Does Britain need an independent Nuclear Deterrent?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5103764.stm

Quote:

---

Gordon Brown has signalled that he wants to keep and renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.

The Trident missile system and the Vanguard submarines which carry them need replacing by 2024 and a decision is set to be taken in the next year.

Estimates of the cost vary from £10bn to £25bn, depending on what type of new missiles or submarines are chosen.

Mr Brown's intervention has enraged critics, who say Trident has no use now the Soviet Cold War threat is over.

Labour had a manifesto commitment to retain an independent nuclear deterrent but it only applies until the next general election.

Mr Brown, seen as the most likely next prime minister, has sparked new debate on the issue by highlighting his personal commitment to replace Trident.

In his Mansion House speech in the City of London, He said Britain would show a "national purpose" in protecting its security.

"Strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent," he said.

"In an insecure would we must and we will always have the strength to take all necessary long term decisions to ensure both stability and security."

---

I don't really understand who exactly he thinks will be deterred :unsure:

It certainly didn't deter the 7/7 bombers, and it never deterred the IRA...

Does the fact that the UK has nukes make us any safer than Germany or Japan? Or New Zealand?

Maybe if we didn't keep poking sticks into wasps nests we wouldn't be so scared of getting stung... :lookaroun

Also, Trident is hardly "independent" anyway, as it's bound under NATO rules, and it can only work with the help of American satellites, so we couldn't nuke the USA if they were ever to turn "rogue" :dry:

I'm really surprised by the number of people on the BBC site that are welcoming the news, I just think the money could be better spent upgrading the conventional forces, what do people here think?

Brits and "Johnny Foreigner" replies welcome ;)

Oh, here is the wiki regarding the current Trident system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_class_submarine

Nuclear missiles will deter other nuclear attacks. You should have them. There are nations at your backdoor that have or will have them them.


Peace Johnny Foreigner

yes.

Your in the process of seeing a nuclear middle East if somethings not done. A delivery system (other then terrorist) can't be far behind. Although I think that your not number one on the hit list for the kid killers and throat cutters. You are definetly on the list. Unless your willing to swing away when it coes to the ME getting armed to the teeth with nukes. And are prepared to actually do something about it. This is going to be a reality for the EU. And it's going to come to flourish basically in your back yard

The question is whether we replace Trident rather than should we have nuclear capability. It is perfectly possible to have land based missiles, Cruise type delivery systems and/or plane delivered bombs at a fraction of the cost of underwater systems. The UK, and Europe generally, is awash with nuclear facilities, enrichment plants and reprocessing plants. The ability to respond to a nuclear threat is well within the EU's grasp if and when required.

However, do we need subs capable of delivering hundreds of warheads at enormous expense? The Trident system was designed as a response to the Cold War stand off, not a rogue ME state with a few warheads. There is fussing over the cost of the two proposed aircraft carriers which would give the Navy a far more potent capability at a quarter of the cost of replacing the Trident system.

My view is that a Trident replacement is the wrong answer to the question of what is an appropriate defence capabilty for the future, unless the analysts are predicting a return to a Cold War stand off with an enemy, such as Russia or China, that has a similar capability to our own. I am unaware of this being the case. In which case I am slightly surprised that Gordon Brown has made such a judgement when he is keen to trim the defence budget in every other area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

The question is whether we replace Trident rather than should we have nuclear capability. It is perfectly possible to have land based missiles, Cruise type delivery systems and/or plane delivered bombs at a fraction of the cost of underwater systems. The UK, and Europe generally, is awash with nuclear facilities, enrichment plants and reprocessing plants. The ability to respond to a nuclear threat is well within the EU's grasp if and when required.

However, do we need subs capable of delivering hundreds of warheads at enormous expense? The Trident system was designed as a response to the Cold War stand off, not a rogue ME state with a few warheads. There is fussing over the cost of the two proposed aircraft carriers which would give the Navy a far more potent capability at a quarter of the cost of replacing the Trident system.

My view is that a Trident replacement is the wrong answer to the question of what is an appropriate defence capabilty for the future, unless the analysts are predicting a return to a Cold War stand off with an enemy, such as Russia or China, that has a similar capability to our own. I am unaware of this being the case. In which case I am slightly surprised that Gordon Brown has made such a judgement when he is keen to trim the defence budget in every other area.

