Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MAD to Go: Will Trident be Replaced

It looks like they are already Laying the ground to dispose of our Nuclear Deterrent. Not that the Navy or MOD will gain any of monies saved. Discussion starts in The Times of London today.

Farewell?



Nutty
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
Doubtful - the timelines for replacement are such that we need to commit to expenditure in Sept to make things happen in time (new reactor / missile compartment). Land based options were looked at and rejected a few years ago as being useless against 1st strike capability.

I've no doubt that people in Whitehall are talking about whether we need it, but they aren't the people that will make the decisions. Trident is sacrosanct whilst we want to have an "enhanced" relationship with the US. Namely Trident gives us access to certain areas, definitely not discussed here, that losing it will jeapoardise. If we lose Trident, we need to consider our US relationship as well.
 

NotmeChief

Banned
My thoughts (unshakeable) is this is all about 'how much we can save'. It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting rid of nuc weapons or in fact anything at all.
Money, money, money. The public purse has been so abused and robbed that there is no other thing to do than get rid of the Navy and the RAF. They can't do the same with the army at present as they are busy.

This has to be the biggest areshole of a mismanaging government this country has 'ever' known.
 
I think there is a valid question as to whether having the deterent actuially does us any good and whether or not we can gain any benefit from dropping out of the game. Certainly todays threats are even more unstable than the FSU and thus very unlikely to be that worried about retaliation, there would just be a big demand on virgins that day.

To be honest I don't really think that either our or the Frogs little piles have really had much impact in the classic struggle, and I really don't think that the like of Imadinnerjacket ot Kim Il Jung realy worry about what come back. It is certainly a wothwhile debate to have.
 

4to8

MIA
surely the terrorist threats to the UK [and the west in general] are "as well as" and not "instead of " the existing threats.
 

Deepster

Midshipman
The current world makes Nuclear Deterrent needed more than ever.
Rogue terror sponsoring states, Russia lauching a massive rearming effort and China a possible future threat.
Add that to the loss of status as a major world player, and I cant see us giving it up any time soon.
 

Lash_Monster

Badgeman
That article is so full of speculation it's untrue; "it is likely that at least some serving members of the top brass agree". I'm sure they're queuing up to for CND as we speak. There are so few facts that it's terrible and the concluding question, however rhetorical it may mean to be, is frankly ignorant and hugely demeaning of the threat and deterrence of nuclear weapons. "... the ultimate boy's toy"?! They're hardly 'just an ace up the CDS' sleeve' to whip out when things go tits up.
 
D

Deleted 493

Guest
Deepster said:
The current world makes Nuclear Deterrent needed more than ever.
Rogue terror sponsoring states, Russia lauching a massive rearming effort and China a possible future threat.
Add that to the loss of status as a major world player, and I cant see us giving it up any time soon.

So, with the world a hideously dangerous ball of fire and rougue states/terrorist groups threatening us with hell and damnation, what palliative difference will us keeping nuclear weapons have at all? It's got nowt to do with strategic deterrent with you guys has it? It's more of a cock waving exercise at gigantic expense. Think about it. The Type 45 ballooned out of all context in expense, so much so we had to cut the programme in half. The vaunted carriers - however much they quote will be disgustingly expensive to build and bring on line. Future escorts, patrol vessels, transport aircraft and fighters are already way, way above what we thought they'd be. And now three, probably not even four ballistic missile submarines, just (and only just) to stay in some mystical 'club' and threaten vanishingly elusive enemies.

Let's say a terrorist group manages to hijack a ex-Soviet nuclear missile and launches it at London. Even a 25kt device would cause so much widespread devastation and chaos, your possession of SSBNs would be rendered irrelevant. These groups won't refrain from doing it because they are afraid of retaliation. They'll do it out of principle. They'll do it because their belief systems says so. They'll do it because ******* like Bush and Blair and Brown have rendered their homelands a smouldering mess. So us spending billions ... over the lives of the subs possibly tens of billions ... will be a pure folly. Finland don't feel particularly threatened. They are next to Russia. Likewise Turkey. And Canada. If it is kudos on the world stage we are seeking, I can think of better ways of doing it than trying to play soome sort of daft game which drains so much from public expenditure at the cost of conventional forces, schooling, healthcare and making our country secure from within.

levers
 

Oil_Slick

War Hero
Levers is right…

The replacement nuclear phallus will cost us @ £20 Billion to buy and over it's life a total of @ £65 Billion.


