View Full Version : Trident to be renewed
King Henry V
12-11-2006, 21:55
I know this story is about a week old, but this is still a major piece of news and I'm surprised no one has talked about it here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6205174.stm
Personally, I am highly in favour of renewing Great Britain's nuclear deterrent if only for the sake of the country's prestige. As things stand, the possession of a nuclear deterrent is the only thing that marks Britain out as "one of the big boys" with any diplomatic and military leverage. Without it, it may as well give its permanent seat on the Security Council to India, hand Gilbratar to the Spanish, abandon all overseas military bases and become a fiefdom of the EU, controlled from Brussels.
It's hardly independent though. It needs US support to work.
Be better teaming up with the French over it.
rory_20_uk
12-11-2006, 22:15
IMO it is a "cathereral in the desert".
The massive cost would alow a significant increase in conventional forces - who might actually be used in a war! I've heard (perhaps incorrectly) that we are in fact unable to fire Trident without the USA providing sat guidence for them.
Spain is not bieng stopped from taking Gibralter as if it did we'd nuke Madrid. We held the Falklands through blood and iron of conventional forces, not nuking Argentina.
I can seem some extremely limited point in having small nuclear weapons that are deployed from ships or planes, so in effect there are many places that they could be used, but in the meantime the forces are still useful. To have 4 or 3 or whatever subs that have enough firepower to level a generous section of a country is no use whatsoever as it will never get used. North Korea is more feared having something like 5 as there is a real risk that they might be used if they're pushed too far. The UK is not like that.
IMO military spending in the UK is at too low a level - as a percentage of GDP it was last this low in the 1930's, and has been said we are doing a lot more these days.
So research / buy some small nukes if we must. Bin the subs and let's get some decent gear for the poor soldiers following orders in the waste of space that is Afghanistan and Iraq... Which might be a convenient swansong for Trident now I think of it...
~:smoking:
Banquo's Ghost
12-11-2006, 22:18
I know this story is about a week old, but this is still a major piece of news and I'm surprised no one has talked about it here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6205174.stm
Personally, I am highly in favour of renewing Great Britain's nuclear deterrent if only for the sake of the country's prestige. As things stand, the possession of a nuclear deterrent is the only thing that marks Britain out as "one of the big boys" with any diplomatic and military leverage. Without it, it may as well give its permanent seat on the Security Council to India, hand Gilbratar to the Spanish, abandon all overseas military bases and become a fiefdom of the EU, controlled from Brussels.
That's a very expensive ego trip you've going on there. :grin:
In case you hadn't realised it, the UK is a fiefdom of the US. Do you really think there will ever be a situation where the UK can use its "independent" deterrent without the express permission of the US president?
And buying the proposed system entirely from the US is another way they have of reminding you that the British Empire is a faded memory.
But I guess politicians must have their illusions of grandeur alongside their toys. "Big boy" aspirations indeed.
Definitely should be kept. They are a deterrent and not ever meant to be used. Though I don't see the point of supporting boomer subs if you have ICBM's. Those are insanely expensive and could be spent elsewere. Namely on those new fangled full sized aircraft carrier's.
I also doubt it's the nukes that set you apart as a "Big" boy. I would be more of the mind to say it's the support of the US that set's the UK apart.
Banquo so how goes the annexation of Scotland to the US?
King Henry V
12-11-2006, 22:38
I am well aware that Britain is practically a protectorate of America, however, if I would have to choose between Brussels and Washington, I believe the latter to be preferable.
However, I am not so much in favour of buying Trident as just having a nuclear deterrent, to mark Britain out as one of the major players on the international stage - let's face it, not much else does so. I am sure Britain has the scientific know-how to develop its own nuclear arsenal, however small, even by "copying" American technology somewhat, just as India did with IAEA technology, and then passing the stuff as "their own invention".
rory_20_uk
12-11-2006, 22:46
Big aircraft carriers... Last ones scrapped as too easy a target. So, unless missiles have become less accurate they're not a great idea.
