Trident

rover

Well-Known Member
Hi Just listening to the Scottish News. Jeremy Corbyn is at it again. He wants to team up with the SNP to get rid of trident.
This is unbelievable part of my union dues go to the labour Party. I am paying into this mob to make myself redundant you can't make it up. Unite better do something about this idiot.
Rant Over.
Jim
 
Last edited:
The amazing thing is that even the other members of the Labour Party are saying to give him enough rope to hang himself with! The chap is clearly 'special'
 
I've thought a lot about this, on and off, over the past decades. One has to question what purpose, actually, does Trident in its present form now serve? To protect against a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union that ceased to exist? Or from Russia? And in which case in what circumstance would a nuclear attack on Britain by Russia go without a response from the USA by nuclear retaliation?

So does it now exist to warn a "rogue" state that a nuclear device that originates from there, and is exploded in London will result in a nuclear attack on them? OK. Except this could be done by cruise missile more easily than by ballistic missile...simply because if the ballistic missile passes anywhere near Russia what do you think they will interpret it as? Yes..a possible nuclear attack on them.

Look at a map of the world. These things don't fly in a straight ballistic curve line per se but go over the polar route so any nuclear ballistic missile fired by a British Trident against what North Korea? Iran? Draw a line on the map. See who it passes over from where it would be launched from. Russia and if Korea is involved possibly China as well. It isn't going to happen!

Does anyone really think either are going to sit back and just track a nuclear ballistic missile heading over their territory? They most likely go on a full nuclear alert and the USA on seeing that would also do so. So Britain has now pushed the world onto the cliff edge of a nuclear war.

So a cruise missile, nuclear armed, is easier to launch (in terms of reaction from Russia and China), and easier to programme to target in that it can safely be routed to avoid them other nuclear armed countries. Indeed it would be liley fired from a Royal Navy vessel...ship or submarine...laying somewhere off the coast of Korea or the Persian Gulf.

No I think that Trident is now irrelevant to the UK....nuclear armed cruise missiles still have a purpose. Either air, land or ship launched. But Trident? No.
 
Last edited:
I've thought a lot about this, on and off, over the past decades. One has to question what purpose, actually, does Trident in its present form now serve? To protect against a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union that ceased to exist? Or from Russia? And in which case in what circumstance would a nuclear attack on Britain by Russia go without a response from the USA by nuclear retaliation?

So does it now exist to warn a "rogue" state that a nuclear device that originates from there, and is exploded in London will result in a nuclear attack on them? OK. Except this could be done by cruise missile more easily than by ballistic missile...simply because if the ballistic missile passes anywhere near Russia what do you think they will interpret it as? Yes..a possible nuclear attack on them.

Look at a map of the world. These things don't fly in a straight ballistic curve line per se but go over the polar route so any nuclear ballistic missile fired by a British Trident against what North Korea? Iran? Draw a line on the map. See who it passes over from where it would be launched from. Russia and if Korea is involved possibly China as well. It isn't going to happen!

Does anyone really think either are going to sit back and just track a nuclear ballistic missile heading over their territory? They most likely go on a full nuclear alert and the USA on seeing that would also do so. So Britain has now pushed the world onto the cliff edge of a nuclear war.

So a cruise missile, nuclear armed, is easier to launch (in terms of reaction from Russia and China), and easier to programme to target in that it can safely be routed to avoid them other nuclear armed countries. Indeed it would be liley fired from a Royal Navy vessel...ship or submarine...laying somewhere off the coast of Korea or the Persian Gulf.

No I think that Trident is now irrelevant to the UK....nuclear armed cruise missiles still have a purpose. Either air, land or ship launched. But Trident? No.

Si vis pacem, para bellum! If you want peace, prepare for war said Vegetius.

Si vis pacem, para bellum! If you want peace, prepare for war said Vegetius.
 
I've thought a lot about this, on and off, over the past decades. One has to question what purpose, actually, does Trident in its present form now serve? To protect against a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union that ceased to exist? Or from Russia? And in which case in what circumstance would a nuclear attack on Britain by Russia go without a response from the USA by nuclear retaliation?

So does it now exist to warn a "rogue" state that a nuclear device that originates from there, and is exploded in London will result in a nuclear attack on them? OK. Except this could be done by cruise missile more easily than by ballistic missile...simply because if the ballistic missile passes anywhere near Russia what do you think they will interpret it as? Yes..a possible nuclear attack on them.

Look at a map of the world. These things don't fly in a straight ballistic curve line per se but go over the polar route so any nuclear ballistic missile fired by a British Trident against what North Korea? Iran? Draw a line on the map. See who it passes over from where it would be launched from. Russia and if Korea is involved possibly China as well. It isn't going to happen!

Does anyone really think either are going to sit back and just track a nuclear ballistic missile heading over their territory? They most likely go on a full nuclear alert and the USA on seeing that would also do so. So Britain has now pushed the world onto the cliff edge of a nuclear war.

So a cruise missile, nuclear armed, is easier to launch (in terms of reaction from Russia and China), and easier to programme to target in that it can safely be routed to avoid them other nuclear armed countries. Indeed it would be liley fired from a Royal Navy vessel...ship or submarine...laying somewhere off the coast of Korea or the Persian Gulf.

No I think that Trident is now irrelevant to the UK....nuclear armed cruise missiles still have a purpose. Either air, land or ship launched. But Trident? No.

