The Case For Trident

[USER1999]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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

 

[Ethan]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

As we would surely also?

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]

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.

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

 

[HomerJSimpson]

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

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

 

[ColchesterFC]

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

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

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]

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.

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

 

[Doon frae Troon]

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

Slightly worrying.

 

[chrisd]

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

Slightly worrying.

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

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

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

 

[Doon frae Troon]

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

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

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]

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.

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]

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...

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

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]

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

Slightly worrying.

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).