The Case For Trident

[BesCumber]

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

Has he forgotten about Trident ?

I thought he said conventional attack.

 

[MarkE]

I thought he said conventional attack.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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

Good reply

 

[MarkE]

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.

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]

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]

...
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

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]

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

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.