£2 Billion a year buys you a huge amount of extra, and far more usable conventional clout.
 
Oil_Slick said:
Levers is right…

The replacement nuclear phallus will cost us @ £20 Billion to buy and over it's life a total of @ £65 Billion.


£2 Billion a year buys you a huge amount of extra, and far more usable conventional clout.

Oil

You are correct that Levers is spot bon but the chance of any of the savings coming MOD's way is nil. Maybe a small saving on training and manpower.

NO CLOUT IMHO

Nutty
 

Oil_Slick

War Hero
IIRC, Lord Mountbatten warned that becoming responsible for the nuclear detergent would cripple the Navy and cost it it's carriers…


"we have made no bid for Polaris because we cannot afford this weapon out of navy votes. If opinion swings towards putting the deterrent to sea, we want the money for Polaris to be found from the overall defence vote.|


The money wasn't, and he was right.
 

redeye

Badgeman
NotmeChief said:
My thoughts (unshakeable) is this is all about 'how much we can save'. It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting rid of nuc weapons or in fact anything at all.
Money, money, money. The public purse has been so abused and robbed that there is no other thing to do than get rid of the Navy and the RAF. They can't do the same with the army at present as they are busy.

This has to be the biggest areshole of a mismanaging government this country has 'ever' known.

Excluding Royal of course as he is also very busy.
 

Oil_Slick

War Hero
redeye said:
NotmeChief said:
My thoughts (unshakeable) is this is all about 'how much we can save'. It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting rid of nuc weapons or in fact anything at all.
Money, money, money. The public purse has been so abused and robbed that there is no other thing to do than get rid of the Navy and the RAF. They can't do the same with the army at present as they are busy.

This has to be the biggest areshole of a mismanaging government this country has 'ever' known.

Excluding Royal of course as he is also very busy.


Next Defence Review will probably roll him up into the Army to save money…
 

redeye

Badgeman
I doubt it unless of course they want a mass exodus and why would they want that when they are the very best of the best.
 

Oil_Slick

War Hero
redeye said:
I doubt it unless of course they want a mass exodus and why would they want that when they are the very best of the best.


Marines and Paras could be rolled up into a new rapid reaction force.
 

Deepster

Midshipman
Levers_Aligned said:
Deepster said:
The current world makes Nuclear Deterrent needed more than ever.
Rogue terror sponsoring states, Russia lauching a massive rearming effort and China a possible future threat.
Add that to the loss of status as a major world player, and I cant see us giving it up any time soon.

So, with the world a hideously dangerous ball of fire and rougue states/terrorist groups threatening us with hell and damnation, what palliative difference will us keeping nuclear weapons have at all? It's got nowt to do with strategic deterrent with you guys has it? It's more of a cock waving exercise at gigantic expense. Think about it. The Type 45 ballooned out of all context in expense, so much so we had to cut the programme in half. The vaunted carriers - however much they quote will be disgustingly expensive to build and bring on line. Future escorts, patrol vessels, transport aircraft and fighters are already way, way above what we thought they'd be. And now three, probably not even four ballistic missile submarines, just (and only just) to stay in some mystical 'club' and threaten vanishingly elusive enemies.