Hi Very interesting points you make. With the world going the way it is, I think we need as much defence that we can muster. The cuts all across our forces is going to bite us on our bum before we know it.
Jim
 
We can't use trident without Obamas permission(I believe) and I personally don't trust him.
 
Si vis pacem, para bellum! If you want peace, prepare for war said Vegetius.

Si vis pacem, para bellum! If you want peace, prepare for war said Vegetius.

Of you could always stop selling military weapons to others so they do not have the capability to attack you. But then that would lose a lot of jobs then.
 
We've had a nuclear deterrent since very shortly after nuclear weapons were invented. They haven't been used. Which means one of two things: Either they have been effective and done the job perfectly, or they weren't needed in the first place. I know it's an ongoing cost, but better safe than sorry.

And another thing, let's get some planes to put on these aircraft carriers!
 
I once asked the Padre why he carried a sidearm, he said "better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it".

he was also carrying a grenade.

trident serves a purpose.
 
Hi Just listening to the Scottish News. Jeremy Corbyn is at it again. He wants to team up with the SNP to get rid of trident.
This is unbelievable part of my union dues go to the labour Party. I am paying into this mob to make myself redundant you can't make it up. Unite better do something about this idiot.
Rant Over.
Jim

I have never fully understood the political left wing opposition to a UK nuclear deterrent. In the case of the SNP, the belief that Faslane makes Glasgow/Clydebank a nuclear target for whoever are the current baddies is naïve in the extreme. Any major city in the UK, Europe or the US is a nuclear target simply because it is a potential enemy city, a population, commercial and communications centre. There are no nuclear submarines based in Birmingham, but I suggest it is high on the target list for a nuke from a few potential enemies. Think about the devastation brought about by air raids in WW2: just about any city you have ever heard of and a few you never had heard of were attacked, sometimes on a massive scale for relatively low level strategic reasons. The last major terrorist attack in the UK was directed against Glasgow Airport: was that because of the Trident subs?

Don't you have an opt out on paying the political levy?
 
I have never fully understood the political left wing opposition to a UK nuclear deterrent. In the case of the SNP, the belief that Faslane makes Glasgow/Clydebank a nuclear target for whoever are the current baddies is naïve in the extreme. Any major city in the UK, Europe or the US is a nuclear target simply because it is a potential enemy city, a population, commercial and communications centre.

And here in the Midlands the Trent Valley power station complexes.
 
During the cold war it is mooted that there were at least 20 rather large warheads targeted at Teesside (ICI) and the surrounding area... Whilst I'm sure that is no longer the case, I am sure that it would still be seen as a strategic target in such circumstances.. Industrial, technological and communication infrastructure are the obvious targets, not just military bases...

The fact that 3 out of 4 of our subs would be out at sea means actually, Faslane wouldn't be an immediately beneficial target to strike!

It worries me deeply that there are so many who think the unthinkable can no longer happen and that we are beyond global war and therefore the threat of nuclear conflict..... I don't think that could be farther from the truth! We are in more dangerous times now than we have been since the height of the cold war, perhaps ever... Ignorance, naivety and complacency.... a very scary mix!
 
Hi Just listening to the Scottish News. Jeremy Corbyn is at it again. He wants to team up with the SNP to get rid of trident.
This is unbelievable part of my union dues go to the labour Party. I am paying into this mob to make myself redundant you can't make it up. Unite better do something about this idiot.
Rant Over.
Jim


Simple, don't pay in. If it's part of the job then kick up a stink about them subsidising a political party, get on to the papers. Or you could just sit back, do nothing, and get shafted of course ! :lol:
 
Trident is un-locatable and therefore enough to make any aggressor think carefully. There are more than enough warheads flying around to ensure the MAD strategy so it is unlikely that GTNW would happen. I dont trust Putin (who does) and I would worry about the use of nuclear arms buy a Muslim state, who's world view apparently differs significantly from the European view, which is why perhaps so many are relocating.
Labour policy was, is and ever will be, about the Emperors new clothes.
I am not too fond of the policy of any opposition being dictated by trade unions either but its a small point.
 
Hi. I'm back at work Thursday after three months off. One of the first things I'll be doing is phoning unite to stop my part of union dues going to the labour Party.
Jim
 
.....It worries me deeply that there are so many who think the unthinkable can no longer happen and that we are beyond global war and therefore the threat of nuclear conflict..... I don't think that could be farther from the truth! We are in more dangerous times now than we have been since the height of the cold war, perhaps ever... Ignorance, naivety and complacency.... a very scary mix!

Yes indeed. Nuclear weapons cannot be just wished away, they exist and the technology is now well known and accessible. The nuclear retaliation capability of the UK, France and Israel may just be enough to make the rational thinkers in Iraq, Pakistan, and the stateless actors like Al Qaeda and ISIL think twice and restrain their belligerent nutters from detonating a nuclear device in the West, which is probably the biggest threat to world stability. Thousands of shipping containers are moving daily around the world, suicide bombers are readily available and would be more than willing to live for a week in a container with a nuclear device to be detonated in the enemy heartland. The big players all know the consequences and as in the Cuba confrontation will almost certainly back down in the face of the nuclear big sticks wielded by the other side, but the emerging lot are another factor altogether. Like the school yard bully, only the knowledge that massive retribution would be heading their way is likely to make them pause for thought. There are people out there who are irrational, who hate and want to destroy our civilisation, who are not amenable to the established processes of diplomacy and the turn the other check nonsense. We are indeed living in very dangerous times, bringing a knife to a gun fight is no solution.
 
Back
Top