Bishop and Trident... ;)

The problem I see with both the current Government thinking and the approach this Bish is taking is that both think that the UK nuclear weapons can be used in any foreseeable scenario.

Any person who is currently interested is setting a nuclear device off in the UK will do it covertly. Then who are we going to fire off our Trident Missiles at? NOBODY.

North Korea, Iran, Israel, India, Brazil, Pakistan the possible possessors of these devices are not going to launch a strike on the UK if its attributable to them. Hence a UK nuclear weapon is redundant as a deterrent in this re-aligned world and no PM will use is as a pre-emptive weapon unless the Yanks are doing the same and then of course it is superfluous to need.

Nutty
 

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
We've done this before. I think you'll find that the replacement for Trident will be a far more precision weapon than thet "lets get rid of Minsk" version we have now.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay and given a choice of group ie 'owner' or 'victim' , I know which one I want to be. State sponsored terrorism is alive and well and the point you make about the 'rogue' nuclear states not launching if it can be attributed extends to supporting subversive groups who may be linked to them. Therefore any restraint imposed by these nations on terrorist/religious groups with an inkling towards nuclear escalation, out of a fear of reprisal is........... a......................deterrent!
 
silverfox said:
We've done this before. I think you'll find that the replacement for Trident will be a far more precision weapon than thet "lets get rid of Minsk" version we have now.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay and given a choice of group ie 'owner' or 'victim' , I know which one I want to be. State sponsored terrorism is alive and well and the point you make about the 'rogue' nuclear states not launching if it can be attributed extends to supporting subversive groups who may be linked to them. Therefore any restraint imposed by these nations on terrorist/religious groups with an inkling towards nuclear escalation, out of a fear of reprisal is........... a......................deterrent!

Like North Korea and Iran are really scared and deterred by the USA and its alies in the UN now. Lets get real.

Nutty
 

x4nd

Lantern Swinger
silverfox said:
We've done this before. I think you'll find that the replacement for Trident will be a far more precision weapon than thet "lets get rid of Minsk" version we have now.

How precise does a nuclear weapon need to be? Trident is a pretty accurate delivery system.
 

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
accurate yes, but we don't quite need the same scale of urban redevelopment... ie as accurate but not quite such a big bang...didn't explain well.
 
x4nd said:
Why not fit a smaller warhead to the existing missile?

Why not tactical warheads on cruise missile with conventional boats which can get into shallow water. Bye Bye V Boats. More boats more missiles more chance of a hit.

Nutty
 

x4nd

Lantern Swinger
Nutty said:
Why not tactical warheads on cruise missile with conventional boats which can get into shallow water. Bye Bye V Boats. More boats more missiles more chance of a hit.

Nutty

Well, a singular V boat could carry more warheads than around ten conventional boats. Conventional, as in diesel? Snorting is the first thing that springs to mind.
 

Karma

War Hero
Nutty said:
Why not tactical warheads on cruise missile with conventional boats which can get into shallow water. Bye Bye V Boats. More boats more missiles more chance of a hit.

Bear in mind that the weapons in the bombers carry a number of re-entry vehicles, with lower numbers for tactical applications, if you could ever describe a nuc as a tactical asset :(

Also because cruise missiles fly at low levels, at sub-sonic speeds, the chance of intercept is quite high. You run the risk of dropping fissile material somewhere along the nav track if it gets shot down and you have to use more weapons to assure success on the target.

All that said I'm still unconvinced that deterrence is all that useful against non-state actors, the argument about threatening sponsor states doesn't really stack up. The level of evidence required to support it is far higher than we can achieve, particularly since the misuse of analytical capabilities prior to Telic.
 

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
All that said I'm still unconvinced that deterrence is all that useful against non-state actors, the argument about threatening sponsor states doesn't really stack up. The level of evidence required to support it is far higher than we can achieve, particularly since the misuse of analytical capabilities prior to Telic.

Why doesn't the arguement stack up... what do you think NATO is doing in Afghanistan? Thats action against a sponsoring state if ever there was. Or is squandering lives on the ground is better than a viable deterrent?
 
x4nd said:
Nutty said:
Why not tactical warheads on cruise missile with conventional boats which can get into shallow water. Bye Bye V Boats. More boats more missiles more chance of a hit.

Nutty

Well, a singular V boat could carry more warheads than around ten conventional boats. Conventional, as in diesel? Snorting is the first thing that springs to mind.

Modern Swedish, German, Italian, Israel and half the world no longer snort three week dive time with latest Stirling and Hybrid engines.

Nutty

Of course the enemy need only take out one boat instead of 10 plus you need a SSN to protect the SSBN and we were talking smaller size warheads. DE boats have run Nukes ragged in home water excercies if the reports are correct Orzel 4 Trafalgar 0. Poland knocked us out of the World Cup again.
 
Top