now
		
Click to expand...

By what? 4 Typhoon aircraft, a destroyer and less than 800 frontline troops. Britain lost several destroyers/frigates and support vessels, 24 aircraft and over 1000 killed or wounded. The force there now is a deterrent, but I'd question its strength if a full scale invasion took place.



Liverpoolphil said:



			Are we expecting something to happen there ?
		
Click to expand...

It was deemed necessary enough to dispatch another destroyer last autumn amid intensified sabre rattling....


----------



## delc (Feb 29, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			By what? 4 Typhoon aircraft, a destroyer and less than 800 frontline troops. Britain lost several destroyers/frigates and support vessels, 24 aircraft and over 1000 killed or wounded. The force there now is a deterrent, but I'd question its strength if a full scale invasion took place.



It was deemed necessary enough to dispatch another destroyer last autumn amid intensified sabre rattling....
		
Click to expand...

If it was a Type 45, it would probably break down on the way there!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			By what? 4 Typhoon aircraft, a destroyer and less than 800 frontline troops. Britain lost several destroyers/frigates and support vessels, 24 aircraft and over 1000 killed or wounded. The force there now is a deterrent, but I'd question its strength if a full scale invasion took place.



It was deemed necessary enough to dispatch another destroyer last autumn amid intensified sabre rattling....
		
Click to expand...

Yes Hobbit that much has been enough of a deterrent to keep anyone at bay for over 30 years now - every now and then another frigate is deployed normally around Argentina election times and they have a little flying fun around Xmas day. 

The Falklands is safe and there won't be a full scale invasion in any reality 

And even then massive forces and AC can deploy a damn sight quicker than 30 years ago with the RAF capable of putting another 10 thousand troops plus 8 AC down there within a week 2 weeks.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

delc said:



			If it was a Type 45, it would probably break down on the way there!  

Click to expand...

You are the Daily Mails perfect reader.


----------



## USER1999 (Feb 29, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Falklands is pretty well protected right now
		
Click to expand...

Not from Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			Not from Jeremy Corbyn.
		
Click to expand...

Well thankfully for everyone that man won't ever have a sniff of power to influence anything on defence


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 29, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well thankfully for everyone that man won't ever have a sniff of power to influence anything on defence
		
Click to expand...

Is that right? Never underestimate the voting public


----------



## Grogger (Feb 29, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You are the Daily Mails perfect reader.
		
Click to expand...

:rofl:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 29, 2016)

Do we really base 800 troops on the Falklands?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do we really base 800 troops on the Falklands?
		
Click to expand...

Possibly a bit more at times 

Surely even you can't find anything wrong with that


----------



## Grogger (Feb 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do we really base 800 troops on the Falklands?
		
Click to expand...

I think it's closer to 1200 troops


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 29, 2016)

Grogger said:



			I think it's closer to 1200 troops
		
Click to expand...

Population of the Falklands is less than 3,000, they seem to be very well defended.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Population of the Falklands is less than 3,000, they seem to be very well defended.
		
Click to expand...

Again is there a problem with that?


----------



## chippa1909 (Feb 29, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			How about the Falklands?
		
Click to expand...

An excellent idea. Lets base Trident in the Falklands.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 29, 2016)

The reality is that the Argentine economy is always on the edge. Any chance to pop over to The Falklands would give the President a huge boost with the population plus bring extra money into their coffers from the oil revenue. If we reduced the numbers on The Falklands it would practically be an invitation to invade and we are in no position any more to regain it.

Whether we should be in The Falklands at all is another matter but if we are going to be there it is simpler to man it than try to regain it.

On a Trident theme, it didn't persuade the Argentines not to invade last time. Sorry, a big waste of money that we don't have for me.


----------



## DCB (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			On a Trident theme, it didn't persuade the Argentines not to invade last time. Sorry, a big waste of money that we don't have for me.
		
Click to expand...

We didn't have it in 1982   however, one submarine patrolling the area was all that was needed to keep the Argentine Navy tied up in port.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The reality is that the Argentine economy is always on the edge. Any chance to pop over to The Falklands would give the President a huge boost with the population plus bring extra money into their coffers from the oil revenue. If we reduced the numbers on The Falklands it would practically be an invitation to invade and we are in no position any more to regain it.

Whether we should be in The Falklands at all is another matter but if we are going to be there it is simpler to man it than try to regain it.