---

I think the general purpose of a sub based platform is that it can't be targeted, except by another sub. It gives you the possibillity of stealth mobil retaliation point for worse case scenarios. I think to limit your sea capabilities is short sighted. I agree you may not need an entire arsenal of trident platforms. But these same systems can be fitted with non nuclear warheads. But in the end it is what it is, a deterent. I see no reason why there needs to be a replacement of the entire fleet. But I definetly think there is a need for a presence in this area. There's got to be a middle ground to be found. Update and retorfit half the fleet, replace the other half for your long term recon and deterent value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

The question is whether we replace Trident rather than should we have nuclear capability. It is perfectly possible to have land based missiles, Cruise type delivery systems and/or plane delivered bombs at a fraction of the cost of underwater systems. The UK, and Europe generally, is awash with nuclear facilities, enrichment plants and reprocessing plants. The ability to respond to a nuclear threat is well within the EU's grasp if and when required.

However, do we need subs capable of delivering hundreds of warheads at enormous expense? The Trident system was designed as a response to the Cold War stand off, not a rogue ME state with a few warheads. There is fussing over the cost of the two proposed aircraft carriers which would give the Navy a far more potent capability at a quarter of the cost of replacing the Trident system.

My view is that a Trident replacement is the wrong answer to the question of what is an appropriate defence capabilty for the future, unless the analysts are predicting a return to a Cold War stand off with an enemy, such as Russia or China, that has a similar capability to our own. I am unaware of this being the case. In which case I am slightly surprised that Gordon Brown has made such a judgement when he is keen to trim the defence budget in every other area.

---

I think the general purpose of a sub based platform is that it can't be targeted, except by another sub. It gives you the possibillity of stealth mobil retaliation point for worse case scenarios. I think to limit your sea capabilities is short sighted. I agree you may not need an entire arsenal of trident platforms. But these same systems can be fitted with non nuclear warheads. But in the end it is what it is, a deterent. I see no reason why there needs to be a replacement of the entire fleet. But I definetly think there is a need for a presence in this area. There's got to be a middle ground to be found. Update and retorfit half the fleet, replace the other half for your long term recon and deterent value.

---

The submarine platform does have the advantage of being stealth which was an advantage during the Cold War. The current fleet are good till 2025. The decision is really around what our future plans are. We are just commissioning a new fleet of hunter-killer submarines that are cruise capable - therefore I think that more conventional forces (such as the new aircraft carriers) would give us better value for future defence planning. Just an opinion :)

Edit: So goodness only knows what Gordon thinks he is doing! :O I smell the odour of politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

I think the general purpose of a sub based platform is that it can't be targeted, except by another sub. It gives you the possibillity of stealth mobil retaliation point for worse case scenarios. I think to limit your sea capabilities is short sighted. I agree you may not need an entire arsenal of trident platforms. But these same systems can be fitted with non nuclear warheads. But in the end it is what it is, a deterent. I see no reason why there needs to be a replacement of the entire fleet. But I definetly think there is a need for a presence in this area. There's got to be a middle ground to be found. Update and retorfit half the fleet, replace the other half for your long term recon and deterent value.

---

The submarine platform does have the advantage of being stealth which was an advantage during the Cold War. The current fleet are good till 2025. The decision is really around what our future plans are. We are just commissioning a new fleet of hunter-killer submarines that are cruise capable - therefore I think that more conventional forces (such as the new aircraft carriers) would give us better value for future defence planning. Just an opinion :)

Edit: So goodness only knows what Gordon thinks he is doing! :O I smell the odour of politics.

---

The quickest way to get something screwed up is to let a politician get involved.....:lol:

Considering China has like hundreds of nukes, and terrorists in da Middle East supposedly have some as well, UK's better prepared than sorry.:lookaroun.

I can't make a case for giving up a sub-based nuke capability if you've already got it.

The types of threats these platforms deter are precisely those which respond only to multinational resistance.

The requirement to contemplate a variety of scenarios (contingent upon fluid political circumstances) is part-and-parcel of the psychology of nuclear deterrence.

It is one more reason (as well) to eliminate terrorism/terrorists with all due speed and prejudice.