I agree that joining NAFTA is far better than anything that the EU has to offer (unless we had some sense like Switzerland to have all the good bits and none of the bad (free trade area, but own borders, sets own laws and doesn't have to give massive handouts to another layer of beaurocracy.
~:smoking:
Big aircraft carriers... Last ones scrapped as too easy a target. So, unless missiles have become less accurate they're not a great idea.
Last I checked the AEGIS and Phalanx systems protected from missile's pretty well. Going to go out on a limb and say even the UK has the Phalanx system.
A large blue water navy is something even China lacks.
rory_20_uk
12-11-2006, 23:16
Considering that the UK could afford probably less than 5 aircraft carriers in total (more likely 1 or 2), protecting "pretty well" isn't that reassuring, especially from missiles that burn hot enough to make aluminuim catch fire with seawater (raising the possibility of a one hit kill).
And what about torpedoes? They're nasty too. And US ones can go at something like 60 to 75 knots (110 to 140 km/h). Iran has an "underwater missile" that goes at 360km/h.
To move a highly visable target into hostile waters when there's only one or two in the fleet is a huge risk, one that the UK can't really afford. This is especially true with the amount of firepower that smaller ships now can fire, as well as conventional subs.
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
12-11-2006, 23:19
A large blue water navy is something even China lacks.
To date. As the USA fades, China will become pre-eminent in that as well.
discovery1
12-11-2006, 23:28
And what about torpedoes? They're nasty too. And US ones can go at something like 60 to 75 knots (110 to 140 km/h). Iran has an "underwater missile" that goes at 360km/h.
I understand supercavitating weapons tend to be relatively short ranged, so your ASW people should be able to kill the sub first.
To date. As the USA fades, China will become pre-eminent in that as well.
Possibly but historically speaking China has never been a premier naval power (not quite the same thing as possessing a major merchant fleet). What most people conveniently forget is that Japan currently has the second largest blue water navy in the world and given that nation's naval history it is arguably the second most effective one at that. If China's Communist hardliners continue to keep rattling the saber about Taiwan and the oil fields in international waters in the South China sea you can bet the farm that Japan will drastically increase its naval capability to compensate for the US's drop from the top superpower spot.
To date. As the USA fades, China will become pre-eminent in that as well.
USA isnt fading. If anything has shown in the last decade it has only gained power. Though The People's Republic of China is certainly getting stronger. Just look at Japan in the late 19th and 20th century.
Considering that the UK could afford probably less than 5 aircraft carriers in total (more likely 1 or 2), protecting "pretty well" isn't that reassuring, especially from missiles that burn hot enough to make aluminuim catch fire with seawater (raising the possibility of a one hit kill).
And what about torpedoes? They're nasty too. And US ones can go at something like 60 to 75 knots (110 to 140 km/h). Iran has an "underwater missile" that goes at 360km/h.
The aircraft carrier is protected by it's aircraft. If a aircraft has somehow gotten close enough to fire a missile at a carrier then somethings failed. I also don't see how you could use aluminuim on a super carrier. It's too light and they are far too top heavy. As a side note the Phalanx system isnt expensive in the realm of those carrier's.
As for torpedoe's, they've always been the bane of ships. Since they were first invented they could down battleships. Small torpedo boats even in WWI had the power to take out dreadnaughts. As for iran's underwater missile, I doubt it can travel more then a few miles. Even the USA is still working on its supercavitating supersonic torpedo.
Still a super carrier is far more relavent then a boomer sub for national defence.
discovery1
12-12-2006, 00:05
As for torpedoe's, they've always been the bane of ships. Since they were first invented they could down battleships. Small torpedo boats even in WWI had the power to take out dreadnaughts. As for iran's underwater missile, I doubt it can travel more then a few miles. Even the USA is still working on its supercavitating supersonic torpedo.
Russia has had supercavitating weapons for decades.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3adc974c4c69.htm
Old article copy and pasted from Scientific American.
