Trident

[sobrique]

It would appear that the Trident program is up for renewal. Our nuclear submarines, and their ICBMs are getting old and out of date.
Renewal is costed at between 10 and 25 billion.

As you may have guessed, this has sparked some fierce debate, about 'nuclear deterrent'.

For my money, we may as well just scrap Trident. Simply because by the time we're prepared to actually fire, we'll have already lost whatever conflict we're looking at, and it'll be retribution.

I mean, just ask yourself for a moment: You're the one in charge of the arsenal. At what point are you prepared to fire them? When someone declares war? When they threaten you with nukes? When you have soldiers on your land? Or when they've fired already, and you want to kill all their civilians too?

The problem with ICBMs you see, is they're strategic. What they're really good at is cutting the heart out of a few square miles of city.
In general, I'm not against nuclear weapons. They're like, bombs that explode bigtime, and have a few secondary affects.

The thing I have a problem with though, is that there's really never a moral case for 'stop your army, or we'll blow up a lot of your civilians'. That's pretty much what the terrorists do.

And frankly, I don't think any of our politicians (and strategic nukes _is_ a political decision) would be prepared to do that either.

At least, I hope they wouldn't and if they are, then I'd rather like them to stop representing me in Parliment.

So, let's just scrap trident. If the defense is that important, let's buy a load of new toys for the Armed Forces. I'm sure 10 - 25 bn of ships/aircraft/guns will go a long way. Nukes are a fairly cost effective solution - they give a lot of bang for your money. But they're also the First world equivalent of sucide bombing. Ugly, nasty and utterly pointless.

The UK will still be a 'nuclear power' - I'm pretty certain there's quite a few 'special weapons' locked up in bunkers around the world. They're unlikely to get used too, but I can at least see that they _might_ be used as tactical weapons. 4 minute citykillers, are really not needed.

Comments

[darkgodfred.livejournal.com]

As far as I see it a nuclear weapon is nothing particularly special. It's a lot of bang in a fairly small package, this makes it cheap and easy but anything it can do can be done by conventional means.

They have uses, not only against civilians but against military infrastructure - Army bases, weapons factories, airfields, and such like. And whilst you can hit these with conventional weaponry, a nuke does tend to make certain.

However, they're only really useful in unlimited war. The sort we haven't been involved in since World War II. And judging by the way the world is going, are unlikely to be in for a long while. And that's even assuming we'll use them in that situation, which the war of inches argument tends to demonstrate we won't.

Now giving them up might weaken our political position. Nuclear weapons are a bargining point, a demonstration of strenth and ability. However, giving up that technology would allow us to make massive inroads into seizing the moral highground. God knows, given how we seem to be tying ourselves to America and their outright statments they're going to break the nuclear proliferation treaty, we need that high ground.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Thing is, for flattening airfields and the like, the 'tactical' nuclear weapons would do just fine. OK, so you have to actually deliver them by aircraft, rather than just keying in a longditude and latitude and press 'fire' but you also have the fact that you're only dropping 'a few' kilotonnes, rather than the rather large megatonne warheads delivered by ICBM.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

I'd add that using a nuke for such a purpose would be an 'escalation' but at that level it's still 'a really big bomb, that kills your base in one go' rather than 'boom, there goes London'.

[the-g-man.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a strategic nuclear deterrent. Unlike most armaments it doesn't have a lot of aggressive use. It can't used to project power, only to dissuade other nations from projecting power against you. But I'd want us to have it instead of a standing army - not in addition. After all, who is going to try invading a country whose only recourse is to strat-nuke the invader.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

The lack of an army though, also limits interventions in foreign policy. E.g. peacekeeping, and UN actions.
Not that that's overly a problem, I suppose, but ... well I suppose if you project a 'if you mess with us, we have one solution and it's nuclear' would project the image of a country full of psychos.

[the-g-man.livejournal.com]

I suspect a country strategic nuclear weapons are far more likely to be used as part of an escalation. This is at least an honest and easily understood defence policy. Yes, it does limit the country in acting as a peacekeeper but there are other contributions that a country could make to the international stage - development, disaster relief and the like - which are far less ambiguously colonial.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

I suspect the experience of having nukes, dropping them and then being threatened with them is too much of a humiliation for a country to bear.

