Why don't I think that nuclear weapons actually deter? Well, on a purely personal basis, over the last three decades I have been shot at on more occasions than I would have liked, and have had a variety of weapons of all sizes and shapes aimed and fired at me - on NOT ONE of those occasions has the fact that Britain has a nuclear "deterrent" made the slightest bit of difference ! Point two - currently by far the biggest threat to the security of western nations is NOT nuclear-armed states - it is stateless terrorist organisations ( admitedley backed by one or two "rogue" states ) who are attempting to obtain the ability to use biological or chemical weapons. Why go to the bother and expence of developing a nuclear weapon when you can totally cripple an entire country by poisoning it's water supplies or introducing an incapacitating virus? If Al Quaida obtains the ability to do this ( and there is a real posibility that they could ) who do you nuke then?
Desmoboy - I think you will find that ICBM's have a very complex guidance and navigational system... And I have yet to see any evidence that TLAM can be either effecively "jammed" or shot down...
Glid - one reason that Iraq doesn't like us is that the first ever use of chemical weapons against a civillian target was the RAF in Iraq, ordered by Whinston Churchill - in order to "create terror amongst the populace"...
But that was 90 years ago. Do you imagine anyone in Iraq has the slightest knowledge of those days? A lot of water has passed down the Euphrates since then, not least taking Saddam Hussein with it.
If that was 90 years ago then presumably building a statue of Oliver Cromwell in Grafton Street would be perfectly acceptable. A lot of water has passed along the Liffy since 1652
Perhaps you were (forgivably) thinking of the Vietnam War, when Harold Wilson went to great lengths to keep Britain out despite strong American pressure to join in. That was a difficult position to maintain because at the same time Britain had to ask the US for a large economic bailout to support the pound sterling, which was in deep trouble. In the case of the Korean War, Britain had had to ask for an even larger bailout shortly before, so Clement Attlee could not really refuse to join in.
A word about timescales, perhaps? The replacement for Trident, if built, would be made during the 2020's and would be expected to last for 40 years after that, going out of service in around 2060-2070. All this debate about the reality or otherwise of threats today from N Korea, Iran etc is entirely missing the point. The purpose of a Trident replacement is to give our great-grandchildren the means to deter whatever enemies they may be facing in 50 years time. We have absolutely no idea what those threats will consist of or where they will come from. No-one does, so please stop pretending! But I must say I prefer passing on to our successors the means and the option of deterring threats, if any and if they choose, rather than leaving them empty handed.
Believe me, the Korean war was very "significant" to people of my generation and it was a tough campaign involving large numbers of National Servicemen as well as many older soldiers who had served throughout the second world war.No wonder many of the soldiers who fought in this war call it "The forgotten War"
It is true that if a nuclear device exploded without any indication where it had come from, or whose decision it was to use it, or for what purpose, then Trident would not be able to retaliate. But the same point applies equally to every type of weapon you could own - if you have no way of knowing where the attack came from, none of your weapons can be used. So what? Weapon systems are procured so that they will be available for use against identifiable threats; we don't stop procuring weapons because some threats might be unidentifiable.
Presumably you were operating at a tactical level whereas Trident is a strategic weapons system which only comes into play when a conflict has escalated to the very highest threat levels. I absolutely agree with you about the threat from stateless terrorist organisations but specific threats require specific countermeasures and responses. Just because someone may be developing chemical or biological weapons doesn't mean that we can or should ignore the nuclear threat.
My very limited understanding of cruise missiles (TLAM) is that they seamlessly use a variety of navigational tecniques to reach their target so would be difficult to 'jam', however they are sub sonic and would be easy prey to any point defense system. Once released a MIRV is on a ballistic (unguided) trajectory and travelling at supersonic speeds. Of 96 warheads from 16 Trident missiles I think we can be pretty sure sufficient will get through to deliver a credible retaliatory strike. And that knowledge is all that is required.
Little fish, big pond. The sooner we wake up to that and stop sticking our nose in where it doesnt belong the better. All this rhetoric about retaliation and nuclear capability is just silly. Everyone knows that its a force that cant be used. It would do us more good to invest in other areas of Army/Navy/RAF. IF North Korea, (for example) step to far out of line you may find it is China who crush it, not the US, and most certainly not the overstretched UK with a hand full of submarine borne missiles! Damn it, we are not even in range of Korean missiles. Our alliance with the US worries me also tbh. The US worries me, more than the North Koreans. The US is like a big aggressive dog, always running around, barking and on occasions biting. It needs to be controlled, muzzled and kept in its own back yard to stop any more carnage. The nuke them before they nuke us attitude of the past is outdated. Why would another country nuke us in the knowledge that nuclear war is mutual termination? That has been fact for many years now. We could just make ourselves less of a target by not interfering as much in world affairs. I bet that would be good value for money and massively more effective than Trident.
Yes, thanks. I misquoted your earlier post, the 96 warheads presumably is from two boats with one permanently on patrol.
Lets suppose that the UK decides to unilaterally disarm its nuclear capability before the end of 2013. Who would be happy about that, and why? Who would be unhappy about that, and why?
I'd be perfectly happy. We won't miss it. It'll send a signal of peace to the world. It'll save money. It'll never happen.