Louis VI the Fat
12-12-2006, 00:37
Meh, just tell the Americans to start paying for your nukes, at the risk of losing a second Anglo voice in the security council. You guys need to be more diplomatically vile creative.
Personally, I am highly in favour of renewing Great Britain's nuclear deterrent if only for the sake of the country's prestige. As things stand, the possession of a nuclear deterrent is the only thing that marks Britain out as "one of the big boys" with any diplomatic and military leverage. I've often wondered about this too. Britain doesn't need or desire a nuclear force of it's own, i.e. independent from Washington, other than as a replacement for empire as a token of prestige and diplomatic status.
And horribly expensive projects for the sole object of national grandeur, no matter the cost, are more territory of that other European 'big boy'.
Be better teaming up with the French over it.That would be good, but wouldn't work. As is, we can't even get a proper common conventional force up and running, something of much more pressing nature.
Besides, the force de frappe doubles as the ultimate symbol of national independence, and as the final safeguard of West European peace and stability independent from Washington. Both factors exclude pooling nuclear resources with the UK.
Let the UK keep it's position halfway between Washington and Brussels. Ultimately, in a strange and crooked way, that's more beneficial for everybody than a single British orientation on either America or Europe.
Banquo's Ghost
12-12-2006, 07:06
Banquo so how goes the annexation of Scotland to the US?
Hi BigTex. ~:wave:
AFAIK, the Scots are about to declare independence from their Blairite overlords. I would imagine that includes the US.
But it may well be part of their cunning plan (a plan indeed, so cunning that you could pin a tail on it and call it a fox) to secretly rejoin the USA as a small state (they promise to sit at the back and not say anything).
They have oil, you know. :wink:
Hi BigTex. ~:wave:
AFAIK, the Scots are about to declare independence from their Blairite overlords. I would imagine that includes the US.
But it may well be part of their cunning plan (a plan indeed, so cunning that you could pin a tail on it and call it a fox) to secretly rejoin the USA as a small state (they promise to sit at the back and not say anything).
They have oil, you know. :wink:
Howdy Banquo's Ghost ~:wave:
As far as I recall, isnt the party Tony Blair a member of a Scotish made party?
If the Scotish are seeking independence from the Scotish. Then this could only be a plot by the CIA to annex the UK.
They must have created the Scotish party called Labour. Slowly but surely they cunningly manipulated it's members and installed key leaders. So that one day, it would breed a man so repulsive, so insane, so poodle like that even the scots themselves couldn't stand him. Indeed it seems the CIA installed Tony Blair in order to have the Scotish seek independence from the Scotish and annexation to the US! It's so clear now!:yes:
~:pimp:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-12-2006, 10:33
However, I am not so much in favour of buying Trident as just having a nuclear deterrent, to mark Britain out as one of the major players on the international stage - let's face it, not much else does so.
1 World $ 49,000,000,000,000
2 United States $ 10,400,000,000,000
3 China $ 5,700,000,000,000
4 Japan $ 3,550,000,000,000
5 India $ 2,660,000,000,000
6 Germany $ 2,184,000,000,000
7 France $ 1,540,000,000,000
8 United Kingdom $ 1,520,000,000,000
9 Italy $ 1,438,000,000,000
10 Russia $ 1,350,000,000,000
:bow:
If the Scotish are seeking independence from the Scotish.
Definately sounds like Scotland...
the Black Prince
12-12-2006, 11:11
i'm all for trident, but lts remember, the decision being taken now isn't one to replace the trident missile system and develope one of its own, its to replace the 4 Vanguard Class Submarines that carry it.
developing a new modern ICBM to carry our existing warheads is much easier than designing a new SSBN... even if we let the US design our missiles for us, and use a modified varient of the Astute class design. Should parliament agree to the new subs, they would have a service outlasting the current Trident D5 missile by about 10 years.