On a Trident theme, it didn't persuade the Argentines not to invade last time. Sorry, a big waste of money that we don't have for me.
		
Click to expand...

What oil is that then?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The reality is that the Argentine economy is always on the edge. Any chance to pop over to The Falklands would give the President a huge boost with the population plus bring extra money into their coffers from the oil revenue. If we reduced the numbers on The Falklands it would practically be an invitation to invade and we are in no position any more to regain it.
		
Click to expand...

Well the oil position is still unsure yet 

And yes we could regain the Falklands "IF" they by any chance invaded 




			Whether we should be in The Falklands at all is another matter but if we are going to be there it is simpler to man it than try to regain it.
		
Click to expand...

The Falklands have voted to be part of the U.K. so that's the best reason for us to be their




			On a Trident theme, it didn't persuade the Argentines not to invade last time. Sorry, a big waste of money that we don't have for me.
		
Click to expand...

Trident isn't a deterrent to stop people invading the Falklands


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 29, 2016)

DCB said:



			We didn't have it in 1982   however, one submarine patrolling the area was all that was needed to keep the Argentine Navy tied up in port.
		
Click to expand...


That's me told. Fair point.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 29, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			What oil is that then?
		
Click to expand...


There are potentially huge reserves in the waters around there.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 29, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The Falklands have voted to be part of the U.K. so that's the best reason for us to be their

Trident isn't a deterrent to stop people invading the Falklands
		
Click to expand...

Self determination is the key which is why I support the current position. However, a map of the world explains why our right to the Falklands is tenuous. Really it should be independent but then it is likely that the Argentines would invade so we are pretty much stuck with the status quo.

Can we specify who we are deterring Trident with? Does it work that way? Do we have a list of which countries we are deterring?

(sorry, I will try to learn the multi quote thingy)


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Self determination is the key which is why I support the current position. However, a map of the world explains why our right to the Falklands is tenuous. Really it should be independent but then it is likely that the Argentines would invade so we are pretty much stuck with the status quo.

Can we specify who we are deterring Trident with? Does it work that way? Do we have a list of which countries we are deterring?

(sorry, I will try to learn the multi quote thingy)
		
Click to expand...

Deterrent against other nuclear powers


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 29, 2016)

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek but I guess that is the crux of the matter. Does it deter? I am not convinced.


----------



## tugglesf239 (Feb 29, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Few quid a day and pirate rig.   So i'm informed.
		
Click to expand...

Yes

That and crab mariner dhobi's, hot bunks and some tin Dolphins for your chest.

For winners.....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I was being somewhat tongue in cheek but I guess that is the crux of the matter. Does it deter? I am not convinced.
		
Click to expand...

Well has any nuclear weapons been fired at countries ?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 29, 2016)

That is the same argument used by sellers of anti tiger spray in the UK.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			That is the same argument used by sellers of anti tiger spray in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Eh 

If other countries disarmed then so would we but that's never going to happen so we have our responsibilities towards the UN and NATO and provide a nuclear deterrent towards other countries - and yes it does work because other countries know that pressing the button for them would mean the same response from us.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 29, 2016)

Our deterrent is small and insignificant against the one power we are really talking about, Russia. Our arsenal would not deter them. Even if it got to it I believe we need permission from the US to fire ours and if we are at that point then frankly the number of missiles they have make ours meaningless. In reality, the US and Russia are the only ones who need nukes to cancel each other out, the rest of us are doing it for ego, notable exception of Israel which is a whole different story. So, IMO we are spending billions on massaging our ego. Daft.

Have you never heard the anti tiger spray argument?


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			There are potentially huge reserves in the waters around there.
		
Click to expand...

They have been drilling for many years and have found nothing.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Our deterrent is small and insignificant against the one power we are really talking about, Russia. Our arsenal would not deter them. Even if it got to it I believe we need permission from the US to fire ours and if we are at that point then frankly the number of missiles they have make ours meaningless. In reality, the US and Russia are the only ones who need nukes to cancel each other out, the rest of us are doing it for ego, notable exception of Israel which is a whole different story. So, IMO we are spending billions on massaging our ego. Daft.

Have you never heard the anti tiger spray argument?
		
Click to expand...

It's a nuclear warhead - each one can destroy a city at the flick of a switch and yes it does deter - ego's ?! Sorry but that's nonsense - it serves a purpose and part of strategic plans and within NATO and the UN - they are they for military reasons not ego's 

It's not just the US and Russia and hasnt been for a long time.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			They have been drilling for many years and have found nothing.
		
