FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Do we need trident?
Do we need trident?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
After some research.. Eu countries like italy, greece etc don't have them yet we are hell bent on keeping them. Is this because we the uk have more potential enemies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Two questions:
1/ (this is the only convincing argument I've heard in favour of maintaining nuclear weapons) can you guarantee that a threat will not arise where we need nukes?
2/ Do we *have* to upgrade Trident? What's the matter with what we have? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Another question.. If a super dupa wmd zip invented that was a lot better than nuclear weapons but meant 99% of the uk population had to year king edward potato sacks cos its so expensive would that be ok? 1% mega rich allowed to keep their money of course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Two questions:
1/ (this is the only convincing argument I've heard in favour of maintaining nuclear weapons) can you guarantee that a threat will not arise where we need nukes?
2/ Do we *have* to upgrade Trident? What's the matter with what we have?"
1. Other countries arm't openly developing them e.g italy.. Are they suicidal? Plus new developments that can detect submarines are being developed in the future, making subs useless
2. What we have asd a bit old. One lad i know who was on them mentioned the state of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Two questions:
1/ (this is the only convincing argument I've heard in favour of maintaining nuclear weapons) can you guarantee that a threat will not arise where we need nukes?
2/ Do we *have* to upgrade Trident? What's the matter with what we have?"
To use a different analogy, do you still drive round in a Ford Escort?
Any system needs updating and submarines are no different.
As to the question of possession, no government has been elected on a unilateral disarmament ticket. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Seeing as north korea has no allies.. Nuke them now while we can.. Plus send other manevolent countries back to the stone age.. Then scrap them. Hence no need to replace what we fired. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Two questions:
1/ (this is the only convincing argument I've heard in favour of maintaining nuclear weapons) can you guarantee that a threat will not arise where we need nukes?
2/ Do we *have* to upgrade Trident? What's the matter with what we have?
To use a different analogy, do you still drive round in a Ford Escort?
Any system needs updating and submarines are no different.
As to the question of possession, no government has been elected on a unilateral disarmament ticket."
Other eu countries arm't seeking them .. Why? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Trident relies on US provided targeting software and data. ( it's predecessor, Polaris, didn't )
The US are changing their Tridents, and when they do, the current data and targeting software will change, and the current system will be switched off.
As a result, our Tridents will become unusable. So we either don't bother, or upgrade to the new system.
Trident is also old, nuclear weapons have to be constantly serviced, Trident is becoming obsolescent . So if we retain the capability, then we need the new one.
Do we need it at all? Arguable; a few years ago, as nuclear proliferation was actually receding, possibly not; but in recent years, with proliferation increasing ( Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea now very nuclear capable, and Israel doubling its nuclear arsenal in the last 15 years, and several other nations close to nuclear capability ) then it can be argued that the US, UK, France, should retain a credible nuclear deterrent.
Having nuclear weapons also assures UK a continuation of its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Trident relies on US provided targeting software and data. ( it's predecessor, Polaris, didn't )
The US are changing their Tridents, and when they do, the current data and targeting software will change, and the current system will be switched off.
As a result, our Tridents will become unusable. So we either don't bother, or upgrade to the new system.
Trident is also old, nuclear weapons have to be constantly serviced, Trident is becoming obsolescent . So if we retain the capability, then we need the new one.
Do we need it at all? Arguable; a few years ago, as nuclear proliferation was actually receding, possibly not; but in recent years, with proliferation increasing ( Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea now very nuclear capable, and Israel doubling its nuclear arsenal in the last 15 years, and several other nations close to nuclear capability ) then it can be argued that the US, UK, France, should retain a credible nuclear deterrent.
Having nuclear weapons also assures UK a continuation of its permanent seat on the UN Security Council."
Sensible answer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Other eu countries arm't seeking them .. Why? "
Because they have mostly signed the non proliferation agreements, so they can't ;
Asa result of WW2, Germany is specifically banned from having them;
The French already have a very powerful ( and, unlike UK, totally independent) nuclear capability , and have no intention of giving it up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
16000 nuclear weapons in the world, about 4000 'operationally available'. 93 percent held by Russia and America.
We have 215 and are dependent on the Americans for them if the US were to ever remove its support and know-how, the UK’s nuclear capability would collapse in a matter of months.
It is inconceivable that the UK
would ever use Trident without the prior
approval of the US. The Defence Select
Committee recently concluded, in fact, that ‘the only way that Britain is ever likely to use Trident is to give legitimacy to a US nuclear
attack by participating in it’.
Not only this, but ‘in a crisis the very existence of the UK Trident
system might make it difficult for a UK prime minister to refuse a request by the US president to participate in an attack’.
Trident is reliant on the US. Without approval from Washington, the UK could not use its nuclear weapons system.
Trident therefore compromises, rather than asserts, British independence.
Basically it's like standing in a tank of petrol with two others they have 50 matches to light; we have two and can only light them if one party says we can.