Blair has suggested up to £20bn be spent on the R&D for the new subs. not sure how much as been spent on the CVF project so far, but the build cost for each carrier (should they ever be built) is estimated as £1.2bn.
as for protection, the UK does indeed have the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System, its currently utilised on both our carriers and our 3 assault ships. additionally, our new carriers will be protected by the type 45 Daring class Air Defence Destroyers, coming equiped both with Phalanx guns and the PAAMS system, which is currently the most advanced missile defence system afloat, beating both AEGIS and Sea Wolf 2 with ease.
additionally, the most recently refitted type 23 Duke class FFGs carry the most advanced ship bourne sonar system in the world, a system not due to be duplicated by the US until the completion of the DDX project in 2012
It's hardly independent though. It needs US support to work.
Be better teaming up with the French over it.
> rolls over dead from choking on his own vomit.
seriously, our world view and strategic aims are too different to team up with france on our strategic deterrent, the same goes for them too with us.
IMO it is a "cathereral in the desert".
The massive cost would alow a significant increase in conventional forces - who might actually be used in a war! I've heard (perhaps incorrectly) that we are in fact unable to fire Trident without the USA providing sat guidence for them.
Spain is not bieng stopped from taking Gibralter as if it did we'd nuke Madrid. We held the Falklands through blood and iron of conventional forces, not nuking Argentina.
I can seem some extremely limited point in having small nuclear weapons that are deployed from ships or planes, so in effect there are many places that they could be used, but in the meantime the forces are still useful. To have 4 or 3 or whatever subs that have enough firepower to level a generous section of a country is no use whatsoever as it will never get used. North Korea is more feared having something like 5 as there is a real risk that they might be used if they're pushed too far. The UK is not like that.
IMO military spending in the UK is at too low a level - as a percentage of GDP it was last this low in the 1930's, and has been said we are doing a lot more these days.
So research / buy some small nukes if we must. Bin the subs and let's get some decent gear for the poor soldiers following orders in the waste of space that is Afghanistan and Iraq... Which might be a convenient swansong for Trident now I think of it...
~:smoking:
the problem is, that no 'military-watcher' that I know of has any confidence that ditching nukes would lead to any of the money being re-invested in defence, it would end up adding more fat to some already overstuffed benefits program. this has been what has happened historically, largely because the British public as a whole do not value defence, so it is a safe target to siphon for more spin-worthy public initiatives.
at great expense, and with great rigour, the MoD conducted the Strategic Defence Review a couple of years back that stated the UK foreign policy demanded a navy consisting of 32 ships of the line (warships, not mine countermesures or corvettes), we are already down to 25 ships of the line, and the gloomier predict it could fall as low as 18. The Navy will not therefore be able to implement Gov't foriegn policy to the degree required.
I agree that we spend too little on defence, I personally like the figure of 3.2% of GDP personally.
Last I checked the AEGIS and Phalanx systems protected from missile's pretty well. Going to go out on a limb and say even the UK has the Phalanx system.
A large blue water navy is something even China lacks.
Phalanx is only a close-in-defence, a weapon of last resort.
Far better than that, we will soon have the Samson/Aster equipped T45 AAW destroyers, possibly the most capable and effective AAW system in service.
1 World $ 49,000,000,000,000
2 United States $ 10,400,000,000,000
3 China $ 5,700,000,000,000
4 Japan $ 3,550,000,000,000
5 India $ 2,660,000,000,000
6 Germany $ 2,184,000,000,000
7 France $ 1,540,000,000,000
8 United Kingdom $ 1,520,000,000,000
9 Italy $ 1,438,000,000,000
10 Russia $ 1,350,000,000,000
not that i want it to turn into a pissing contest, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29
World Bank, IMF, and CIA-WF all show UK in the #6 spot. ;)
p.s. above France! :p
IRONxMortlock
12-12-2006, 13:24
Just to get the facts straight:
USA = $466 Billion
Rest of World = $500 Billion
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
EDIT - Oops, sorry I though you were talking about military expenditure for some reason rather than GDP.