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true is it 

Found oil but so far in some wells it's not been financially viable to drill but there is still vast amount of areas yet to be explored with a it looks like a lot been found in the Isobel well


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 29, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That's not strictly true is it 

Found oil but so far in some wells it's not been financially viable to drill but there is still vast amount of areas yet to be explored with a it looks like a lot been found in the Isobel well
		
Click to expand...

OK, next to nothing.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			OK, next to nothing.
		
Click to expand...

Or the oil is in areas that make it hard to drill being factually correct :thup:


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Our deterrent is small and insignificant against the one power we are really talking about, Russia. Our arsenal would not deter them. Even if it got to it I believe we need permission from the US to fire ours and if we are at that point then frankly the number of missiles they have make ours meaningless. In reality, the US and Russia are the only ones who need nukes to cancel each other out, the rest of us are doing it for ego, notable exception of Israel which is a whole different story. So, IMO we are spending billions on massaging our ego. Daft.

Have you never heard the anti tiger spray argument?
		
Click to expand...

Thats not correct.  Trident is capable of hitting all the major Russian population areas and destroying them, it's a major weapon of last resort.   Regarding the UK not having independent use of the war heads, there is no proof of this claim.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 29, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's a nuclear warhead - each one can destroy a city at the flick of a switch and yes it does deter - ego's ?! Sorry but that's nonsense - it serves a purpose and part of strategic plans and within NATO and the UN - they are they for military reasons not ego's 

It's not just the US and Russia and hasnt been for a long time.
		
Click to expand...


It's not nonsense, it is opinion and one widely held by the anti Trident brigade. I happen to agree with it. Anti Trident people tend to view your opinion as equally dubious. It does not make it invalid but that is the split on this debate.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 29, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Or the oil is in areas that make it hard to drill being factually correct :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Still found next to nothing, just ask my shares club!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			It's not nonsense, it is opinion and one widely held by the anti Trident brigade. I happen to agree with it. Anti Trident people tend to view your opinion as equally dubious. It does not make it invalid but that is the split on this debate.
		
Click to expand...

But the "anti " brigade appear to not really provide the factual basis to support some claims - for example calling the warheads "insignificant" yet we have enough to to destroy countries. Is that really "insignificant" ? 

I guess they also don't mind living under the protection they provide.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Still found next to nothing, just ask my shares club!
		
Click to expand...

Did they not receive a big boost in Jan then


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do we really base 800 troops on the Falklands?
		
Click to expand...




Grogger said:



			I think it's closer to 1200 troops
		
Click to expand...

there are at least 1200 troops, but I said frontline, not including cooks and bottle washers


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 29, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			there are at least 1200 troops, but I said frontline, not including cooks and bottle washers
		
Click to expand...

Not much difference these days now - all soldier first trade second now


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 3, 2016)

https://www.rt.com/uk/334402-trident-investment-fallon-vote/

Seems like our MP's do not even get to vote on it now.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 3, 2016)

In case anyone wants to know what 41 trillion pounds looks like ....
Â£41,000,000,000,000.00.
Seems like quite a lot.


----------



## richy (Mar 3, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Not much difference these days now - all soldier first trade second now
		
Click to expand...

That's what they say. I'd like to see chefs or clerks do pairs F&M


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 3, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			In case anyone wants to know what 41 trillion pounds looks like ....
Â£41,000,000,000,000.00.
Seems like quite a lot.
		
Click to expand...

How much is a life worth when protecting it ?


----------



## Duckster (Mar 3, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			In case anyone wants to know what 41 trillion pounds looks like ....
Â£41,000,000,000,000.00.
Seems like quite a lot.
		
Click to expand...

Where as Â£41 billion has 3 less zeros.....

You've made it seem a lot more palatable now.  Well done Doon.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 3, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			In case anyone wants to know what 41 trillion pounds looks like ....
Â£41,000,000,000,000.00.
Seems like quite a lot.
		
Click to expand...

It would have looked like the IOU in the Scottish Treasury if they would have got independence.


----------



## chippa1909 (Mar 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			It would have looked like the IOU in the Scottish Treasury if they would have got independence.
		
Click to expand...

A ridiculous, uninformed comment which reads as if written by a five year old.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 4, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			A ridiculous, uninformed comment which reads as if written by a five year old.
		
