trident

S

Spurfect11

Vital Champions League
how is it that 187 countries manage to deter nuclear threats everyday, without the use of nuclear weapons?

is it because they are not deemed a threat?

why do only 8 countries have nuclear weapons? are they paranoid?

are 187 countries disproving Pareto's principle?
 
They may deter a nuclear attack but not a conventional one !! Russia has such a huge conventional weapon threat it needs the nuclear deterrent to stop them using it ( conventional that is ). Certain countries are not allowed nukes such as Germany and Japan, unbelievably Pakistan are !!
 
why can the UK stand up and say "we need nuclear weapons to deter an attack" but the other 184 countries aren't allowed to do this? not that I would advocate anything that barmy.

does anyone else not find it strange, that only 8 countries require the need for nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack?
 
The other question is, how much money can be spend on them before they aren't worthwhile? or is it something we simply must spend whatever it takes on?
 
I think that with all the various 'wars and rumours of wars' going on, we need to make sure that we can always beat off any aggressors and with Iran etc making weapons and the idiot in North Korea posturing as he does etc etc, a good deterrent, which is what Trident is meant to be, is vital and good value for money under those terms.

It's a pity we HAVE to buy these things just to keep idiot people in their place, simple diplomacy would be a lot cheaper but I'm sorry, naive left wingers would have us believe that is the way to treat these No-No's.

If Scotland doesn't want the base up there, it should be moved elsewhere and let them lose all the jobs that go with it etc. But we need Trident in this present world and really there's little option but to buy the new version and keep up to date.



 
The subs only have a certain life and are in constant rotational use. A cheaper land based system would be less of a deterrent as more prone to attack. The subs are virtually impossible to attack and fire their missiles from under the water .When fired the missiles go into space effectively and orbit until the warheads are deployed. I think each missile has 8 warheads , each warhead is 7 times more powerful than Hiroshima which killed over 100, 000 people.

Our system is the minimum deterrent required. Russia and the US have far more. Ours is a genuine deterrent as opposed to an attack system. Each sub has a secret letter written by the prime minister giving instructions after the red button is pushed. Apparently Westminster needs to be under attack or whiped out for this activation. Then the subs go into retaliation destruct mode.

I think this is what nuclear capability should be. No attack level should be allowed, only deterrent.
 
Welshtel, making a stand against Trident and any form of Nuclear warhead, for many people, is not necessarily a matter of left-wing thinking and is most definitely not naive. It is usually more of a moral stance for the many that are against it.

Despite any of this, most in the Labour party voted for the upgrading of Trident and of course, so did the vast majority of Tories. Then again, Portillo, former Tory Defence Minister is still dead against it, and for strategic, monetary and practical reasons, if not for ideological and moral ones.

On top of that, there have been many British military leaders (Generals), that have spoken up against Trident for more strategic reasons and believing it to be a waste of resources and pretty much useless in it's purpose, when considering the lack of serious funding and need for conventional arms.

Anyhow,we are just mere pawns in the hands of the USA in all this and Trident will continue to sit there, rusting away until Armageddon deals it's fatal blows.

Trump that, Donald!

DUCK! Too late.
 
no one has yet to point out why 184 countries do not need nuclear deterrents to defend themselves.

why do only 8 countries think having nuclear deterrents is vital?
 
Of the 187 some can't afford them, some are too underdeveloped and inhospitable to need protecting, some strategically unimportant or remote. Some not allowed them. If you take out all the above the 187 will diminish greatly.

It would be more representative if you could single out the countries which could have nukes then ask why not.
 
you could argue the UK cannot afford them given we are in so much debt.

If a country like India or Pakistan can afford them, a whole host of european countries like Sweden, Belgium etc etc can afford them.

I suspect the answer you are looking for is that those 8 countries regularly make a habit of encroaching on other countries freedoms to obtain resources, and won't blink twice at engaging in military action. in short, those 8 countries are very good at making enemies. perhaps that's where they could start looking for a deterrent - not being assholes.
 
Russia and China have a huge conventional capability. We can't match that so need a deterrent to avoid it.

India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are nutters.
 
but why do WE need a deterrent?

who cares if Russia and China have them? Sweden don't, Belgium doesn't, Australia doesn't.....

...the list goes on.


And if Theresa May INSISTS we need them to protect ourselves, then surely every other country has this right too?
 
Spurfect11 - 3/8/2016 13:01

but why do WE need a deterrent?

who cares if Russia and China have them? Sweden don't, Belgium doesn't, Australia doesn't.....

...the list goes on.


And if Theresa May INSISTS we need them to protect ourselves, then surely every other country has this right too?
Click to expand...


Because people need to think before they nuke one of the most important centres of finance?

Because the UK is still seen as an influential power both militarily and politically?

I despise nuclear capability including power generation by the way.
 
Spurfect11 - 2/8/2016 10:32

no one has yet to point out why 184 countries do not need nuclear deterrents to defend themselves.

why do only 8 countries think having nuclear deterrents is vital?
Click to expand...

A large percentage of those developed countries sit under the NATO umbrella or have defence alliances/ pacts with Nato - as such they 'enjoy' being part of the nuclear sharing agreement whereby they have and do receive nuclear devices (both battlefield and strategic) and in return maintain the infrastructure for their deployment, readiness and use.

They both directly to NATO and outside of it contribute towards costs.

No one gets a free ride.

Until such time as we have stable governments who respect the rule of international law and don't threaten the use of nuclear weapons (as both Russia and N.Korea have done in the last 12 months). maintaining a deterrence is essential for peace.

China's military is on course to be the largest standing army with advanaced technology in history within the next 12 years - they are now constantly flexing their muscles in the South China seas and even ignoring UN rulings on international waters - just recently they have threatened both Japan and Taiwan with overwhelming military retaliation if they do not obey their self-imposed territorial waters.

Russia is conducting advanced large scale maneuvers on Ukrainies borders and threatening the North Baltics on an almost daily basis - including with their new mini-nukes launched with their new class of mini-ballistic grid fins that are nigh on impossible to detect until it's too late (it's a first strike weapon and was jointly developed with the Chinese).

MAD has kept the peace, it has made a WWIII unthinkable - without this deterrence Russia and China, as well as North Korea would act as they saw fit - conventional losses of 10's of millions in a conventional war actually within their strategic wear games explicitly call for these losses to be deemed as 'acceptable' to meet strategic aims.

That's just a brief summation of why to live and be free, free from direct intimidation and benign influence we must maintain a nuclear deterrence - perhaps one day these states will progress beyond naked ambition and nationalism as most in the West have - but for now, that's just a pipe dream and remains the remit of the day dreamers who are in my opinion divorced from the reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.