Barking really, when we could have schools and hospitals instead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Trident relies on US provided targeting software and data. ( it's predecessor, Polaris, didn't )
The US are changing their Tridents, and when they do, the current data and targeting software will change, and the current system will be switched off.
As a result, our Tridents will become unusable. So we either don't bother, or upgrade to the new system.
Trident is also old, nuclear weapons have to be constantly serviced, Trident is becoming obsolescent . So if we retain the capability, then we need the new one.
Do we need it at all? Arguable; a few years ago, as nuclear proliferation was actually receding, possibly not; but in recent years, with proliferation increasing ( Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea now very nuclear capable, and Israel doubling its nuclear arsenal in the last 15 years, and several other nations close to nuclear capability ) then it can be argued that the US, UK, France, should retain a credible nuclear deterrent.
Having nuclear weapons also assures UK a continuation of its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Sensible answer"
I concur.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Two questions:
1/ (this is the only convincing argument I've heard in favour of maintaining nuclear weapons) can you guarantee that a threat will not arise where we need nukes?
2/ Do we *have* to upgrade Trident? What's the matter with what we have?
To use a different analogy, do you still drive round in a Ford Escort?
Any system needs updating and submarines are no different.
As to the question of possession, no government has been elected on a unilateral disarmament ticket.
Other eu countries arm't seeking them .. Why? "
Because they rely on the US/UK/French nuclear umbrella to keep the peace. Germany is hidebound by its constitution and if you look at the state of the post uk eu, they can't maintain thewir economies, never mind a deterrent |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah.. Right.. Ta for the info. Didn't know we were tha subservient to the u.s. Regarding trident "
That was the compromise the UK went into when it upgraded from Polaris to Trident.
UK can actually launch its own Tridents without seeking " permission" from the US; however, the US could, in theory " switch off " the guidance software to prevent it, though that would disable their own Tridents at the same time.
The US, of course, is keen for UK to upgrade, as then the costs of the new system would be shared with the US.
The French systems ( they have submarine and aircraft launched systems) are completely independent and do not rely on any third party support. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is the new vanguard class goin to be an independent system?"
Vanguard is the submarine that launches the missile. Vanguard is the current submarine type: the new one is currently named " Successor class".
The US Tridents are launched from the Ohio class subs.
The " Trident replacement " is the replacement missile, which will be the upgraded Trident D5.
The warheads / payload ( bit that goes bang) will likely continue to be British made; it's the missile itself, and all its guidance gubbins that will be new . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah.. Right.. Ta for the info. Didn't know we were tha subservient to the u.s. Regarding trident
That was the compromise the UK went into when it upgraded from Polaris to Trident.
UK can actually launch its own Tridents without seeking " permission" from the US; however, the US could, in theory " switch off " the guidance software to prevent it, though that would disable their own Tridents at the same time.
The US, of course, is keen for UK to upgrade, as then the costs of the new system would be shared with the US.
The French systems ( they have submarine and aircraft launched systems) are completely independent and do not rely on any third party support. "
Hang on...
Seems the only problem with Trident is that it's a bit old (ignore that for a mo') and that
"The US are changing their Tridents, and when they do, the current data and targeting software will change, and the current system will be switched off."
Why can't the Yanks leave it on, or hand it over to their 'special' allies, the Brits? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ah.. Right.. Ta for the info. Didn't know we were tha subservient to the u.s. Regarding trident "
We aren't subservient to the USA regarding Trident.
Trident will not function without the UK's support. Our nuclear team are the best in the world, which is why we maintain the warheads and have them under our control.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why can't the Yanks leave it on, or hand it over to their 'special' allies, the Brits?"
Because the systems that carry the software/ information etc are themselves becoming obsolete; ( satellites, computers, various buildings/ installations ) and will be replaced to accommodate the new system; there won't be the capability to have spare parts or maintenance for it, and the people who run it and maintain it, will be gone, as they will be running the new system; the UK could not afford to keep that infrastructure maintained ( quite apart from the fact that very little of it is in the UK). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah.. Right.. Ta for the info. Didn't know we were tha subservient to the u.s. Regarding trident
We aren't subservient to the USA regarding Trident.
Trident will not function without the UK's support. Our nuclear team are the best in the world, which is why we maintain the warheads and have them under our control.
"
Not entirely true; the US can run their own Trident perfectly well; however , the Trident teams ( and it's not just nuclear scientists; the nuclear part is relatively simple nowadays; the major effort is in the missile and guidance and supporting systems) highly value the UK science collaborative input.
As they do the French scientists , even though the French systems are independent, scientific and engineering knowledge is shared between US/UK/ France. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why can't the Yanks leave it on, or hand it over to their 'special' allies, the Brits?
Because the systems that carry the software/ information etc are themselves becoming obsolete; ( satellites, computers, various buildings/ installations ) and will be replaced to accommodate the new system; there won't be the capability to have spare parts or maintenance for it, and the people who run it and maintain it, will be gone, as they will be running the new system; the UK could not afford to keep that infrastructure maintained ( quite apart from the fact that very little of it is in the UK)."
