Trident Options

[je suis Charlie]

[quote name='Simon Kirby' date='Feb 3 2016, 09:12 AM' post='108124']
Dangerous indeed. This was the Americans flying a B52 within first-strike range of North Korea, and to be honest I'd be significantly concerned about being invaded by the Americans if I was a North Korean, they do have form, and they look likely to elect that lunatic Trump come November. Quite frankly I'd be concerned about the Americans occupying strategic military sites by force on the UK mainland if we ever tried to assert our independence as again, the Americand do have form, flying sorties from UK bases, and not forgetting their invasion of Grenada, a UK crown dependancy.
[/quote
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/...ons-at-any-time

But that's OK the world is safe, The Commissar says so.

[Turin Machine]

They may be mad but, that mad? Let's hope not. The problem with WMD's is that even lunatics can press a button.

[Simon Kirby]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/...ons-at-any-time

But that's OK the world is safe, The Commissar says so.

Sorry, what are you saying, that the UK's retention of Trident is actively preventing the isolationist North Korean regeime from launching its nuclear weapons?

[On the edge]

This indeed is scary stuff. The lesson history teaches us is that American weapon holdings actively states like North Korea to try and better. Just over one hundred years ago, we were locked into an exactly similar arms race with Germany. Back then, war was also unthinkable.

[Simon Kirby]

They may be mad but, that mad? Let's hope not. The problem with WMD's is that even lunatics can press a button.

It is a very dangerous situation. I think the US is quite mad enough to launch a preemptive strike on North Korea, and while it's difficult to understand what's going on in North Korea I would guess that they're familiar enough with US foreign policy to understand that the threat is real, and they may even believe that the threat is imminent. The US would do the world a favour if it de-escalated the situation and allowed Chinese diplomacy to work, but that would likely weaken the US's regional power and influence and I don't see them doing that, so this may not end well.

[je suis Charlie]

Well, thanks to an outbreak of common sense we get the next gen trident. Up yours Corbyn!

[GMR]

Sorry, what are you saying, that the UK's retention of Trident is actively preventing the isolationist North Korean regeime from launching its nuclear weapons?

This is not the point; the point is that without it countries like North Korea, Russia etc can dominate and control the world. And before you say it; I am not talking about the UK's nuclear missiles alone, but a collective cooperation of nuclear missile powered countries (France, USA, UK etc.).

[je suis Charlie]

It's called balance of power.

[GMR]

It's called balance of power.

And without that balance it could tip in an unfavourable direction.

[On the edge]

Both Russia and the US have far, far more than we have. So, if we are really honest with ourselves, our own little effort is frankly pointless; anyway are no longer a World power. If it was to keep power in balance, then wouldn't Sweden, Norway, or Switzerland who all have good nuclear physicists want their own too?

Again, if we are really honest, we don't even have our own. Its an American system, and it's highly unlikely that we'd have the capability or knowledge to 'let one off' on our own. The real reason we keep Trident is simply to keep the Americans happy. Essentially that old 'bases for clapped out destroyers' scam writ large.

Nuclear weapons are all so very yesterday anyway; surely we could redeploy what little nuclear expertise we have left on nuclear power stations for instance.

[Simon Kirby]

This is not the point; the point is that without it countries like North Korea, Russia etc can dominate and control the world. And before you say it; I am not talking about the UK's nuclear missiles alone, but a collective cooperation of nuclear missile powered countries (France, USA, UK etc.).

We are talking about the UK's Trident, and I don't accept that the UK's unilateral nuclear disarmament would embolden any potential aggressors - of ours or otherwise.

Abandoning Trident would however provide something like £200billion to invest in peaceful civil engineering and research which would provide lucrative alternative employment for the people and communities affected by disarmament, and if that research was directed at renewable energy it could create a lucrative British industry peopled by qualified British engineers, technicians, and scientists, with the side-benefit of cracking the very real challenge of global climate change.

[je suis Charlie]

We are talking about the UK's Trident, and I don't accept that the UK's unilateral nuclear disarmament would embolden any potential aggressors - of ours or otherwise.

Abandoning Trident would however provide something like £200billion to invest in peaceful civil engineering and research which would provide lucrative alternative employment for the people and communities affected by disarmament, and if that research was directed at renewable energy it could create a lucrative British industry peopled by qualified British engineers, technicians, and scientists, with the side-benefit of cracking the very real challenge of global climate change.

Well thank God Parliament didn't agree with you.

[On the edge]

Well thank God Parliament didn't agree with you.

Still coming to get you are they je?

[je suis Charlie]

Still coming to get you are they je?

Who is this je of whome you speak?

[Berkshirelad]

and it's highly unlikely that we'd have the capability or knowledge to 'let one off' on our own.

Oh yes we do.

The Trident-carrying submarines operate independently there is no 'interlock' system.

One of the first things a new Prime Minister has to do is write a sealed letter to be held on each vessel designating targets in the event of loss of contact with the rest of the world. Trident is launched solely by two physically separated, vetted and trusted Naval officers on the vessel

[GMR]

We are talking about the UK's Trident, and I don't accept that the UK's unilateral nuclear disarmament would embolden any potential aggressors - of ours or otherwise. Abandoning Trident would however provide something like £200billion to invest in peaceful civil engineering and research which would provide lucrative alternative employment for the people and communities affected by disarmament, and if that research was directed at renewable energy it could create a lucrative British industry peopled by qualified British engineers, technicians, and scientists, with the side-benefit of cracking the very real challenge of global climate change.

Luckily the majority of Parliament didn't agree with you or your mate Corbyn.

[On the edge]

Oh yes we do.

The Trident-carrying submarines operate independently there is no 'interlock' system.

One of the first things a new Prime Minister has to do is write a sealed letter to be held on each vessel designating targets in the event of loss of contact with the rest of the world. Trident is launched solely by two physically separated, vetted and trusted Naval officers on the vessel

Yeah, right.

....and we still lock up the Tower of London each evening; tradition is a wonderful thing!

[On the edge]

Who is this je of whome you speak?

You old son!

Better dead than red I suppose?

[On the edge]

Luckily the majority of Parliament didn't agree with you or your mate Corbyn.

The majority in Parliament didn't agree with 'Brexit' either!

[GMR]

The majority in Parliament didn't agree with 'Brexit' either!

That is true, that is why Governments don't usually like plebiscites. However, Parliament had to go with the will of the people. In the case of the country, there is no call for Corbyn to be Prime Minister (other than by his own fanatics). If we had a referendum for the whole country I don't think he would get enough people to turn out, let alone vote for him.