Bishop and Trident... ;)

Discussion in 'Submariners' started by stumpy, Mar 4, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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.

  2. silverfox

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

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

    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.
  6. Why not fit a smaller warhead to the existing missile?
  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. silverfox

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


    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.
  12. If we gave up our strategic nuclear deterrent, could we maintain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?

    Regardless of whether the weapons themselves are of any offensive use to us, we get a massive amount of global political influence by being one of the 5 permanent members with veto. Doesn't seem like such a ridiculous price tag for buying oursleves serious international influence.

    Now maybe you don't think the UK should be important and we should just sit back, keep our heads down and get on with being an island off the coast of France, but I don't think that's a very British way of doing things and not the way ahead I would want to see. (Whereas buying oneself a position of power does seem to be a modern British way of doing things!! :evil: :p )
  13. Unfortunately the UK is missing from that list and doesn’t have any AIPS expertise. I know three weeks is a long time to stay dived for a diesel boat, but it’s not very long for a deterrent patrol.
  14. Well Afghanistan is a conventional operation rather than a nuclear deployment, in that sense I have no real issue with the Op, other than the fact that we don't appear to be giving it the resources that it needs and it's becoming bogged down in political infighting.

    Would a willingness to have deployed sub-strategic weapons into Afghanistan have acted as a deterrent? I'm not convinced it would have done. I think that even in the lower yield range the ownership of the deterrent needs to be backed up with a demonstrable willingness to actually use it. The dynamics of MAD were on a different level because it was a state actor relationship.

    My difficulty is in coupling a viable deterrent with the evidence needed to actually use it, prior to Telic one of the arguments used was that the Iraqi government were state sponsors of terrorism because groups aligned with AQ were operating in the NE, that's now been demonstrated to have been a mis-communication of the available evidence, AQs operations in Iraq were counter to the wishes of the Baghdad government. Could we have deployed sub-strategic nuc on the basis of the argument? If we had done and it had subsequently been demonstrated to have been a mis-communication how would that have positioned us for subsequent action, whether conventional or nuclear?

    I think the deterrence argument is still fair for state actors, but for non-state I'm not convinced that we can develop the level of evidence required.
  15. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    The unfortunate point is that there is no way of proving whether a deterrence would have worked against the Taliban regime because we did not have the appropriate weapon - which Trident replacement should be.

    Your other point is valid, in the old days of MAD it was fairly easy to prove intent to use as to call the other sides bluff would have had cataclysmic outcomes (or rather just one big mushroom shaped outcome). I think you are right - iit would take a demonstration possibly to convince some one of the risks involving sponsoring terrorrism, however for the players that matter ie the rogue nuclear states, we have acted swiftly enough with conventional weapons that I'm sure if we devloped a weapon that we were happy to use in such a way, they would believe that we would use it - after all we've used everything else.

    I think this is an ultimately no win arguement on the grounds you would hope it never proved one way or the other - I just believe it prudent to retain the choice - we have come so far we should not give up now.
  16. It's always handy to have the option: say for example, Iran decided to attempt to employ WMD on the UK mainland: knowing that a nuclear response from TRIDENT/SON OF TRIDENT would inevtably follow, would they try ?
  17. Could this be the same Christian Evangelical conservative who has stated that the whole of scripture is literally true and none of it can be derogated upon.

    So if he can say this:
    'In the meantime, Christians and Churches have also to take account of the real world. It is no use repeating endless mantras, as some did at the General Synod'

    Pot and kettle come to mind. Perhaps he should read some of his own past declarations in the General Synod.

    Why can he not take a more tolerant attitude to people like me! So for the Bishop of Rochester: same-sex love is a greater evil than mass killings with nuclear weaponry? :roll: So much for moral leadership then and eternal values then. :evil: I think he's what Paul would label a hypocrite!

    I say: BAN THE BUM! :wink: :D :lol: :lol: :lol:
  18. Anti-British terrorists/freedom fighters in Iraq whom Iran is already bankrolling have already threatened to kill British men, women & children in British cities. Our nuclear deterrent does not appear to have deterred them. Still we need nuclear weapons to protect us from our natural enemy: the French! :!:
  19. i don’t see why we don’t just nuke them!

    ohh i know a bunch of hippies would cry.. but whats the difference between Iran and a smoking crater anyway? :twisted:

    and while were at it why cant we nuke the French... they could use a sun tan.... 8)

Share This Page