...and how much is the upgrade from Windows 1.0 to 10 likely to cost? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why can't the Yanks leave it on, or hand it over to their 'special' allies, the Brits?
Because the systems that carry the software/ information etc are themselves becoming obsolete; ( satellites, computers, various buildings/ installations ) and will be replaced to accommodate the new system; there won't be the capability to have spare parts or maintenance for it, and the people who run it and maintain it, will be gone, as they will be running the new system; the UK could not afford to keep that infrastructure maintained ( quite apart from the fact that very little of it is in the UK).
...and how much is the upgrade from Windows 1.0 to 10 likely to cost?"
It's just a teensy bit more complex than that  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why can't the Yanks leave it on, or hand it over to their 'special' allies, the Brits?
Because the systems that carry the software/ information etc are themselves becoming obsolete; ( satellites, computers, various buildings/ installations ) and will be replaced to accommodate the new system; there won't be the capability to have spare parts or maintenance for it, and the people who run it and maintain it, will be gone, as they will be running the new system; the UK could not afford to keep that infrastructure maintained ( quite apart from the fact that very little of it is in the UK).
...and how much is the upgrade from Windows 1.0 to 10 likely to cost?
It's just a teensy bit more complex than that "
Really? I didn't realise 
So how much. Ball park... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Two questions:
1/ (this is the only convincing argument I've heard in favour of maintaining nuclear weapons) can you guarantee that a threat will not arise where we need nukes?
2/ Do we *have* to upgrade Trident? What's the matter with what we have?"
Because at the moment we can only impose destruction, with Trident we can accomplish obliteration.
I think things have moved on since nuclear weapons were used as a MAD 'defence' as they were invented and are designed to be used against countries and cities therein - I think a bigger threat these days are international factions and loose knit 'terrorists' for want of a better word, which means there is no one place to impact a missile thus rendering our existing nuclear offensive strategy a bit null. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's not just a case of replacing the missiles - the newest of the Vanguard-class boats has already been in service for 17 years, the oldest for 23. They'll all be past 30 before the first of the new class enters service, and that's getting on a bit for a warship. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think as the art of warfare had changed, no longer mass armies fighting over vast areas or country v country, its fanatics fighting in towns and cities, using the local civilians as shields and weapons to some extent, then no, nuclear weapons are of no use. But if we all got rid of them, how could you be sure Russia/America or some other countries would as well. They are a deterrent against other nuclear powers and no intended to be used unless absolutely necessary. So we need them to be there and updated so no one will ever fire upon us. P.s. there useless against Aliens and Asteroids though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why can't the Yanks leave it on, or hand it over to their 'special' allies, the Brits?
Because the systems that carry the software/ information etc are themselves becoming obsolete; ( satellites, computers, various buildings/ installations ) and will be replaced to accommodate the new system; there won't be the capability to have spare parts or maintenance for it, and the people who run it and maintain it, will be gone, as they will be running the new system; the UK could not afford to keep that infrastructure maintained ( quite apart from the fact that very little of it is in the UK).
...and how much is the upgrade from Windows 1.0 to 10 likely to cost?
It's just a teensy bit more complex than that
Really? I didn't realise
So how much. Ball park..."
To be honest; not sure; that will be a part of the missile system cost; but I have no idea offhand how they apportion out that bit of the cost, or whether it comes as some sort of " buy our new missiles, get access to the software free" deal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Why can't the Yanks leave it on, or hand it over to their 'special' allies, the Brits?
Because the systems that carry the software/ information etc are themselves becoming obsolete; ( satellites, computers, various buildings/ installations ) and will be replaced to accommodate the new system; there won't be the capability to have spare parts or maintenance for it, and the people who run it and maintain it, will be gone, as they will be running the new system; the UK could not afford to keep that infrastructure maintained ( quite apart from the fact that very little of it is in the UK).
...and how much is the upgrade from Windows 1.0 to 10 likely to cost?
It's just a teensy bit more complex than that
Really? I didn't realise
So how much. Ball park...
To be honest; not sure; that will be a part of the missile system cost; but I have no idea offhand how they apportion out that bit of the cost, or whether it comes as some sort of " buy our new missiles, get access to the software free" deal. "
...is the problem...
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"After some research.. Eu countries like italy, greece etc don't have them yet we are hell bent on keeping them. Is this because we the uk have more potential enemies? "
It's because they can't afford them not because they don't want them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"After some research.. Eu countries like italy, greece etc don't have them yet we are hell bent on keeping them. Is this because we the uk have more potential enemies?
It's because they can't afford them not because they don't want them."
There's also the problem of not having the technical knowhow to build a nuclear warhead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"After some research.. Eu countries like italy, greece etc don't have them yet we are hell bent on keeping them. Is this because we the uk have more potential enemies?
It's because they can't afford them not because they don't want them.
There's also the problem of not having the technical knowhow to build a nuclear warhead. "
No, read previous posts;
They have signed up to the non proliferation treaty, so they can't; and as NATO members, rely on the NATO. " nuclear umbrella" ( US, UK, France.)