Hopefully, this thread will go a page or three before someone says, "We wouldn't be in this briar-patch if it weren't for the United States..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I can't make a case for giving up a sub-based nuke capability if you've already got it.

The types of threats these platforms deter are precisely those which respond only to multinational resistance.

The requirement to contemplate a variety of scenarios (contingent upon fluid political circumstances) is part-and-parcel of the psychology of nuclear deterrence.

It is one more reason (as well) to eliminate terrorism/terrorists with all due speed and prejudice.

Hopefully, this thread will go a page or three before someone says, "We wouldn't be in this briar-patch if it weren't for the United States..."

---

Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I can't make a case for giving up a sub-based nuke capability if you've already got it.

The types of threats these platforms deter are precisely those which respond only to multinational resistance.

The requirement to contemplate a variety of scenarios (contingent upon fluid political circumstances) is part-and-parcel of the psychology of nuclear deterrence.

It is one more reason (as well) to eliminate terrorism/terrorists with all due speed and prejudice.

Hopefully, this thread will go a page or three before someone says, "We wouldn't be in this briar-patch if it weren't for the United States..."

---

Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....:rolleyes:

---

Dad? :huh:

























:P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....:rolleyes:

---

Dad? :huh:




:P

---

Yes son?

Come to the darkside......:ph34r:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Dad? :huh:




:P

---

Yes son?

Come to the darkside......:ph34r:

---

That's where I'm posting from, or so they say...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I can't make a case for giving up a sub-based nuke capability if you've already got it.

The types of threats these platforms deter are precisely those which respond only to multinational resistance.

The requirement to contemplate a variety of scenarios (contingent upon fluid political circumstances) is part-and-parcel of the psychology of nuclear deterrence.

It is one more reason (as well) to eliminate terrorism/terrorists with all due speed and prejudice.

Hopefully, this thread will go a page or three before someone says, "We wouldn't be in this briar-patch if it weren't for the United States..."

---

Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....:rolleyes:

---

Damn, you beat me to it j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewizeard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....:rolleyes:

---

Damn, you beat me to it j2k4

---

It's a habit. ;)

We should have nuclear weapons as long as Canadia keeps her stocks.

If its a deterant, then we only need to have them.

Why replace them with things that make a bigger bang, when the ones we have make huge bangs already? Are they suddenly too small to be a deterant because the size ofthe planet grew while i wasnt looking?

Upgrade em and maintain em... lots cheaper, just as good for deterent purposes.

But im with JP... as long as Canadia and the Maldives have them, we need them.

Why would we need to replace them?

Because, as with everything, the suppliers will say they have gone past their useful life and are too expensive to maintain. Of course, that assumes that they have been maintained at their original specification, but with nuclear weapons the likelihood is that they will have been upgraded regularly. The real reason will be that the supplier is unwilling to maintain the items since they can make a good profit by supplying new goods.

The question (as implied in the original post) is not whether we need to upgrade, but whether we still need a submarine based nuclear weapons system. If we need it, then we have to upgrade.

However, consider the purpose of these submarines. Generally they would lie off the coast of the target, so the range would be comparitively small. The main reason is that it does not give the enemy time to respond before the target is hit; by definition this implies first strike. The alternative reason is for a retaliatory strike, but in this case time to target is less important.

With the alternative weapon systems available we should assume that first strike by this method is not a credible argument, particularly when you consider that in any case they would be held back for second/third strike. Given that other submarine launched delivery systems are available (eg cruise missiles) which could hit most significant targets from an offshore attack position, it seems unlikely that the UK would have (or currently has) a requirement for expensive submarine launched ballistic missiles such as Trident or its replacement.

It also has to do with the weapon itself. The actual warheads are not what are being upgraded. It;s the delivery systems and target aquisition systems. Because of stealth, radar and anti missle technology these systems are upgraded to stay above the curve for delivery. The bang doesn't neccesarily get bigger it just gets more accurate and more dependable. Plus upkeep costs of older systems probably cost more to maintain. And then the inevitable money to be made comes into effect

We dont need Ballistics Missiles...

Lets just get together with France and any of the other EU countries that want to and develop our own stuff.

Lets keep our workers in Jobs instead of the Yanks.. :rolleyes: