quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

But the bottom line is, Trident isn't independent, its merely a subsidy for Americas forward defence. If we are going to have a deterrent, then at least let it be an independent one. What's the point in a nuclear deterrent when another country has such huge control over our defence system? America has the ability to disable Trident in one foul swoop.

And all this stuff about Corbyn refusing to press the button. Even if Corbyn did press the button it would merely light up the real button in America and the American government would decide whether or not to press it.

quote:

We are completely independant of the US in that regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

But the bottom line is, Trident isn't independent, its merely a subsidy for Americas forward defence. If we are going to have a deterrent, then at least let it be an independent one. What's the point in a nuclear deterrent when another country has such huge control over our defence system? America has the ability to disable Trident in one foul swoop.

And all this stuff about Corbyn refusing to press the button. Even if Corbyn did press the button it would merely light up the real button in America and the American government would decide whether or not to press it.

Nope. Not true.

The last and most important man/woman to make that final decision is the Prime Minister.
In the event that he/she is not able to make that decision due to no contact, the Commander of the boat opens a sealed envelope that is locked in a safe with explicit instructions that he follows.
Every time there is a change of Prime Minister, the new Prime Minister has to write those instructions and the previous ones (in the safe) are destroyed without being opened or read.
Each and every submarine has a separate set of instructions stored in their own safe and there is no need for any communication between them - they act independently.

We are completely independant of the US in that regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

well living in a country which had quite a few land based nuclear missiles (and nuclear bombers) on its territory over decades, being the supposed battlefield for WW III, and most short- and medium-range nuclear missiles targetting practically every town over 20.000 inhabitants country-wide -
I could only congratulate every politician who reduces the overkill capacity

from what I know everyone in Germany could have been killed 20 times by nuclear weapons during cold war era - in the meantime (sorry hearsay) reduced to 12 times - this is not deterrent at all since the choice about pushing the button or not would be not ours, and once the button is pushed survival is an option for none of us

and I guess even the North Koreans know that the war after a nuclear war will be fought with rocks and sticks

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
I think most of us know that there isn’t a red button on Cameron's desk that his cat could accidentally set off. I don’t understand the complexities of starting a nuclear war other than it being a very complex system. We can speculate the process but of course, none of us really know. What we do know is, Trident missiles can only be guided by US satellite signals and this requires US consent.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk This link is particularly interesting because it links to the Trident site where you can download various items pertinent to this topic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

I don't know if we have enough interested bodies on here for this debate but lets see.

If Britains new Labour leader (Jeremy Corbyn) was to get into power, he would rid us of our nuclear defence system 'Trident'.
On a personal level I'm all for it (getting rid of it) but I would be interested to know what others think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Any spare money floating about should be put into education and health.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

We are completely independant of the US in that regard.

We're also independent of the USA re the BBC Radio 4 rule. Apparently, if a nuke-holding British base or vessel can't pick up Radio 4 after a few days, it has carte blanche to press the button - because Radio 4 being off air for that long would mean that London had been wiped out.

quote:


Rightly so, anyone who fucks with radio 4 needs to perish.

quote:

]ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I can't see the point in having a 'deterrent' if the enemy know that nobody is ever going to push the button.
The whole point of a deterrent is that it is the ultimate weapon that would be used if it came to the crunch.
If it is never going to be used, it is no longer a deterrent.
And like Jeremy said, with all the nuclear power of the US, it didn't help with 9/11 did it?
It didn't help us with 7/7 either!
So what is the point in having a nuclear deterrent??
Unless there is a nuclear war, I really don't see the point at all.
And it'll save on the military budget for other more useful stuff.
If you want some sort of deterrent, keep what we already have.
But to spend £billions on upgrading it..... don't bother.

1. Not my choice.
2. As MariaB has noted, the UK is part of NATO, and the NATO pact includes defending NATO members that are attacked, so defense will eventually be there. That fact, in and of itself, provides some level of deterrent.
3. If a deterrent for the most extreme of threats isn't wanted by the UK, then there you go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

]ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I can't see the point in having a 'deterrent' if the enemy know that nobody is ever going to push the button.
The whole point of a deterrent is that it is the ultimate weapon that would be used if it came to the crunch.
If it is never going to be used, it is no longer a deterrent.
And like Jeremy said, with all the nuclear power of the US, it didn't help with 9/11 did it?
It didn't help us with 7/7 either!
So what is the point in having a nuclear deterrent??
Unless there is a nuclear war, I really don't see the point at all.
And it'll save on the military budget for other more useful stuff.
If you want some sort of deterrent, keep what we already have.
But to spend £billions on upgrading it..... don't bother.

The US demonstrated that it was willing to push the button. I'm very glad there hasn't been a situation since WWII where it was determined the threat was great enough for use of nukes.

Had the 9/11 events been orchestrated by a Nation, there would have been a declaration of war against that nation (and not "terrorism"), and nuclear weapon use could have been on the table. But, I'd rather have nukes and never use them, than not have them and a situation arise where nukes are warranted.

As far as the UK having a nuke deterrent program, meh.

1. Not my choice.
2. As MariaB has noted, the UK is part of NATO, and the NATO pact includes defending NATO members that are attacked, so defense will eventually be there. That fact, in and of itself, provides some level of deterrent.
3. If a deterrent for the most extreme of threats isn't wanted by the UK, then there you go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

just a rhetorical question (since I expect every answer is still classified - and maybe I would not really want to know anyway):
what are the targets of all these warheads these days?

France admitted theirs still had German targets for quite some time after the cold war - just in case

Tactical nukes aim at possible battlefields - I am not a military expert but I guess that includes "friendly" territory too

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

]ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I can't see the point in having a 'deterrent' if the enemy know that nobody is ever going to push the button.
The whole point of a deterrent is that it is the ultimate weapon that would be used if it came to the crunch.
If it is never going to be used, it is no longer a deterrent.
And like Jeremy said, with all the nuclear power of the US, it didn't help with 9/11 did it?
It didn't help us with 7/7 either!
So what is the point in having a nuclear deterrent??
Unless there is a nuclear war, I really don't see the point at all.
And it'll save on the military budget for other more useful stuff.
If you want some sort of deterrent, keep what we already have.
But to spend £billions on upgrading it..... don't bother.

The US demonstrated that it was willing to push the button. I'm very glad there hasn't been a situation since WWII where it was determined the threat was great enough for use of nukes.
Had the 9/11 events been orchestrated by a Nation, there would have been a declaration of war against that nation (and not "terrorism"), and nuclear weapon use could have been on the table. But, I'd rather have nukes and never use them, than not have them and a situation arise where nukes are warranted.
As far as the UK having a nuke deterrent program, meh.

1. Not my choice.
2. As MariaB has noted, the UK is part of NATO, and the NATO pact includes defending NATO members that are attacked, so defense will eventually be there. That fact, in and of itself, provides some level of deterrent.
3. If a deterrent for the most extreme of threats isn't wanted by the UK, then there you go.

This is the point Desi, the US could and would push the button if it came to it.
The new labour leader in the UK has stated categorically that he would not, no matter what.
So that makes Trident somewhat redundant, does it not??
If the enemy know that it is never ever going to be used no matter what the provocation, what's the point in having it?
It's like having your favourite gun hanging on the wall, locked in a glass case with the firing pin removed and the barrel welded shut. It would be nothing more than a decorative ornament.
And in the case of Trident, a very expensive ornament at that!