They have 99% of the knowledge, ( there is a bit they don't have), but they also , since they have never built one, don't have the facilities and enough skill set, even if they did want it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Nuclear physics is so horribly complicated, I see a time when the nuclear physicists who have told the military they have indeed put a nuclear warhead in the missile replaced it with some technic Lego. No one would ever find out to tell them off..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seeing as north korea has no allies.. Nuke them now while we can.. Plus send other manevolent countries back to the stone age.. Then scrap them. Hence no need to replace what we fired. "
No allies!! Showing your true colours there!!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Two questions:
1/ (this is the only convincing argument I've heard in favour of maintaining nuclear weapons) can you guarantee that a threat will not arise where we need nukes?
2/ Do we *have* to upgrade Trident? What's the matter with what we have?
To use a different analogy, do you still drive round in a Ford Escort?
Any system needs updating and submarines are no different.
As to the question of possession, no government has been elected on a unilateral disarmament ticket.
Other eu countries arm't seeking them .. Why? "
Because not every country wants to play at the top table of international politics. It's not that complicated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think "Do we need Trident?" Is too simple for a complicated issue.
Really, will we face a nuclear threat? Arguably the best way to cripple an opponent nation is through sanctions and cyber warfare now. And war is usually about resources of some kind, or geographical borders. There is no point in obtaining either of those if they are part of a radiated wasteland.
And our nuclear arsenal is quite small. So if say, Russia were to nuke us, even if we knew about it with ample planning time, what could we do? The sheer volume they could throw at us vs what we could return at the same amount or time is not comparable.
Then there is the national moral argument, we have poverty and failing public infrastructure in this country. Can we morally afford to maintain a weapons system we might not need, when that money could be thrown into helping to support and bring up the most disadvantaged in our country.
However, it's a big risk for what is an international country, not to have nuclear deterrents, especially in a world where we face nations like North Korea, and successful terrorist groups.
I guess it is about weighing up the cost. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Long answer short:
Yes we need Trident.
Yes we need to replace the current Vanguard Class submarine.
We are an entirely independent nuclear power and not in any way dependent on the USA other than we share the servicing / pooling costs of the missiles.
Targeting and guidance is not controlled by the USA.
UK warheads are entirely British design, manufacture and maintenance although some matching parts of the warheads to missiles are US made.
This may help the discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Long answer short:
Yes we need Trident.
Yes we need to replace the current Vanguard Class submarine.
We are an entirely independent nuclear power and not in any way dependent on the USA other than we share the servicing / pooling costs of the missiles.
Targeting and guidance is not controlled by the USA.
UK warheads are entirely British design, manufacture and maintenance although some matching parts of the warheads to missiles are US made.
This may help the discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735"
Targeting is not " controlled" by the USA but the UK targeting and guidance system is dependent upon the US provided system, without it, the missiles cannot be guided to target; so its not independent, whatever the BBC may say .
The system cannot operate without the US system operating. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Long answer short:
Yes we need Trident.
Yes we need to replace the current Vanguard Class submarine.
We are an entirely independent nuclear power and not in any way dependent on the USA other than we share the servicing / pooling costs of the missiles.
Targeting and guidance is not controlled by the USA.
UK warheads are entirely British design, manufacture and maintenance although some matching parts of the warheads to missiles are US made.
This may help the discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735
Targeting is not " controlled" by the USA but the UK targeting and guidance system is dependent upon the US provided system, without it, the missiles cannot be guided to target; so its not independent, whatever the BBC may say .
The system cannot operate without the US system operating."
Sorry but that is just incorrect.
This may help the discussion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4438392.stm
It is basically an Inertial Guidance System with added Star-Sighting, has no need for an external system and therefore the US has no control over the missile once launched. It cannot even cause in-flight self destruction.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Long answer short:
Yes we need Trident.
Yes we need to replace the current Vanguard Class submarine.
We are an entirely independent nuclear power and not in any way dependent on the USA other than we share the servicing / pooling costs of the missiles.
Targeting and guidance is not controlled by the USA.
UK warheads are entirely British design, manufacture and maintenance although some matching parts of the warheads to missiles are US made.
This may help the discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735
Targeting is not " controlled" by the USA but the UK targeting and guidance system is dependent upon the US provided system, without it, the missiles cannot be guided to target; so its not independent, whatever the BBC may say .
The system cannot operate without the US system operating.
Sorry but that is just incorrect.
This may help the discussion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4438392.stm
It is basically an Inertial Guidance System with added Star-Sighting, has no need for an external system and therefore the US has no control over the missile once launched. It cannot even cause in-flight self destruction.
"
You are not understanding;
I didn't say that the US has any control over the system; what I explained is that the system cannot operate without the support of the US owned and run system that is used as part of the guidance systemt. If that is switched off, the system cannot operate
And Trident needs more than an "inertial system plus added star sighting " .
Without going beyond information that is in the public domain, it is not possible to explain further.