To be cornered by ' Yo biznatch, phear my leet nookz skillz ' is a taunt many would wish to avoid regardless of cost.

[warmage.livejournal.com]

Over here we've developed the MOAB (Massive Ordinance Air Burst, or Mother Of All Bombs). At something on the order of 220,000 lbs of explosive, this is an excellent alternative to the tac-nuke, expecially in a combined arms assault.

After all, we tore down almost all our MX and Minuteman III infrastructure and the worst that happened was something against which ICBM's are absolutely worthless. Granted, we have more missiles in boomer-subs that anyone else, but I can't solve *all* the problems... :)

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

MOAB, the bomb sufficiently big that you need a cargo plane to deploy it. Excellent plan :)

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

I'm less convinced. I mean, penis waving is all well and good, but mostly a BMW is enough.

[warmage.livejournal.com]

Smartass :) However, it's GPS targeted, so that cargo plane can be rather lofty at the time of dispersal. Also, there's that whole combined-arms thing I mentioned, using field artillery to soften any surrounding high ground is not inconceivable.

Besides all of that *I was supporting your point!* :)

[kalkyrie.livejournal.com]

I've heard from a source that I trust that Trident (and its replacement, Posidon) can't launch their weapons without permission from the USA (though in Trident's case, they could mob the American officer onboard to get the codes).
Is this true?
And if it is why are we paying for it, since we can't launch the nukes anyway?

[jorune.livejournal.com]

Politicians have a legacy to worry about, their place in the history books is important to them.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Surely 'pushed big red button' is an epitaph that no politico is ever going to want?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

I've no idea about US control over our arsenal, I'd be suprised personally.
Regardless, I think the argument would go, if we have them, then no one will mess with us, because WE GOT DA' BOMB!

[ool272.livejournal.com]

I don't see any point in us having them really. I understand and don't entirely dismiss the deterrent argument, but the fact is that while the US has them, their deterrent applies to anyone friendly to them. You don't nuke London and expect Washington to just shrug its shoulders. We might as well spend our money on something else.

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

You mean like Harry S. Truman?

Sorry but hoping that rationality will prevent some self-aggrandising eedjit from hitting that button because another nation has threatened to use their '133+ nuk0rz' or whatever the hell our descendents will tag these things is something that I doubt will stop them.

Chances are it'll be some colonel with a .44 magnum hoping he never has to shoot said eedjit but who has taken to packing that gun because of some unspecified feeling of there being something terribly wrong etc. etc.

You work in IT - you know that at some point, things will go titsup.

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

It's a special relationship thing.

If this scares you too much - Pratchett dialogue to the rescue!

(the following dialogue takes place between a grinning gentleman who uses repetitive dialogue and looking very tired of late and another individual standing in for their father whose resemblance to a chimpanzee is coincidental and of whom everybody else is just plain sick and tired.)

POTUK: Umm, about that red button.
POTUS: Oook?
POTUK: We'd like to press it.
POTUS: Oook (raised hands)
POTUK: Um, are you sure about annihilation, annihilation, annihilation?
POTUS: Oook! (pursed lips grin)
POTUK: Now, do you have the key?
POTUS: Oook! (attempts to extract key from backside)
POTUK: Stuck? Oh dear.
POTUS: Oook? (pleading pseudo-sincere pursed lips)
POTUK: This is - ridiculous.
POTUS: Oook... (really pleading pursed lips)
POTUK: Oh... go on then...
(fade out with snapping of rubber glove and suction cup noise followed by turning of keys, pressing of button and concommitant hysterical buying of canned foodstuffs and screeching about manifest destiny by Ms. A. Coulter of Whogivesafuck, CT)
...
(fade in)
POTUK: Oh God. What have I done?
POTUS(smoking cigarette): Oook.
POTUK: What do you mean we don't have to worry about Kyoto NOW?
POTUS: Oook. (thoughtful silence) Oook.
POTUK: Well I suppose there is that. And I won't have to dodge Murdoch either.

