h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Morning all,

<< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5104918.stm >>

With the certainty that the final bill will be at least double the current estimate, or more - if we think of Scotlands parliament building costs, do we really NEED to spend this amount.Do we really NEED Trident?

Would it be better spent on,

Pension Black Holes
Proper kit for conventional soldiers
Education
Hospitals

Add to this list with your own ideas, unless you prefer to replace Trident.

Novo

Hmm, been wondering about this...

Since Trident and before that, Polaris, was first introduced, the threat has changed considerably.

Personally, I'm not of the opinion that the UK should give up its independent nuclear deterrant, but I'm rather more open on what form it should actually take...

I'm no longer convinced that SSBNs are the most cost-effective method...

There are a few alternatives that could work out a lot cheaper

1) Buy half a dozen B2-Spirits from the US Airforce and fit them with gravity bombs

2) Some of our existing SSNs are capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles - which, after all, were originally designed as nukes.

Although neither of these alternatices is as capable against a country with decent air defences, it should be quite sufficient to scare the cr*p out of any third world country developping nuclear arms (which, after all, is the whole purpose of nuclear deterrant... launch yours and we'll flatten your capital city!)

It'd probably even be better spent on keeping Prescott's jags running.

Who the hell are we going to nuke? Who?

Perhaps we should just make some cardboard cutouts and pretend we have nuclear weapons.

How about that 25 billion for fusion power research?

"Who the hell are we going to nuke? Who?"

The Chinese?
The North Koreans?
The Iranians?
The Pakistanis?
The Indians?
The South Africans?
The Israelis?
The Belgians?

We're not going to nuke anyone without America's say-so, so why bother having them? Let's just let the Americans have theirs, and they can decide who to blow to smithereens by themselves (which is what would happen anyway).

They're utterly pointless except as a diplomatic phallic symbol.

I said this a couple of months ago when we were having a similar conversation. We can't launch Trident missiles without codes from the USAsians. So much for an independent nuclear deterrent.



Err what about South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, India, China and North Korea?

The decision to replace Trident is purely and simply and cynically political not strategic. As was said on Radio 4 at lunch time imagine any politicians being accused of handing our nuclear capability to the French. Murdoch and the Mail would crucify them.

Such is the state of our country now. If we ever, Bob forbid, got to the point were we had to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons it would be all over for the vast majority of us or soon would be from radioactivity or nuclear winter. Tony and 2Shags would be ok, holed up in some bunker chatting away to Shrub and the Saudis.

Complete and utter waste of money.

Except we can in theory fire them without American permission. In theory at least there is nothing to stop one being fired at the white house. This is of course not going to happen not least because it would mean there probably wouldn't be a square mile of the UK that avoided a retalion strike.

Sorry, wrong. We need codes from them to fire 'our' Trident missiles at anyone.

WA - you've trotted that one out before - unfortunately, it's complete cobblers - we don't need any codes from the US to fire Trident...

Out of interest, why the heck would we?

Ooh, ooh, can I borrow the HooToo crystal ball? If you can confidently predict the geopolitical situation in 50 years using it, can I just quickly check for the winners at Ascot this weekend?

Dan Plesch, a senior associate of the Foreign Policy Centre, wrote an informative article in the Independent on 31st October 2005 titled “Britain's Independent Deterrent is Purely a Political Myth”

I can’t link it as it is under subscription but in it he states:

"Former naval officers have confirmed privately that the US knows where the British submarines are and that firing the missiles without US supplied data and satellites is almost impossible."

Good enough for me.

<< we don't need any codes from the US to fire Trident>>

Quite right - it would be a rather serious oversight for the UK's strategic deterrent to be under the control of another country...

Personally I would be very nervous about making a decision now that will affect us 50 years hence, especially when so many other countries are arming themselves. Trident was ordered to counter the threat from the USSR; things have changed dramatically since then. Things will change dramatically again over the next 20 years.

I suggest keeping a nuclear arsenal so that the UK can finish of the whales - kill that last one and make sure there's no DNA around so that they can be cloned and re-created. Just a thought.

Arnie the Barbarian

The Trident D5 missile is leased from and maintained by the US. The warheads and the Subs are British. If the US withdrew technical support, the capability to launch Trident would degrade to the point that within 18 months, Trident would be inoperable. This assumes of course that we have no technicians of our own capable of taking a missile apart and figuring out how it works.

Afternoon all,

May I put forward a proposal?

I always assumed that the Cruise Missiles delivered to the UK from our cross-pond cousins, never went to Greenham Common at all. The TV coverage of 'their' unloading at the airbase was pure fabrication, to concentrate the opposition to Cruise in one place - where it could be 'observed' whilst the REAL missiles were delivered by sea.

They are, as we know, small and faily portable. You don't need them on subs or surface warships, just innocent fishing boats and small cargo vessels plying their trade around the world.

So a few dozen , fitted with nuclear warheads should do the trick, and could employ a few trawlers put out of work in recent months - with a Royal Navy officer complement of course!

Cheaper to build and maintain.

Novo

Seems like a lot of money to spend on an if but or maybe basis.

Not bothered about the US control thing because I don't think we'll be firing them at someone the US doesn't want us to - I'm more worried about the US making us use them...

sprout

Nor sure I like the idea of unescorted fishing boats armed with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately ballistic missiles are not small and portable, they have to able to hit anywhere from anywhere else. Cruise missile have to shipped to near their target (hence Greenham Common to hit eastern Europe), which doesn't make them so much of a deterrent.

Trident misiles are also maintained at Coulport; I'm sure we could keep them going for a few years without US support.

Trident Missiles are maintained at Coulport - by US technicians

probably won't work then anyway...

"The Trident D5 missile is leased from and maintained by the US. The warheads and the Subs are British. If the US withdrew technical support, the capability to launch Trident would degrade to the point that within 18 months, Trident would be inoperable. This assumes of course that we have no technicians of our own capable of taking a missile apart and figuring out how it works."

Exactly. We use US parts and data because there is no way, in the forseeable future, that they would withdraw them. If they did for some reason, we'd simply change the firing system or use a different type of delivery system.