In addition,whilst the warheads are " British design" there are two key components which the UK is reliant on the US for . ( even though they are British- designed, and the British design is used in the US warheads now
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Long answer short:
Yes we need Trident.
Yes we need to replace the current Vanguard Class submarine.
We are an entirely independent nuclear power and not in any way dependent on the USA other than we share the servicing / pooling costs of the missiles.
Targeting and guidance is not controlled by the USA.
UK warheads are entirely British design, manufacture and maintenance although some matching parts of the warheads to missiles are US made.
This may help the discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735
Targeting is not " controlled" by the USA but the UK targeting and guidance system is dependent upon the US provided system, without it, the missiles cannot be guided to target; so its not independent, whatever the BBC may say .
The system cannot operate without the US system operating.
Sorry but that is just incorrect.
This may help the discussion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4438392.stm
It is basically an Inertial Guidance System with added Star-Sighting, has no need for an external system and therefore the US has no control over the missile once launched. It cannot even cause in-flight self destruction.
You are not understanding;
I didn't say that the US has any control over the system; what I explained is that the system cannot operate without the support of the US owned and run system that is used as part of the guidance systemt. If that is switched off, the system cannot operate
And Trident needs more than an "inertial system plus added star sighting " .
Without going beyond information that is in the public domain, it is not possible to explain further.
In addition,whilst the warheads are " British design" there are two key components which the UK is reliant on the US for . ( even though they are British- designed, and the British design is used in the US warheads now
"
I fear we will have to agree to disagree but once launched Trident needs no external system so there is nothing 'to switch off' and therefore stop its flight.
Without breaching the Official Secrets Act (to which I am still subject) we can take this no further.... Its been an interesting exchange though and thanks .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Long answer short:
Yes we need Trident.
Yes we need to replace the current Vanguard Class submarine.
We are an entirely independent nuclear power and not in any way dependent on the USA other than we share the servicing / pooling costs of the missiles.
Targeting and guidance is not controlled by the USA.
UK warheads are entirely British design, manufacture and maintenance although some matching parts of the warheads to missiles are US made.
This may help the discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735
Targeting is not " controlled" by the USA but the UK targeting and guidance system is dependent upon the US provided system, without it, the missiles cannot be guided to target; so its not independent, whatever the BBC may say .
The system cannot operate without the US system operating.
Sorry but that is just incorrect.
This may help the discussion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4438392.stm
It is basically an Inertial Guidance System with added Star-Sighting, has no need for an external system and therefore the US has no control over the missile once launched. It cannot even cause in-flight self destruction.
You are not understanding;
I didn't say that the US has any control over the system; what I explained is that the system cannot operate without the support of the US owned and run system that is used as part of the guidance systemt. If that is switched off, the system cannot operate
And Trident needs more than an "inertial system plus added star sighting " .
Without going beyond information that is in the public domain, it is not possible to explain further.
In addition,whilst the warheads are " British design" there are two key components which the UK is reliant on the US for . ( even though they are British- designed, and the British design is used in the US warheads now
I fear we will have to agree to disagree but once launched Trident needs no external system so there is nothing 'to switch off' and therefore stop its flight.
Without breaching the Official Secrets Act (to which I am still subject) we can take this no further.... Its been an interesting exchange though and thanks .. "
The same reason prevents me likewise explaining what I mean. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Biggest waste of scrap metal ever as will never be used oh and get it out of my country "
It is in the UK which is your country. Where else should it be based? And it is there to defend the UK.
I don't see the SNP and you Bravehearts objecting to the £ Millions injected into the Scottish economy by the UK Defence budget putting a disproportionate amount of military capability into Scotland. Christ we even stopped building ships in Portsmouth to save the Wee Laddies and Lassies in Govan ....
But I actually agree with you. We should close down Faslane and position the nuclear subs near Barrow where they are built. Or at Devonport. Or at Belfast. Places that need the investment and money.
We should also stop building military ships in Scotland while Sturgeon is gobbing off about IndyRefs which will mean closing BAE on the Clyde.
Get the 2nd carrier finished and tow it down to Tyenside and let them finish it.
Build the Type 26s and the Type 31s in Portsmouth, Appledore and Birkenhead. The same places that built huge parts of the new carriers.
Base the new Poseidon Maritime aircraft in Wales not Scotland.
yeah its good to agree sometimes .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You are right it is uk which we are still part of and as so are entitled to get contracts yes take it anywhere you want as the majority dont want it here and it wont make much difference to the local community as majority of workers are english and dont spend much money or time in the local town ,and they have already started taking or delaying things like the type 26 frigates that were promised to the yards if scotland voted no |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are right it is uk which we are still part of and as so are entitled to get contracts yes take it anywhere you want as the majority dont want it here and it wont make much difference to the local community as majority of workers are english and dont spend much money or time in the local town ,and they have already started taking or delaying things like the type 26 frigates that were promised to the yards if scotland voted no "
Well actually that isn't quite true is it? The Scottish yards were given 5 new Patrol Boats to build while the final design of the Type 26 Frigates was confirmed. Some £625 Million is being spent right now creating production facilities and equipment for the Type 26.
