Do we need Trident or nuclear weapons?

[geoff19]

the UK has been for many years under the impression it can be the worlds policeman (or should that be person).We are members of NATO and the UN and thats as far as we should go in my opinion.The cost to the tax payer is too much in these modern times,time to look to ourselves and police our own streets befor those of others.Give me your opinion,is it just me thinks this way?

 

[fredT]

probably not

 

[Borys]

We will pay taxes that way or another and they will find reasons to pay more by us.
Priority should be to stay safe, with lots of back up from others and vice versa.
It is a dangerous world out there

 

[Dryce]

The cost to the tax payer is too much in these modern times,time to look to ourselves and police our own streets befor those of others.Give me your opinion,is it just me thinks this way?

The deterrent is relatively cheap. It may not look that way when the headline figures are put out or when the defence chiefs are looking to protect their other budgets.

Is it needed? Well people (even in government and the military) have forgotten the atmosphere of the cold war and those who knew some of the actual unthinkable planning that had to be done don't talk about it. Do you know what the world will be like in 25 or 40 years?

I'm biased. I want it. I'm not bothered by nuclear ideology - my view is that if there are other guys with nukes out there we need them - I'd only unilaterally give up nukes if we were the sole nuclear power in the world.`

 

[mirras]

yes and yes

 

[moff]

Yes we do.

We have a good presence in the world and should maintain it, it's good for Britain.

We also have no idea what could happen in N.Korea or Iran. There is always potential for something to go badly wrong in Pakistan too.

I think it would be short sighted to get rid of our nuclear capability when many high risk countries are looking to source nuclear weapons.

I actually think that there is greater risk now than there was in cold war.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

If, instead of putting millions of people's lives in peril, the leaders of these countries just had a punch-up between themselves then we wouldn't need multi-billion pound defence/offense systems.

 

[artyman]

Nuclear weapons work on the basis of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) the cost is expensive, however Do rockets as a delivery system deteriorate, I hope they keep them from going rusty, so lighting the blue touch paper, I assume they would still go off, so no need to replace them, a bit like an old mobile phone, it still works and makes call! The same with warheads, do they become as useless as a wet firework or do they still go ban if let off, if so then why replace it, letting one off is still going to be catastrophic, it doesn't need to be the latest and greatest. I assume the submarines still move about under their own power and don't leak too badly, so why replace any of it. Just because we don't have stuff with a new registration plate doesn't mean it won't get us there and back, surely the same principles apply.

 

[Dryce]

Just because we don't have stuff with a new registration plate doesn't mean it won't get us there and back, surely the same principles apply.

Stuff wears out through use and aging and corrosion. It typically gets more and more difficult to maintain - and reliability is very very important.

And stuff becomes less effective because the defence in other countries improve their countermeasures. Technology doesn't stand still.

 

[1945wickedred]

I would be all for getting rid of Trident but with idiots like this fool from North Korea you have to be able to retaliate with extreme force,it is a terrible shame to have to say this but I am afraid it is very necessary.

 

[grober]

This is why.

 

[geoff19]

Country Warheads active/total[nb 1] Year of first test CTBT status[4]
The five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT
United States 2,150 / 7,700[2] 1945 ("Trinity") Signatory
Russia 1,740 / 8,500[2] 1949 ("RDS-1") Ratifier
United Kingdom 160 / 225[2] 1952 ("Hurricane") Ratifier
France 290 / 300[2] 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue") Ratifier
China n.a. / 240[2] 1964 ("596") Signatory
Non-NPT nuclear powers
India n.a. / 80–100[2] 1974 ("Smiling Buddha") Non-signatory
Pakistan n.a. / 90–110[2] 1998 ("Chagai-I") Non-signatory
North Korea n.a. / <10[2] 2006[5] Non-signatory
Undeclared nuclear powers
Israel n.a. / 80-200[2][6] Unknown (possibly 1979) Signatory
When you look at who has no weapons you have to ask would i feel safe living there.Sweden Holland Spain Portugal the list goes on and on.Without Trident we could have a real NHS and free uni for our kids.

 

[Dryce]

When you look at who has no weapons you have to ask would i feel safe living there.Sweden Holland Spain Portugal the list goes on and on.

Get some pro-Caliphate nutters with bombs in a generation or two then Spain could make an interesting target for coercion.

Sweden is quite close to Russia. Want to scare some people without actually being struck back then choose a Swedish city and take it out with no fear of come back. Point made.

