35bn trident costs..what a waste of money

[apelike]

Enough to make anyone think twice about firing them at us.

 

OK.. So what is enough, in figures, and by what criteria do we determine that?

 

Again it boils down to how many is enough.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 01:09 ----------

 

You can't. That the crux of the matter.

 

It is trivially easy to build a simple uranium bomb. There is no way you can stop any really determined state from acquiring one.

 

I would admit to that but how come N.Korea have not been able to do it despite the media hype?

[I1L2T3]

If we are going to commit to Trident then we should use at least one or what is the point? Perhaps the tripoint of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran would be a suitable place to let one off?

 

Think the missiles contain multiple independent warheads. Fire one of them and it results in up to a dozen separate nuclear explosions which can be over a pretty wide area.

 

These aren't tactical weapons as I've repeatedly pointed out. They don't just hit a single target but are designed for one specific attack scenario - to cause as much damage as possible to Russia. Question is are we ever going to make that attack alone? If the answer is no then we don't need the system.

[Harleyman]

Weren't there two letters, one which could be taken as reasonable and the other as aggressive and Kennedy chose to reply to the reasonable one and ignore the other, leaving the Russians unsure as to whether or not he had received it?

 

If we'd have had email we'd have been buggered!

 

I was fifteen and can clearly remember some people being convinced we were all going to die and kindly informing the rest of us as to their view on the matter.

 

---------- Post added 12-04-2015 at 19:32 ----------

 

 

You've been watching those repeats of 'Yes Prime Minister' again haven't you?

 

There were two letters. The first letter suggested that Kruschev was willing to negotiate to avoid a direct confrontation.

 

The second letter was somewhat aggressive in its wording which led Kennedy to believe that Kruschev was under the thumb of the Moscow hardliners or that he had been removed in a coup.

 

Kennedy and his bro Robert decided to ignore the second letter and respond to the first.

 

I was 22 had just been out of army for 15 months and was sure I'd be called back from the reserves and sent to West Germany to be atomized into tiny particles. Scary times dude !

[raymondo1952]

Will Zager and Evans words come true with their 1969 hit In The Year 2525 ?

[Roger123W]

In a perfect world we wouldn't need it.

 

Look what happened to Ukraine after they disposed of all their nuclear weapons.

 

What should we use against a country like Russia in the event of a war, harsh words?

 

Too bloody true ! There is always a price to be paid for peace when we have the likes of Putin, ISIS , North Korea , Iran in the world !!

[I1L2T3]

Too bloody true ! There is always a price to be paid for peace when we have the likes of Putin, ISIS , North Korea , Iran in the world !!

 

Those countries don't give a crap if we have nuclear weapons. They know we won't use them. They know we can't without the permission of NATO.

[Obelix]

 

I would admit to that but how come N.Korea have not been able to do it despite the media hype?

 

They have. They've fired two small bombs, one was about a kiloton the other five kilotons.

 

A gun assembly weapon is easy to build and has a limited yield and is inefficient. The implosion system that almost every bomb has actually used is much more difficult to build and I suspect that N Korea is playing with that. No one even needs to test a gun system, it's so certain to work that they never even bothered to test the Hiroshima bomb until they actually dropped it for real.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 22:37 ----------

 

Those countries don't give a crap if we have nuclear weapons. They know we won't use them. They know we can't without the permission of NATO.

 

Since when did we ever need the permission of NATO to act unilaterally? That's not in the treaty anywhere.

[Manlinose]

Since when did we ever need the permission of NATO to act unilaterally? That's not in the treaty anywhere.

 

it doesn't need to be - we would never unilaterally use any nuclear weapons over which we have control - if it ever came to the point where the supposed nuclear deterrent had failed, we wouldn't be acting unilaterally - that's the whole point of being a member of NATO

 

our nuclear weapons didn't protect the Falklands last time and they won't the next time either - if a nuclear power ever threatened us with a nuclear attack we would be able to rely on the other NATO members, just as other NATO members could rely on us - to me the only question is - what makes us better able to support our allies and protect our dependents - i'm not convinced an "independent" nuclear missile delivery system is the best answer

[I1L2T3]

They have. They've fired two small bombs, one was about a kiloton the other five kilotons.

 

A gun assembly weapon is easy to build and has a limited yield and is inefficient. The implosion system that almost every bomb has actually used is much more difficult to build and I suspect that N Korea is playing with that. No one even needs to test a gun system, it's so certain to work that they never even bothered to test the Hiroshima bomb until they actually dropped it for real.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 22:37 ----------

 

 

Since when did we ever need the permission of NATO to act unilaterally? That's not in the treaty anywhere.

 

We would never unilaterally use the weapons against the consent of NATO allies. If we unilaterally escalated a nuclear conflict without their consent we would drag them all into it.

 

The only far-fetched scenario would be if the US had been destroyed and we were the last man standing. By that point we'd most likely be toast anyway because any attack on the US would also inevitably involve an attack on US strategic sites in the UK. By that time what comfort would anybody take knowing that we could murder a few million innocent Russian civilians in retaliation.

 

Having these weapons is complete insanity. Morally absurd.

[Obelix]

You might want to read the Treaty then first. If we are attacked, in the treaty area, as soon as we are attacked everyone else is involved in it. Viz the invocation of Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks.

 

A UK counterstrike wouldnt drag the rest of NATO into it - they would already be in it.

 

And yes it is cold comfort that we can lay waste to the aggressor. The point is we can and we will, and the comfort is that that capability has kept the peace in Europe for longer that almost any period in time.

 

Getting rid of these weapons and destabilising the planet is complete insanity and morally absurd.