The SNP love to peddle the story that every Scot hates Trident but in 2013 an Ashcroft Poll told a different story with some 52% saying they supported a renewal of Trident. And by a slim majority, Scots also believe that Trident should continue to be based in Scotland (43-39 per cent).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/scottish-public-really-opposed-nuclear-weapons
In May 2016 an ICM Poll came out with similar results:
On keeping Trident:
Support: 43%
Oppose: 42%
(via ICM)
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poll-suggests-scots-back-keeping-trident/
(which also answers some other myths about Trident).
The SNP are quite good at misleading people. Sturgeon says 'all of Scotland wants to remain in the EU' when in fact over a million voted to Leave. But of course in Scottish politics they don't count do they? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are right it is uk which we are still part of and as so are entitled to get contracts yes take it anywhere you want as the majority dont want it here and it wont make much difference to the local community as majority of workers are english and dont spend much money or time in the local town ,and they have already started taking or delaying things like the type 26 frigates that were promised to the yards if scotland voted no
Well actually that isn't quite true is it? The Scottish yards were given 5 new Patrol Boats to build while the final design of the Type 26 Frigates was confirmed. Some £625 Million is being spent right now creating production facilities and equipment for the Type 26.
The SNP love to peddle the story that every Scot hates Trident but in 2013 an Ashcroft Poll told a different story with some 52% saying they supported a renewal of Trident. And by a slim majority, Scots also believe that Trident should continue to be based in Scotland (43-39 per cent).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/scottish-public-really-opposed-nuclear-weapons
In May 2016 an ICM Poll came out with similar results:
On keeping Trident:
Support: 43%
Oppose: 42%
(via ICM)
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poll-suggests-scots-back-keeping-trident/
(which also answers some other myths about Trident).
The SNP are quite good at misleading people. Sturgeon says 'all of Scotland wants to remain in the EU' when in fact over a million voted to Leave. But of course in Scottish politics they don't count do they?"
Total rubbish the frigates were promised if scotland voted no and the infrastructure is there now but they have been put on hold and pls show me where it was said all scotland voted to stay ? It was 62% and she has always said the majority voted to stay pls stop making things up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Biggest waste of scrap metal ever as will never be used oh and get it out of my country
It is in the UK which is your country. Where else should it be based? And it is there to defend the UK.
I don't see the SNP and you Bravehearts objecting to the £ Millions injected into the Scottish economy by the UK Defence budget putting a disproportionate amount of military capability into Scotland. Christ we even stopped building ships in Portsmouth to save the Wee Laddies and Lassies in Govan ....
But I actually agree with you. We should close down Faslane and position the nuclear subs near Barrow where they are built. Or at Devonport. Or at Belfast. Places that need the investment and money.
We should also stop building military ships in Scotland while Sturgeon is gobbing off about IndyRefs which will mean closing BAE on the Clyde.
Get the 2nd carrier finished and tow it down to Tyenside and let them finish it.
Build the Type 26s and the Type 31s in Portsmouth, Appledore and Birkenhead. The same places that built huge parts of the new carriers.
Base the new Poseidon Maritime aircraft in Wales not Scotland.
yeah its good to agree sometimes .. "
I couldn't have said it better myself.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are right it is uk which we are still part of and as so are entitled to get contracts yes take it anywhere you want as the majority dont want it here and it wont make much difference to the local community as majority of workers are english and dont spend much money or time in the local town ,and they have already started taking or delaying things like the type 26 frigates that were promised to the yards if scotland voted no
Well actually that isn't quite true is it? The Scottish yards were given 5 new Patrol Boats to build while the final design of the Type 26 Frigates was confirmed. Some £625 Million is being spent right now creating production facilities and equipment for the Type 26.
The SNP love to peddle the story that every Scot hates Trident but in 2013 an Ashcroft Poll told a different story with some 52% saying they supported a renewal of Trident. And by a slim majority, Scots also believe that Trident should continue to be based in Scotland (43-39 per cent).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/scottish-public-really-opposed-nuclear-weapons
In May 2016 an ICM Poll came out with similar results:
On keeping Trident:
Support: 43%
Oppose: 42%
(via ICM)
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poll-suggests-scots-back-keeping-trident/
(which also answers some other myths about Trident).
The SNP are quite good at misleading people. Sturgeon says 'all of Scotland wants to remain in the EU' when in fact over a million voted to Leave. But of course in Scottish politics they don't count do they?"
Are these the same polls that fucked up the election results and also fucked up the referendum results
yet you still listen to them and believe in them
sad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seeing as north korea has no allies.. Nuke them now while we can.. Plus send other manevolent countries back to the stone age.. Then scrap them. Hence no need to replace what we fired. "
China! Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them [government not Chinese people btw.....realised that could have sounded racist]. They have been propping N Korea up for decades! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are right it is uk which we are still part of and as so are entitled to get contracts yes take it anywhere you want as the majority dont want it here and it wont make much difference to the local community as majority of workers are english and dont spend much money or time in the local town ,and they have already started taking or delaying things like the type 26 frigates that were promised to the yards if scotland voted no
Well actually that isn't quite true is it? The Scottish yards were given 5 new Patrol Boats to build while the final design of the Type 26 Frigates was confirmed. Some £625 Million is being spent right now creating production facilities and equipment for the Type 26.
