Trident

[higthepig]

Considering the talk of renewing the Trident system and the cost, just how many new nuclear weapons do we need, weve got enough to kiss everybodys backside goodbye, whats the point, dont say technical reasons, cos if you press the button, goodbye cruel world.

 

[dt018a9667]

Must come down to my toy is bigger than yours me thinks.

 

[dunkers]

I would think that it is due to anti-missile technology, maybe it has developed to such a point that our current Trident missiles can easily be shot down and so we need something upgraded..?

 

[Nutty]

Wot we need is to scrap the V boats and its weapon system. Scrap or sell to Iran our bombs/warheads and purchase 10 SSK's from Sweden.

Nutty

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

If we are going to have a nuclear deterrent it should be genuinely independent - and that's far too costly. I think we need a nuclear deterrent but these days one delivered by aircraft would be a much more cost effective option and the savings could be invested in the Forces.

In reality they would be invested in tax cuts, over-costly PFI projects or paying for consultants to tell government what its own staff could tell it, were they asked.

 

[FlagWagger]

If we are going to have a nuclear deterrent it should be genuinely independent - and that's far too costly. I think we need a nuclear deterrent but these days one delivered by aircraft would be a much more cost effective option and the savings could be invested in the Forces.

In reality they would be invested in tax cuts, over-costly PFI projects or paying for consultants to tell government what its own staff could tell it, were they asked.

The major problem with the nuclear submarine deterrent is that it is has not been used since its introduction on HMS Resolution all those years ago. The capital tied up in having a fleet of SSBNs is huge, and for their primary purpose to go unused for so long is criminal and gives the MoD one hell of a black mark when the accountants look at performance related cost indicators. So let's think a little outside the box here - perhaps we should considera as an alternative, a genuine independent nuclear deterrent sourced under PFI. This could be developed and maintained by a consortium from BNG, Serco and Flagship; this would free up the rest of the RN to to get on with communicating the gospel according to St Albion while allowing private industry to shoulder the burden of the nuclear deterrent white elephant.

<knock, knock>

Got to go now, the men in white coats are at the door!

 

[TattooDog]

Why bother with the nause that is PFI?

Why not contract out the nuclear deterrent to a Private Military Companies - you know, like we've done with companies such as Aegis, Executive Outcomes, Sandline etc.

Let P&O and Brittany Ferries have Trident - they can have the V Boats to go with them too.

 

[stumpy]

If we are going to have a nuclear deterrent it should be genuinely independent - and that's far too costly. I think we need a nuclear deterrent but these days one delivered by aircraft would be a much more cost effective option and the savings could be invested in the Forces.

In reality they would be invested in tax cuts, over-costly PFI projects or paying for consultants to tell government what its own staff could tell it, were they asked.

God, could you imagine if the detterent were givwen to the crabs... While the Senior Service has carried out this most important of military tasks for decades with quiet proffesionalism... the crabs would make such a big deal of it.

Seriously though, a nuclear detterent has to be submarine based, if it is land or airbased (they have to land) it would be vulnerable to a surprise attack. Also, planes can be shot down.

 

[stumpy]

I should add that I am against nuclear weapons... but I do not want to live in a world where Iran, North Korea, Pakistan China etc have the bomb and we don't.

 

[FlagWagger]

Seriously though, a nuclear detterent has to be submarine based, if it is land or airbased (they have to land) it would be vulnerable to a surprise attack. Also, planes can be shot down.

Wasn't that the whole rationale in moving the deterrent away from the V-Bomber force in the 60s to the Polaris SSBN? I don't think the crabs have forgiven us yet.

 

[Greenie]

I honestly think with Nuclear weapons there won't ever be a major war like we've seen in the past.

Nuclear weapons can be fired from artillery pieces in localised areas
they have nuclear depth charges etc etc. The air forces manage to drop smart bombs at the moment without being hit themselves by ground to air missiles so why not nuc weapons. They don't need much aiming either.

Wether ICBM's can be intercepted in flight remains to be seen but I think there is some sort of laser 'gun' that will knock out their guidance systems while they are in flight.

 

[jackdanielsaddict]

as I understand it, with the money already tied up in them, it is more cost effective in the short to medium term to keep the nuclear deterrent and afterall- politicians don't worry about long term really- cause they'll of been forced to retire after some sex scandal by then anyway