Our Nuclear Deterrent?

[Carlinate]

No you didn't - no ones going to believe that for the slightest.

 

Trident can be fired independently of the USA. That's what the original postulate was, and it's proven as noted above.

 

Anything else is just some whiney CND wannabee moving the goalposts.

 

Respond to my PM and then we'll talk further.

[Obelix]

I've not the slightest interest in responding to your message. Do not send me any more.

[Carlinate]

Another attempt to strawman... You've seen what we've said, we've been absolutely consistent throughout.

It was Revel however that postulated that the trident system could not be used without US authorisation, which I disputed, you supported and so far appears to have been entirely disproven. Even you have accepted that we can use our deterrent.

You're subsequent attempts to reframe the issue are irrelevant, I have no interest in discussing whether we have some kind of ongoing capability to replace our trident capability after it's used. It's a moot point, if it's used then most likely the majority of the world will have no advanced manufacturing capabilities for a good length of time.

 

And I have no interest discussing a point raised by another poster which you claim is wrong, although you have no actual way of knowing for certain whether or not you are correct.

 

The actual arrangements for initiating a launch are unknown to all but the people with sufficient security clearance to allow them to know the details.

 

So your supposition is exactly that, a supposition.

 

My point with regard to the total dependency on the US for our ongoing operation of the system however is an indisputable fact, isn't it?

 

It isn't independent and continuing to argue that it is is ridiculous.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 15:54 ----------

 

I've not the slightest interest in responding to your message. Do not send me any more.

 

 

 

Withdraw your claim that I lied in a previous post about my past career.

 

I have offered to provide you with proof, but you don't appear to have what it takes to either take me up on it or apologise.

 

I do not take kindly to anyone calling me a liar and see no reason why I should.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 17:00 ----------

 

You think there will ever be a two separate situations where we will use our nuclear weapons??????

 

Blimey!

 

It would all depend on the circumstances, the enemy involved and the escalation of the conflict wouldn't it?

 

Use them against Russia or China and that would no doubt be the end of it.

 

Use them against North Korea or Iran in a preempetive strike and it may be " Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for tea ".

[Cyclone]

And I have no interest discussing a point raised by another poster which you claim is wrong, although you have no actual way of knowing for certain whether or not you are correct.

 

And yet you joined the discussion and did exactly that.

 

Perhaps you shouldn't have been so keen to jump in with post #22 to score some points in support of Revel, get it all wrong and then spend 4 pages trying to claim that you were right.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2017 at 08:57 ----------

 

I have a magic stick that keeps elephants away. I can prove it works too. Do you see any elephants?

 

Can you prove that your stick isn't working?

 

I have a door lock that keeps out burglars. I haven't been burgled. According to the same logic, I should dispose of my door locks.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Cyclone

[sgtkate]

And yet you joined the discussion and did exactly that.

 

Perhaps you shouldn't have been so keen to jump in with post #22 to score some points in support of Revel, get it all wrong and then spend 4 pages trying to claim that you were right.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2017 at 08:57 ----------

 

 

Can you prove that your stick isn't working?

 

I have a door lock that keeps out burglars. I haven't been burgled. According to the same logic, I should dispose of my door locks.

 

So the argument works both ways for nuclear. As no one since WW2 has been attacked by a nuclear strike whether they did or didn't have nukes we can conclude that nukes offer no more protection for nuclear attacks than not having them. We've got nearly 70 years of data to show that.

 

And to add, you probably could get rid of your door locks and not be burgled. You aren't being not burgled because of door locks. I routinely forget to lock my doors (small child and sleep deprivation are to blame here) and I've not been burgled. Yet when I did lock my doors in a different house I was burgled. Proves nothing either way. Exactly the same as nuclear. If we don't have proof to continue something that costs around 10% of our GDP to refresh and maintain (without taking into account usage costs either!) then if the same figures were applied to a standard house we'd be looking at door locks costing £2400 (based on average UK salary). Would you pay £2400 for door locks with no proof they reduced the risk of burglary?

Edited May 4, 2017 by sgtkate

[Cyclone]

Hmmm, it's extremely simple logic that ignores the multiple alliances and points of conflicts between the many nations involved.

[glennpickard]

I believe the UK has to keep its independent nuclear deterrent, as does France, Israel etc. They are deterrents designed to keep other nations from being reckless. NK comes to mind, although Russia is not forgotten.

 

As NATO members equipped with Ballistic missiles, the US and the UK should be consulting before firing. I have no problem with this arrangement. The "One for all and all for one" element is the basis of NATO and the main reason why Putin & Co want to eliminate it.

 

"You attack one of us and you attack all of us" is what keeps the dictators at bay. Of course the smaller "Non strategic" NATO nations benefit strongly from this philosophy, but for the others it was designed to keep democracies from falling and being absorbed by dictatorships

 

As of now, I see the only use of these weapons by NATO, would be as a retaliatory strike for the use of nuclear weapons against one or more NATO members. But never the less these weapons have always been intended as a weapon of last resort

[apelike]

I believe the UK has to keep its independent nuclear deterrent, as does France, Israel etc. They are deterrents designed to keep other nations from being reckless. NK comes to mind, although Russia is not forgotten.

 

We could just bluff it which is what I suspect Israel are already doing.

[glennpickard]

But I would hate to test the theory and be proved wrong. I was always under the impression that Iran wanted a nuclear weapon because the Israelis have one !

[apelike]

But I would hate to test the theory and be proved wrong. I was always under the impression that Iran wanted a nuclear weapon because the Israelis have one !

 

But that is what a bluff is until the time is up. There was never any evidence provided that Iran actually wanted one in the first place, and according to them they were only pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. According to some, Israel possesses hundreds so what would a few by Iran accomplish anyway to make Israel so spooked at the idea. Its a bit like N.Korea, they may have a few dodgy ones but must realise that they face total annihilation if they ever used one.