The SNP love to peddle the story that every Scot hates Trident but in 2013 an Ashcroft Poll told a different story with some 52% saying they supported a renewal of Trident. And by a slim majority, Scots also believe that Trident should continue to be based in Scotland (43-39 per cent).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/scottish-public-really-opposed-nuclear-weapons
In May 2016 an ICM Poll came out with similar results:
On keeping Trident:
Support: 43%
Oppose: 42%
(via ICM)
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poll-suggests-scots-back-keeping-trident/
(which also answers some other myths about Trident).
The SNP are quite good at misleading people. Sturgeon says 'all of Scotland wants to remain in the EU' when in fact over a million voted to Leave. But of course in Scottish politics they don't count do they?
Are these the same polls that fucked up the election results and also fucked up the referendum results
yet you still listen to them and believe in them
sad."
So it shouldn't be hard to find one that shows the majority in favour of scrapping it then? Do you ever actually post evidence or do you actually think personal attacks on people are convincing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are right it is uk which we are still part of and as so are entitled to get contracts yes take it anywhere you want as the majority dont want it here and it wont make much difference to the local community as majority of workers are english and dont spend much money or time in the local town ,and they have already started taking or delaying things like the type 26 frigates that were promised to the yards if scotland voted no
Well actually that isn't quite true is it? The Scottish yards were given 5 new Patrol Boats to build while the final design of the Type 26 Frigates was confirmed. Some £625 Million is being spent right now creating production facilities and equipment for the Type 26.
The SNP love to peddle the story that every Scot hates Trident but in 2013 an Ashcroft Poll told a different story with some 52% saying they supported a renewal of Trident. And by a slim majority, Scots also believe that Trident should continue to be based in Scotland (43-39 per cent).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/scottish-public-really-opposed-nuclear-weapons
In May 2016 an ICM Poll came out with similar results:
On keeping Trident:
Support: 43%
Oppose: 42%
(via ICM)
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poll-suggests-scots-back-keeping-trident/
(which also answers some other myths about Trident).
The SNP are quite good at misleading people. Sturgeon says 'all of Scotland wants to remain in the EU' when in fact over a million voted to Leave. But of course in Scottish politics they don't count do they?
Are these the same polls that fucked up the election results and also fucked up the referendum results
yet you still listen to them and believe in them
sad."
Not as sad as believing the SNP are really great for Scotland. Sturgeon & Co have played you Scots for a bunch of mugs using the English taxpayers money to shore up their failed economic policies while playing 'Braveheart' music and making abusive comments about those English.
According to the SNP every Scot wants Independence and voted to Remain in the EU to support that _iew. when a mjaority voted to remain the UK and over a million voted to Leave the EU.
While you mugs keep voting in the SNP its YOU who will be sad in its proper sense as it will be your wallets rather than the English ones that will be emptied faster than a glass of good malt whisky .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are right it is uk which we are still part of and as so are entitled to get contracts yes take it anywhere you want as the majority dont want it here and it wont make much difference to the local community as majority of workers are english and dont spend much money or time in the local town ,and they have already started taking or delaying things like the type 26 frigates that were promised to the yards if scotland voted no
Well actually that isn't quite true is it? The Scottish yards were given 5 new Patrol Boats to build while the final design of the Type 26 Frigates was confirmed. Some £625 Million is being spent right now creating production facilities and equipment for the Type 26.
The SNP love to peddle the story that every Scot hates Trident but in 2013 an Ashcroft Poll told a different story with some 52% saying they supported a renewal of Trident. And by a slim majority, Scots also believe that Trident should continue to be based in Scotland (43-39 per cent).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/scottish-public-really-opposed-nuclear-weapons
In May 2016 an ICM Poll came out with similar results:
On keeping Trident:
Support: 43%
Oppose: 42%
(via ICM)
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poll-suggests-scots-back-keeping-trident/
(which also answers some other myths about Trident).
The SNP are quite good at misleading people. Sturgeon says 'all of Scotland wants to remain in the EU' when in fact over a million voted to Leave. But of course in Scottish politics they don't count do they?
Are these the same polls that fucked up the election results and also fucked up the referendum results
yet you still listen to them and believe in them
sad.
Not as sad as believing the SNP are really great for Scotland. Sturgeon & Co have played you Scots for a bunch of mugs using the English taxpayers money to shore up their failed economic policies while playing 'Braveheart' music and making abusive comments about those English.
According to the SNP every Scot wants Independence and voted to Remain in the EU to support that _iew. when a mjaority voted to remain the UK and over a million voted to Leave the EU.