Just to get the facts straight:
USA = $466 Billion
Rest of World = $500 Billion
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
EDIT - Oops, sorry I though you were talking about military expenditure for some reason rather than GDP.
the SIPRI figures quoted in Wikipedia are all for 2005, and probably a more accurate reflection of current military spending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Sasaki Kojiro
12-12-2006, 15:17
not that i want it to turn into a pissing contest, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29
World Bank, IMF, and CIA-WF all show UK in the #6 spot. ;)
p.s. above France! :p
No problem, I just quoted the first link in google. Was 2003 iirc.
the Black Prince
12-12-2006, 18:54
Phalanx is only a close-in-defence, a weapon of last resort.
Far better than that, we will soon have the Samson/Aster equipped T45 AAW destroyers, possibly the most capable and effective AAW system in service.
Phalanx is pretty damn effective though, which is why we use it...
but like you say, PAAMS will rule all! until the US bring in DDX, which will no doubt have a system that will improve on PAAMS
the 1998 Strategic Defence Review also called for 2 carriers, though first to enter service in 2015. thats no going to be met now. for that to happen main gate on CVF needed to be passed in 2005. bearing in mind HMS Ark Royal is epxected to retire in 2018 its looking very dodgy, with consistant cuts and lack of commitment from the government. Given that the tories have promised defence increases, but no increases in real terms, the military seems to constantly get shafted.
note for example, the latest in the long saga of military personal, MPs, analysts and other damning the kit and equipment shortages and issues
Ill-equipped Troops sent to War (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6172887.stm)
Source:: BBC News
English assassin
12-13-2006, 11:13
In case you hadn't realised it, the UK is a fiefdom of the US. Do you really think there will ever be a situation where the UK can use its "independent" deterrent without the express permission of the US president?
This is often said, but I have my doubts. IIRC from the very start the point of UK nuclear weapons was precisely to preserve independence of action in a situation where the USA's interests might not be sufficiently engaged (the famous "we have got to have this thing over here whatever it costs... we have got to have bloody Union Jack on top of it..." quote of Ernest Bevin). And, unlike in 1946, its now clear (indeed the State dept said as much) that the US wouldn't cross the road to help the UK, never mind launch a nuke. God knows our politicians are stupid and venial, but I doubt even they would agree to a two key deterrent when the only reason to spend all the money in the first place was to avoid dependence on the US.
I must say though I don't entirely understand the logic behind maintaining this particular system. Regrettably I can see we may well need nuclear weapons more now than we did in the past, especially at the sub-strategic level. But I don't really see that they need to be delivered by submarine launched ICBMs. The only three states I can imagine where that would be the only viable method of delivery are the US, Russia, and China, and....
Hmm. You know what? We DO need Trident, don't we? God knows what Russia is going to be doing in 25 years time. Damn. I was hoping to save a load of cash with a stockpile of plutonium, some blueprints, and a Tornado or two.
As you were gents.
Ja'chyra
12-13-2006, 17:58
the worst thing we could do is buy another American system :embarassed:
rory_20_uk
12-13-2006, 22:33
In the next 25 years Russia isn't going to be trying to invade. Why bother? It's easier and cheaper to sell oil and gas to someone else.
And when would we nuke Russia? At the gates of Berlin? At the gates of Paris? Piccadilly Circus? :inquisitive: We kill thousands of relatively innocent people either in Russian cities, or nuke the armies and everything else nearby, and hope that the defence system that the Yanks are wasting money on investing in will save us from the 100's coming the other direction.
China is the same, but more so. There's Russia above, South Korea, Japan and America who are all either physically closer or politically more involved. So where does us nuking them come into it? They can do far more damage at the moment by merely threatening to sell, or even just not purchase dollars.
Nope, conventional forces is where the time and money are required. A small stockpile is possibly justified if we really feel we need to rattle the sabre. But that's a far cry from saying we need some massive subs to do it with. Nuclear bunkers don't alter that much. They are in essence a reinforced hole in the ground. Little short of nukes can touch the current ones. Let's have a few of them and spend the rest on I dunno, some decent jeep replacements, ammo and body armour would be at the top of my list at the moment.
~:smoking:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.