Click to expand...

Lighten up a bit.   Had a bad day?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2016)

Top military chief says that we are ill prepared for an attack on the UK.

Has he forgotten about Trident ?


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 17, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Top military chief says that we are ill prepared for an attack on the UK.

Has he forgotten about Trident ?
		
Click to expand...

I thought he said conventional attack.


----------



## MarkE (Sep 17, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			I thought he said conventional attack. 

Click to expand...

Trident is the reason that we are not going to be attacked by another nation, conventional or otherwise. We can afford to have a second rate conventional defence with the nukes as insurance.


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 17, 2016)

MarkE said:



			Trident is the reason that we are not going to be attacked by another nation, conventional or otherwise. We can afford to have a second rate conventional defence with the nukes as insurance.
		
Click to expand...

So if someone threatened to invade one of our overseas protectorates, lets say the Falklands for example, you believe our nukes will dissuade them of such tomfoolery.
Interesting.
No offence, but if one of the top military men in the country says things aren't hunky dory and we have cause for concern, then I'll listen to him first.
Nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort, and will only ever be used if we ourselves are under nuclear attack, to use them first is to guarantee total destruction, thats how they work. They are useless against conventional attack, for that we need conventional forces.
Imvho of course, and some geaser called Sir Micheal Graydon.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 18, 2016)

MarkE said:



			Trident is the reason that we are not going to be attacked by another nation, conventional or otherwise. We can afford to have a second rate conventional defence with the nukes as insurance.
		
Click to expand...

So all those countries that don't have a nuclear deterrent, or spend a fortune on their defence budget, are attacked on a regular basis?

They're behind you #paranoiaRus


----------



## MarkE (Sep 18, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			So if someone threatened to invade one of our overseas protectorates, lets say the Falklands for example, you believe our nukes will dissuade them of such tomfoolery.
Interesting.
No offence, but if one of the top military men in the country says things aren't hunky dory and we have cause for concern, then I'll listen to him first.
Nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort, and will only ever be used if we ourselves are under nuclear attack, to use them first is to guarantee total destruction, thats how they work. They are useless against conventional attack, for that we need conventional forces.
Imvho of course, and some geaser called Sir Micheal Graydon.
		
Click to expand...

I don't get your point. If the Falklands or any other protectorate was threatened we still have a substantial conventional force to defend our interests. My point was, as you agree, we are safe from nuclear attack simply because we can retaliate in kind. So theres no need to match Russia or China's conventional weaponry as the nukes rather negates all of that. BTW, i'm no expert but can have an opinion, i'm sure Graydon knows more about than myself. BUT, he's RAF so is keen to talk up perceived threats to lobby for increased military spending.


----------



## MarkE (Sep 18, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			So all those countries that don't have a nuclear deterrent, or spend a fortune on their defence budget, are attacked on a regular basis?

They're behind you #paranoiaRus
		
Click to expand...

No, but those without nukes or allies with nukes, certainly face a greater threat of conventional attack. Each to their own, but I for one am glad that we have the deterrent.


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 18, 2016)

MarkE said:



			I don't get your point. If the Falklands or any other protectorate was threatened we still have a substantial conventional force to defend our interests. My point was, as you agree, we are safe from nuclear attack simply because we can retaliate in kind. So theres no need to match Russia or China's conventional weaponry as the nukes rather negates all of that. BTW, i'm no expert but can have an opinion, i'm sure Graydon knows more about than myself. BUT, he's RAF so is keen to talk up perceived threats to lobby for increased military spending.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Mark, of course you can have an opinion, I didn't intend my post to come across like that.
Like you say we largely agree, but the point I was trying to make (poorly ), is, like the police, we can't keep on cutting our conventional forces, and expect to remain an effective fighting power.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Graydon and the others  actually want to match Putin, they're just using his unpredictability to make a point, and like you say get more funding, I just think they should get it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 18, 2016)

MarkE said:



			I don't get your point. If the Falklands or any other protectorate was threatened we still have a substantial conventional force to defend our interests. My point was, as you agree, we are safe from nuclear attack simply because we can retaliate in kind. So theres no need to match Russia or China's conventional weaponry as the nukes rather negates all of that. BTW, i'm no expert but can have an opinion, i'm sure Graydon knows more about than myself. BUT, he's RAF so is keen to talk up perceived threats to lobby for increased military spending.
		