(fade to air raid sirens)

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

No, but I'm of the opinion that no one _really_ want to be directly responsible for mass murder. And those that do, shouldn't be allowed near the nukes anyway. Either way, we should just say we spent a load of dosh on trident, and instead use it to buy some pretty fireworks and a lot of tanks instead.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

The US will still have nuclear weapons, and if we don't have them too, they might decide we're a less useful ally than we used to be, cut the lead, turn around and kick us. Unfortunately they have big feet.

I vote for starting a new country, a very long way away. Possibly Mars. Or possibly for everybody else to decide living on Mars is the next big thing and leave the rest of us who just want to get on with our lives without getting radiation sickness to live on the earth.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

I've heard it from several places. Wikipedia doesn't mention that, but does claim that the US actually owns the missiles, although the warheads are British...

[ool272.livejournal.com]

Honestly, the shift in world politics that would be required for the US to decide to "kick" us (or any other European country) in any way that is not economic (and that happens anyway) is so unlikely that there's no point in planning for it - while possible, you can't prepare for every remote eventuality. The current world order just doesn't allow Western countries to go to war with each other. Would a US president bomb London when so many of his campaign contributors have offices there?

I don't think our possession of nuclear weapons figures very highly in why the US considers us an ally, either. They never actually get used, after all...

[ool272.livejournal.com]

I think you're right. Kennedy wasn't willing to press the button during the Cuban Missile Crisis, despite the advice he was getting from plenty of people.

[tya.livejournal.com]

I mean, just ask yourself for a moment: You're the one in charge of the arsenal. At what point are you prepared to fire them?


Let's see... So I've got the launch codes? And it's 9:28am. Hmmm... is 9.29am too early? :-D

[wilphe.livejournal.com]

I don't think "killed several tens of thousands of Japanese in preference to killing several tens of thousands of Americans & several millions of Japanese" is an epitaph to be ashamed about.

[wilphe.livejournal.com]

Trident is a tool like any other.

And, like any capability, it's better to have it than not have it
Wheather the opportunity cost is worth it is another matter, but I'm not prima facie oppossed to having the things in the first place.

The main problem with a small country having a nuclear capability is that it tends to suck money and effort out of the rest of a military budget, leaving everything else to be run on a shoe string.


Sure it's a blunt tool, but I'd rather have it my box if I'm going to negotiate with someone who has it, like the Chinese or the Russians.

[mcnazgul.livejournal.com]

While conventional warfare is horrific and what happened in the Pacific theatre as a terrible loss of life, I still can't see the dropping of any kind of atomic or nuclear weapon as something to be unashamed of.

We should never underestimate our leaders' capacity to make that decision.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Are we talking nukes, as in the 'little' ones they drop from planes, and therefore deploy as a tactical asset, or are we talking about the ICBM grade ones that can flatten a few square miles in a matter of minutes from the launch?

I don't see the _nuclear_ part as inherently wrong. The problem I've got is that Trident missiles are ... well basically collateral damage weapons. If I want to knock out your air base, a nuclear tipped cruise missile, launched off a battleship will do. Or a smart bomb off a stealth bomber.

An ICBM isn't actually up to much for tactical warfare. What it is, is a really big terror weapon. Mess with us, get 20,000 civilians killed. I think that _not_ having that capability is a good thing.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Assuming they were legal, would you keep a stack of fragmentation grenades in your house, 'just in case'?

I have no problems with 'nuclear capability'. I do have problems with a weapon quite as indiscriminate as an ICBM. There's not really any situations where it's worth deploying. And that includes when there's already missiles incoming - the incoming are going to hit and hurt, but that's still not a justification for a counter-massacre. (I can guarantee that the people firing won't be anywhere that a nuke strike will bother them)

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

No red button for YOU!

[tya.livejournal.com]

Stop being such a wuss, what's a bit of thermonuclear armageddon compared to all those crispy chavs?

[wilphe.livejournal.com]

Then we'll have to disagree.

Somethimes such things are necessary

[wilphe.livejournal.com]

That would depend more on the potential threat I was facing.

Would I use them to stop squirrels eating bulbs? No.

If I was besiged by junkie zombies? Yes

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

But wouldn't the junkie zombies be on your own turf before they were a threat, and therefore a really really bad idea to nuke at that point?