Our Nuclear Deterrent?

[Cyclone]

Did you read the rebuttal, it's nothing like you claimed.

 

We can't press the big red button without their permission.

This is incorrect, untrue, not the case. I don't know how more wrong you could actually be.

[apelike]

Have to agree with Cyclone as our Nuclear deterrent is independent of the USA, and as Michael Fallon has recently pointed out it also cannot be ruled out that it could be used in a first strike scenario.

[ez8004]

It is exactly as I claimed. Theoretically, we don't need permission. Practically, we do. We can press FIRE, but it doesn't mean anything will happen. We don't even test our own weapons ourselves. The USA does it for us, in the USA. We have no idea if they'd work or not.

 

Also, I already read that link, and quite frankly don't believe a word of it. A Government-based journal is hardly independent...

I do, however, especially like one of the comments:

 

Q: "What can the great little Britain do if the Americans so decide not to return the stockpile housed in Georgia?"

A: "Hello, the United Kingdom would have to service and maintain the missiles in the UK in that scenario."

 

^ With what funding? With what R&D facility? With what holding facility? Laughable.

 

If you really believe the USA would just give us the freedom to fire their own weapons at them, you are very naive.

 

The UK has been America's b*tch since 1945.

 

Are you a dumbass?

 

The UK manufactures its own nuclear weapons at Aldermaston by the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The UK does use the ballistic missiles from the US as they are built by Lockheed Martin. However, they are stored at Coulport, the UK has independent control of its nuclear weapons at all times. The ballistic missiles are only returned to the US for servicing, but they get replaced from their pool of ballistic missiles, so the navy always has a full set of missiles.

Edited April 30, 2017 by ez8004

[I1L2T3]

And if we decided to scrap trident we could join such a scheme could we not? The OP doesn't postulate that the presence of nuclear weapons stops a country being nuked though, the postulation is that if we gave up our self controlled nuclear deterrent we would be nuked (down to being a barren rock in fact, which means it has to be China or Russia, not NK and it's faulty delivery system for a handful of small warheads).

 

It would be eminently sensible. It's hard to understand why we need nuclear weapons as a country. We have no other threats apart from those faced by fellow NATO countries.

 

There's no situation where we would need to unilaterally use them IMO.

 

As a halfway house to disarmament nuclear sharing would work I guess. Although even then the siting of the missiles here or mounting on U.K. Submarines would make us a target.

 

It's a moot point though. When the UK breaks up and we won't be able to afford them and we'd have no base anyway with Faslane in SNP hands.

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2017 at 23:32 ----------

 

Are you a dumbass?

 

The UK manufactures its own nuclear weapons at Aldermaston by the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The UK does use the ballistic missiles from the US as they are built by Lockheed Martin. However, they are stored at Coulport, the UK has independent control of its nuclear weapons at all times. The ballistic missiles are only returned to the US for servicing, but they get replaced from their pool of ballistic missiles, so the navy always has a full set of missiles.

 

Yeah, and the last successful launch of one of them from a British sub was when.......

[ez8004]

It would be eminently sensible. It's hard to understand why we need nuclear weapons as a country. We have no other threats apart from those faced by fellow NATO countries.

 

There's no situation where we would need to unilaterally use them IMO.

 

As a halfway house to disarmament nuclear sharing would work I guess. Although even then the siting of the missiles here or mounting on U.K. Submarines would make us a target.

 

It's a moot point though. When the UK breaks up and we won't be able to afford them and we'd have no base anyway with Faslane in SNP hands.

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2017 at 23:32 ----------

 

 

Yeah, and the last successful launch of one of them from a British sub was when.......

 

Faslane isn't the UK's only submarine base. There is Devonport in Plymouth.

 

Why would the submarines make us a target. The whole point of CASD is that no one knows where the sub is!

[I1L2T3]

Faslane isn't the UK's only submarine base. There is Devonport in Plymouth.

 

Why would the submarines make us a target. The whole point of CASD is that no one knows where the sub is!

 

Because we would be a potential aggressor.

 

In fact your question is so utterly dumb I'm not going any further with the answer.

[ez8004]

Because we would be a potential aggressor.

 

In fact your question is so utterly dumb I'm not going any further with the answer.

 

It is a good thing that the government and the majority of the population don't care what idiots like you think isn't it?

 

It also sounds like you don't know the point of CASD.

[Cyclone]

Because we would be a potential aggressor.

 

In fact your question is so utterly dumb I'm not going any further with the answer.

 

Surely an at sea deterrent stops you being an 'easy' target and makes you a target that will strike back. The entire point of a deterrent.

Of course if things were going nuclear anyway then having or not having your own deterrent won't affect whether you are a target in the slightest.

 

Can you imagine somewhere resorting to a nuclear strike (lets say 'the other side' and mean China or Russia), and deciding not to nuke one of the key nato members? How could that possibly make sense, unless the point was to turn us into economic slaves under the threat of nuclear strike, in which case you've just made a good argument for keeping our deterrent I think.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2017 at 08:59 ----------

 

It is a good thing that the government and the majority of the population don't care what idiots like you think isn't it?

 

 

Clearly the government think that the populace should be making major decision, perhaps we should have a referendum on trident!

[ez8004]

Surely an at sea deterrent stops you being an 'easy' target and makes you a target that will strike back. The entire point of a deterrent.

Of course if things were going nuclear anyway then having or not having your own deterrent won't affect whether you are a target in the slightest.

 

Can you imagine somewhere resorting to a nuclear strike (lets say 'the other side' and mean China or Russia), and deciding not to nuke one of the key nato members? How could that possibly make sense, unless the point was to turn us into economic slaves under the threat of nuclear strike, in which case you've just made a good argument for keeping our deterrent I think.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2017 at 08:59 ----------

 

 

Clearly the government think that the populace should be making major decision, perhaps we should have a referendum on trident!

 

In the 2015 general election, over 75% of the votes were for parties that supported Trident. If that isn't a majority, I don't know what it.

[Harrystottle]

We have never used our nukes in any conflict. At the same time that we are pondering spending X billion on a Trident replacement we are cutting the size of our conventional armed forces, who do actually get used.

 

So I wouldn't upgrade Trident. Maybe keep them if you want to but there is no sense (and no fair play) in sending our troops out to do someone's dirty business in places like Afghanistan then making them redundant when they get back.