Without Trident we could have a real NHS and free uni for our kids.

We have a real NHS. Spending more money on it doesn't make it more real - it just mainly acts as an inflationary infuence so we pay more for about the same.

And we're already uselessly sending too many kids to Uni. And Scotland actually has Trident (lucky lucky us) and *we have free Uni*.:bannana:

 

[Satch]

Nuclear weapons work on the basis of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) the cost is expensive, however Do rockets as a delivery system deteriorate, I hope they keep them from going rusty, so lighting the blue touch paper, I assume they would still go off, so no need to replace them, a bit like an old mobile phone, it still works and makes call! The same with warheads, do they become as useless as a wet firework or do they still go ban if let off, if so then why replace it, letting one off is still going to be catastrophic, it doesn't need to be the latest and greatest. I assume the submarines still move about under their own power and don't leak too badly, so why replace any of it. Just because we don't have stuff with a new registration plate doesn't mean it won't get us there and back, surely the same principles apply.

The answer to your questions is that both rockets and warheads have a finite service life, about 20- 25 year notional, but they need to be monitored and fettled throughout. The radiation and heat changes the structure and strength of various parts in the warhead over time.

Possible to extend overall service life but it costs.

Big question now is what is needed: MAD is not an option and never has been really but the capabilty to smite the emerging nuclear nutter states on a selective basis rather depressingly is.

(BTW, N Korea has nukes and rockets but as Cameron, D. knows full well easy enough to stick one on top of the other and let it go, but in terms of true long range ICBM capabilty the really difficult bit is ensuring that the damn thing does not burn up or tumble out of control on the way down)

 

[WesLangdon]

We have the technical skill and ingredients to rapidly re create one if we really needed one. Conventional weapons seem more than equal to a destructive task if the "road to Basra" is anything to go by. In principle I'd be much happier if the money was spent on hospitals, roads and on re newable energy than on murderous weapons and unusable delivery systems. We could be seen to be setting a good example rather than lamely following the bad example [the USA]

 

[Dryce]

We have the technical skill and ingredients to rapidly re create one if we really needed one.

Nothing rapid about a nuclear ****nal or the restarting the operation of it once you lose it. This doesn't apply to just the deterrent - if you lose skills such as carrier operations, submarines in general, or even MPA it takes years to work things up and get them back. It also applies to the ability to make and build things too.

And the ingredients aspect is very interesting. It actually takes quite a bit of time to build a nuclear ****nal. This is one reason that things are so secretive. Numbers are critical. Just having the capability to build a bomb is only one piece of the complex jigsaw. Getting to the point where you actually have a viable stockpile of weapons is another problem in itself which can take decades unless you have a reasonably large subvertible civilian nuclear programme.

There are certain advantages to having a system like Trident as opposed to land based missile, free fall bombs, cruise missiles, or even suitcase bombs. But those advantages come with a set of long term costs because you're dealing with the whole system including the boats and the people and their operation as well as the missiles and warheads.

 

[WesLangdon]

The delivery systems seem to be the greatest cost; we have a very large quantity of plutonium and a simple A bomb is not to difficult even for 3rd world states to create.

 

[Deker]

Yes I think we need them, I think of them as preventative maintenance.

Nuclear weapons work on the basis of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) the cost is expensive, however Do rockets as a delivery system deteriorate, I hope they keep them from going rusty, so lighting the blue touch paper, I assume they would still go off, so no need to replace them, a bit like an old mobile phone, it still works and makes call! The same with warheads, do they become as useless as a wet firework or do they still go ban if let off, if so then why replace it, letting one off is still going to be catastrophic, it doesn't need to be the latest and greatest. I assume the submarines still move about under their own power and don't leak too badly, so why replace any of it. Just because we don't have stuff with a new registration plate doesn't mean it won't get us there and back, surely the same principles apply.

It's just the arms race in general, technology and engineering pay a part in the evolution of weapons, it has ever since the caveman realised a sharp stick was better than a blunt one, to actually be a deterrent we have to constantly have the bigger and sharper stick, if we hold back too long we will no longer be a deterrent and unfortunately there's only one way that you find this out and then it's too late.

 

[Stratman]

No and no

They're just expensive willy-waving by politicians who like sitting at the top table.

 

[moonloops]

Nukes are the cheapest way to improve towns like Luton and Bedford