Let's say a terrorist group manages to hijack a ex-Soviet nuclear missile and launches it at London. Even a 25kt device would cause so much widespread devastation and chaos, your possession of SSBNs would be rendered irrelevant. These groups won't refrain from doing it because they are afraid of retaliation. They'll do it out of principle. They'll do it because their belief systems says so. They'll do it because ******* like Bush and Blair and Brown have rendered their homelands a smouldering mess. So us spending billions ... over the lives of the subs possibly tens of billions ... will be a pure folly. Finland don't feel particularly threatened. They are next to Russia. Likewise Turkey. And Canada. If it is kudos on the world stage we are seeking, I can think of better ways of doing it than trying to play soome sort of daft game which drains so much from public expenditure at the cost of conventional forces, schooling, healthcare and making our country secure from within.

levers


Gash.
Yes we are still vunerable to crazy extremists and rogue regimes that dont give a shit and just want the world to burn, theres no way to beat this kind of enemy except react at the time.The thing is, the deterrent gives us a last resort capability to defend from any conventional attack or even, dare I say, invasion.
You dont put your guard down...that leads to getting sucker punched.You have to guard against the threats you can see..and deal with others as they happen.
 

Oil_Slick

War Hero
Deepster said:
Levers_Aligned said:
Deepster said:
The current world makes Nuclear Deterrent needed more than ever.
Rogue terror sponsoring states, Russia lauching a massive rearming effort and China a possible future threat.
Add that to the loss of status as a major world player, and I cant see us giving it up any time soon.

So, with the world a hideously dangerous ball of fire and rougue states/terrorist groups threatening us with hell and damnation, what palliative difference will us keeping nuclear weapons have at all? It's got nowt to do with strategic deterrent with you guys has it? It's more of a cock waving exercise at gigantic expense. Think about it. The Type 45 ballooned out of all context in expense, so much so we had to cut the programme in half. The vaunted carriers - however much they quote will be disgustingly expensive to build and bring on line. Future escorts, patrol vessels, transport aircraft and fighters are already way, way above what we thought they'd be. And now three, probably not even four ballistic missile submarines, just (and only just) to stay in some mystical 'club' and threaten vanishingly elusive enemies.

Let's say a terrorist group manages to hijack a ex-Soviet nuclear missile and launches it at London. Even a 25kt device would cause so much widespread devastation and chaos, your possession of SSBNs would be rendered irrelevant. These groups won't refrain from doing it because they are afraid of retaliation. They'll do it out of principle. They'll do it because their belief systems says so. They'll do it because ******* like Bush and Blair and Brown have rendered their homelands a smouldering mess. So us spending billions ... over the lives of the subs possibly tens of billions ... will be a pure folly. Finland don't feel particularly threatened. They are next to Russia. Likewise Turkey. And Canada. If it is kudos on the world stage we are seeking, I can think of better ways of doing it than trying to play soome sort of daft game which drains so much from public expenditure at the cost of conventional forces, schooling, healthcare and making our country secure from within.

levers


Gash.
Yes we are still vunerable to crazy extremists and rogue regimes that dont give a shit and just want the world to burn, theres no way to beat this kind of enemy except react at the time.The thing is, the deterrent gives us a last resort capability to defend from any conventional attack or even, dare I say, invasion.
You dont put your guard down...that leads to getting sucker punched.You have to guard against the threats you can see..and deal with others as they happen.


Who the **** is going to invade us? The Martians?
 

grizwald

Midshipman
Nukes can't fight terrorism, pending some form of radiation that kills only those with "evil terrorist thoughts". Neither can most conventional weapons.

The US is currently fielding ICBM destroying aircraft (Jumbo Jets with lasers). In 10 years, with any luck, this technology looks to make the long and medium range ballistic missile obsolete.

It won’t be hard for the UK and indeed other advanced nations to develop their own variants once the general designs of the laser are known. Catch a missile (from several hundred miles out) in its boost phase, and the missile may end up doing the host nation harm. Added to the current anti-ballistic missile technologies (US missile shield or similar foreign variant), this would severely limit the range a nuke can be fired from.

This means that our SLBM subs who “hide†out in the remote areas of the Atlantic cannot reasonably reach far off destinations. Subs would have to launch within reach of a coast, necessitating a pre-emptive deployment to the target area, where laser jumbos and ASW units would also patrol. No longer a general deterrent.