While you mugs keep voting in the SNP its YOU who will be sad in its proper sense as it will be your wallets rather than the English ones that will be emptied faster than a glass of good malt whisky ...."
As you consider the SNP are so bad for Scotland tell me?
who could do a better job!!
Ruth Davidson 
Kezia Dugdale 
Willie Rennie
Patrick Harvie
Like it or not the SNP do ensure the best for Scotland, I will be first to say that I do not agree with all their ideas and legislation, for example. gun laws & drink driving policies as well as marriage rights, but they are the best of a rotten bunch and they do look after Scotland's interests, Just a shame Alex Salmond stood down
bit with your almighty wisdom who on the above list would do the job better, should a magic fairy put them in power because, none would every get enough votes other wise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" As you consider the SNP are so bad for Scotland tell me?
who could do a better job!!
Ruth Davidson
Kezia Dugdale
Willie Rennie
Patrick Harvie
Like it or not the SNP do ensure the best for Scotland, I will be first to say that I do not agree with all their ideas and legislation, for example. gun laws & drink driving policies as well as marriage rights, but they are the best of a rotten bunch and they do look after Scotland's interests, Just a shame Alex Salmond stood down
bit with your almighty wisdom who on the above list would do the job better, should a magic fairy put them in power because, none would every get enough votes other wise."
Easy answer that:
Ruth Davidson.
She was brilliant in the last Scots Parliamentary elections. She put the Tories second, knocked the SNP seat count by 10%, increased the Tory seat count by 100%, stopped the SNP gaining an overall majority and is now the 'official Opposition' (or whatever you guys call it). Thanks to her the SNP is once again a minority Governement.
I watched her in the EU Referendum at Wembley (and elsewhere) and she was awesome. Even if I disagreed with her. She will show Ms Sturgeon up for the fake she is. She will utterly destroy the smoke and mirrors the SNP leadership fabricate to cover their failures.
Now whether you Scots have the balls as well as brains to kick the SNP off to where they really belong is another thing and not really my concern as I and English taxpayers like me won't be baling out your economy any more. You will. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" As you consider the SNP are so bad for Scotland tell me?
who could do a better job!!
Ruth Davidson
Kezia Dugdale
Willie Rennie
Patrick Harvie
Like it or not the SNP do ensure the best for Scotland, I will be first to say that I do not agree with all their ideas and legislation, for example. gun laws & drink driving policies as well as marriage rights, but they are the best of a rotten bunch and they do look after Scotland's interests, Just a shame Alex Salmond stood down
bit with your almighty wisdom who on the above list would do the job better, should a magic fairy put them in power because, none would every get enough votes other wise.
Easy answer that:
Ruth Davidson.
She was brilliant in the last Scots Parliamentary elections. She put the Tories second, knocked the SNP seat count by 10%, increased the Tory seat count by 100%, stopped the SNP gaining an overall majority and is now the 'official Opposition' (or whatever you guys call it). Thanks to her the SNP is once again a minority Governement.
I watched her in the EU Referendum at Wembley (and elsewhere) and she was awesome. Even if I disagreed with her. She will show Ms Sturgeon up for the fake she is. She will utterly destroy the smoke and mirrors the SNP leadership fabricate to cover their failures.
Now whether you Scots have the balls as well as brains to kick the SNP off to where they really belong is another thing and not really my concern as I and English taxpayers like me won't be baling out your economy any more. You will. "
Actually; YOU will do as you are told by Westminster, you do not have that choice, and you will continue to pay your taxes whether you like it or not
you may be smug on here but you will continue to do as you are told and you will continue to pay your taxes, and everything else that you get billed for down in England
I on the other hand will enjoy the freedom that my land gives me as well as the enjoyment of home comforts in a lovely sized home, amazing picturesque _iews, countryside and salmon filled rivers at my doorstep, lovely fresh unpolluted air and warm sunshine (did you get any today ) as well as all other free provisions that are at hand in Scotland, but not in England.
Life can be a bitch when you have a big chip on your shoulder.
relax, chill, enjoy a better life, move to scotland |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andACouple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"
Total rubbish the frigates were promised if scotland voted no and the infrastructure is there now but they have been put on hold and pls show me where it was said all scotland voted to stay ? It was 62% and she has always said the majority voted to stay pls stop making things up"
So you make up a claim about Scotland not wanting trident, get shown you're wrong and then tell others to stop making things up whilst totally ignoring the fact you've just done it yourself?
Ignorance of the facts is one thing, hypocrisy is another altogether. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Oh really well anyone can use all different polls heres some for you,survation poll jan 2015 showed 47.2% of Scottish people opposinga new generation of nuclear weapons on the clyde with 31.6 in favour ,
79% of respondents to a gardian poll in april 2014 did not think trident should be renewed ,so dont know where your getting im proved wrong and a hypocrite,oh and the poster was talking crap when he said it came from snp that all of scotland voted to remain when we all know it was 63% and no one in snp has said different ,see the thing is there are lots differnt polls saying different things |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