Click to expand...

We don't have a substantial armed forces to defend our country and our overseas interests 

Over the last 15 years the governments have ripped apart all three Armed Forces - it's a skeleton crew right now 

Right now if someone decided they wanted to take the Falklands it would be very hard to repel that force with the assets down there


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 18, 2016)

These guys always leak a statement out either just before or just after they are about to retire. Makes them sound tough but actually they needed to say this whilst they were in positions of authority. 

You could never fund the military enough if you listened to every section, army, navy, raf. Not helped by a change in who the enemy is now. Little beggars don't play fair, stand still and wear the right uniform any more. In reality we have to stay part of NATO and defend as a bloc rather than an individual country. We can't afford the luxury of a huge military any more.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 18, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			These guys always leak a statement out either just before or just after they are about to retire. Makes them sound tough but actually they needed to say this whilst they were in positions of authority. 

You could never fund the military enough if you listened to every section, army, navy, raf. Not helped by a change in who the enemy is now. Little beggars don't play fair, stand still and wear the right uniform any more. In reality we have to stay part of NATO and defend as a bloc rather than an individual country. We can't afford the luxury of a huge military any more.
		
Click to expand...

It's not about having a huge military - it's about having one that is manned enough to fully defend our own nation whilst also committed to duties around the commonwealth and part of NATO plus being adequately equipped


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 18, 2016)

Step one, we need to work out what we want our military to do, how far it needs to reach. From there we then can work out its size and composition. I'd argue we need to rein back from our old ambitions. We are spread all over the world and we really shouldn't be. We need a military appropriate for our current size, wealth and position.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 18, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Step one, we need to work out what we want our military to do, how far it needs to reach. From there we then can work out its size and composition. I'd argue we need to rein back from our old ambitions. We are spread all over the world and we really shouldn't be. We need a military appropriate for our current size, wealth and position.
		
Click to expand...

Old ambitions ? 

Our military is spread all over the world because of NATO and being part of the UN Security Council mandates. They aren't spread all over the world conquering places

If a decent size military force did mount an offensive on the UK then we would be in trouble 

We need a military fully able to defend our borders and fulfill his duties abroad - and it should cost whatever is required to do that. There is no price too high for our safety.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 18, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's not about having a huge military - it's about having one that is manned enough to fully defend our own nation whilst also committed to duties around the commonwealth and part of NATO plus being adequately equipped
		
Click to expand...

Good reply


----------



## MarkE (Sep 20, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If a decent size military force did mount an offensive on the UK then we would be in trouble 

We need a military fully able to defend our borders and fulfill his duties abroad - and it should cost whatever is required to do that. There is no price too high for our safety.
		
Click to expand...

But who is this decent size military force? If you are talking Russia, China or anyone with a big military reserves, we could'nt compete anyway, however much cash we pump in to it. Back to the point, the ultimate deterrent is what keeps us safe.
Our forces are big enough to stage a defence of our islands, it's just that they are scattered far and wide. We should look after ourselves before interfering in every body else's problems. Cut back on the ridiculous world wide campaigns.


----------



## JamPal (Sep 20, 2016)

If Russia wanted to invade us, we'd be screwed. No amount of nukes will stop them, we'd be over-run in moments.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 20, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			...
Right now if someone decided they wanted to take the Falklands it would be very hard to repel that force with the assets down there
		
Click to expand...

Er....Wasn't that exactly the situation (and what happened) in '82 as well - perhaps by default/neglect?

There certainly needs to be (and there probably is) a comprehensive Defense Policy. But there's also affordability and 'value for money'  considerations/requirements as well. One of the benefits of NATO membership is the ability to utilise specific superior capabilities that other members may have, should there be a 'common threat' from the Bear, or elsewhere. Any UK-based 'fight against terror' is not going to involve nukes, nor indeed many (any?) of the sophisticated, technical capabilities the 3 forces provide! Deployment of UK force in foreign conflict is a whole different story - and not what this thread is about!


----------



## MarkE (Sep 20, 2016)

JamPal said:



			If Russia wanted to invade us, we'd be screwed. No amount of nukes will stop them, we'd be over-run in moments.
		
Click to expand...

Our nuclear arsenal, if ever deployed would easily stop Russia, indeed Russia would be obliterated.  But Russia would never attempt to invade precisely because of the deterrent. Now if we did'nt have the nukes, that would be a different matter.


----------