Therefore from a technical point of view, SLBM’s have limited shelf life as a deterrent. I will assume that the US perfects the laser jumbo jet in the near future and other advanced nations are successful in copying the anti-nuke concepts (as they have done with many other tech advances)

However, I would still opt for some nuclear capability. A nuclear tipped cruise missile, or a future variant of Trident, delivered from our Astute fleet (read let’s build some more). This gives the flexibility of using our nuclear capacity to deter a known aggressor (sneak up the coast and lob one in) as well as save significant amounts of cash from the design of a new class of boat.

If there appears to be a conflict on the horizon, we put an Astute to sea with a nuclear payload and instructions to loiter in the vicinity of country X. If someone wipes us out before we can do that... lets hope our friends remember to avenge us.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D The world gone mad? The Gash Barge 33
B It's a mad world The Quarterdeck 7
slim Are ALL Ausies Forkin mad? Diamond Lil's 7
daffy1 Don't get mad, make hot wets and biscuits. Current Affairs 1
Waspie Mad flying display. The Fleet Air Arm 8
janner Mad cow...... Miscellaneous 0
KATWEEZIL Snotty WAFU Gets Kidnapped by Mad Scouser - Who Can save him? Diamond Lil's 0
soleil Navy News: "Bulwark’s Crew Blag Their Way Across Blighty In Flagship’s Mad Challenge" The Fleet 2
S How mad/stupid at school were you? The Gash Barge 23
soleil Sun: "Brit Ship Conks Out As It Fights Mad Dog" The Fleet 29
soleil The Sun: "Navy Destroyer To Bombard Mad Dog" The Fleet 10
trelawney126 Academics Barking Mad The Gash Barge 0
finknottle Fund an Arab civil war, are you mad? Current Affairs 26
trelawney126 Barking Mad Diamond Lil's 3
F MAD Pierre ! Blue Jokes 9
H Mad or not Miscellaneous 0
M PC gone mad. Current Affairs 6
Haggis_Catcher mad frrrridggy Diamond Lil's 12
S Mad Boris saves the day Current Affairs 6
WreckerL Mad Welshmen and their dogs Diamond Lil's 1
Bad CO Mad Bootie Challenge Charity 11
S Mad,Sad and Bad Boat and Ship names Diamond Lil's 22
BillyNoMates Mad Dogs & Submariners..... Submariners 7
P forces gone mad - Please send us your funny stories The Quarterdeck 0
sgtpepperband Burmese Government - mad as feck! Diamond Lil's 7
F Did you have a mad teacher/tutor let us know. The Gash Barge 10
N Political Correctness Gone mad The Quarterdeck 8
chrisjg84 mad mental mortars The Corps 8
brazenhussy Why do stockings drive men mad? Diamond Lil's 128
H Mad as a hatter Health & Fitness 2
H Mad dogs and Diamond Lil's 7
SILVER_FOX Bizzare Pastimes: Hill Racers Are As Mad As Cheese The Gash Barge 4
slim Was Colonel 'H' a mad fool? Part 2 Diamond Lil's 5
bigbaddog Cat-Mad as a bag of Spanners The Gash Barge 1
S World gone mad? The Quarterdeck 17
higthepig Help me, I`m going mad Diamond Lil's 4
C Mad Swedish yachtsman Current Affairs 11
pie_man Liberalism gone mad ! Diamond Lil's 6
rosinacarley Hopping mad!! Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) 50
Shakey More Political Correctness gone mad.... Current Affairs 46
Shakey Political Correctness gone mad. Again. Current Affairs 64
Lingyai Saddam, Fearless leader or mad hatter Current Affairs 6
soleil Channel 5: On Board Britain's Nuclear Submarine: Trident - Wednesday, November 4th 2020 - 9 PM Submariners 25
A HM S/M Trident Submariners 12
MoD_RSS News story: UK troops combat ready for NATO Exercise Trident Juncture MoD News 0
L Question about Trident D5 Submariners 6
MoD_RSS Statement to Parliament: PM Commons statement on future of Trident: 18 July 2016 MoD News 0
Stirlin Trident...a debate. Current Affairs 0
N Corbyn: UK could keep Trident submarines but without warheads Current Affairs 50
Stirlin Faslane/Trident Current Affairs 15
Similar threads


















































Latest Threads

Top