Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Trident

  1. #1

    Trident

    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 by rover; 25-09-2015 at 21:41.

  2. #2
    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'

  3. #3
    SD Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Midlands M1/M69 Junction 21
    Posts
    5,381
    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 by enfieldspares; 25-09-2015 at 23:55.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by enfieldspares View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by enfieldspares View Post
    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

  6. #6
    We can't use trident without Obamas permission(I believe) and I personally don't trust him.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkfoot1 View Post
    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.
    I can speak in-depth and with great knowledge about most subjects until some bugger who actually knows what he is speaking about opens his gob .

  8. #8
    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!

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    A very sensible padre.

    Quote Originally Posted by Betterrifles View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Trident suppressors
    By Paul 600 in forum Equipment & Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 18-03-2014, 14:03
  2. For Sale Trident suppressor for sale - as new 15 x 1 thread
    By sidesy in forum Firearms
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-03-2014, 22:41
  3. Trident Moderators?
    By flytie in forum Equipment & Accessories
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 14-01-2013, 13:34
  4. Trident Mods
    By RWC2010 in forum Equipment & Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-04-2012, 15:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •