To Renew Trident?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

As some will know the British Nuclear Submarine system, Trident, is due for upgrade shortly at a cost in the region of £20bn.

Debate is currently ongoing in the House of Commons as to whether Trident should be renewed with some suggesting it should:

Spoiler Des Brown, Defence Minister :

"I do not believe it makes sense to say that nuclear weapons are inherently evil. In certain circumstances, they can play a positive role - as they have in the past. But clearly they have a power to do great harm, are we prepared to tolerate a world in which countries which care about morality lay down their nuclear weapons, leaving others to threaten the rest of the world or hold it to ransom?"

Some thinking it shouldn’t:

Spoiler :

Labour MP Chris Ruane resigned as a ministerial aide and announced he would vote against the Government over Trident, following Labour MP Stephen Pound who resigned as an unpaid ministerial aide earlier today.
It comes after Jim Devine quit his post as Parliamentary aide at the Department of Health, following Deputy Leader of the House Nigel Griffiths who quit on Monday so he could vote against the Government on the issue.

And some changing their mind a bit:

Spoiler :

The House of Commons has recently voted on the issue and agreed that Trident should be renewed. Given the CFC demographics I imagine that many will agree, but I don’t think the matter is clear cut.

Firstly, £20bn is a lot of anybody’s money, particularly mine. To me, in a world in which fighting terrorism is taking precedence over international warfare, I think that £20bn could be better spent on upgrading our ability to fight small conflicts in the harsher terrains we are now fighting in. From what I understand our helicopters, Land Rovers and even tanks are having a terrible time coping in the desert terrains of Iraq and Afghanistan. With Iran likely to be next on the list, wouldn’t £20bn on a tactical sub (which is unlikely to be used) a waste?

Secondly, Trident itself isn’t perfect. I know that it is unlikely that relations between the UK and US will dissolve within our lifetime, but Trident is currently maintained at the US Base at King's Bay, Georgia. I think that if we are going to use £20bn on a weapons system it should be completely independent and not reliant on another nation. I’m not saying that the US would restrict our ability to maintain Trident in return for political co-operation, but the relationship is open to abuse.

That’s an opening gambit anyway, what are your thoughts?

 

[nivi]

20bn?

Thats like several years worth of the IDF budget, do what you want though, its your money to spend.


But I would say no, it's a useless device in today's wrold.

 

[Abaddon]

I see no reason to renew it.

 

[Kozmos]

I see no reason not to renew it. You have to maintain your arsenal or you are screwed.

 

[StarWorms]

No. £20bn can be far better spent.

 

[Truronian]

That's £333 each...

Don't renew.

 

[Winner]

You can throw the old nukes at Iran and then renew it...

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I thought this was about chewing gum.

 

[El Justo]

interesting remarks PrinceofLeigh

i agree w/ most of your remarks and it is indeed an awful lot of scratch.

i agree that the 20 billion could theoretically be applied to more urgent needs which would supplement the boots on the ground.

i also agree that the US-UK technological/military relationship, at least from a UK standpoint, could be evened out a little. i mean, if i was from the UK, i'd certainly being thinking along similar lines.

however, i think that SSBNs are not entirely useless. they are imho the most powerful nuclear deterrent on the planet...assuming that is the route (nuclear) that one's military is taking. of course, nuclear deterrence isn't nearly as important today as it was 20, 30, 40 yrs ago. but it is clearly still an issue and will likely be one in the immediate future (ie proliferation). now, this is all debatabl;e. so i am not necessarily a proponent of the program, especially w/ that price tag.

as an amateur naval enthusiast, i would probably ask what is wrong w/ the existing class of SSBNs (vanguard class)? i mean, these boats have all been commissioned w/in the last 15 yrs iirc and they're definitely top-notch in terms of performance etc. so obsolescence isn't necessarily a problem. considering this, i would like to know why the vanguards won't suffice...

 

[ComradeDavo]

Do not renew it. We don't need a descion now anyhow...the reason it is being debatated is because the Blair government is forcing it on us...we coulkd wait anotehr 10 years really before needing to decide.

 

[IglooDame]

Am I correct in thinking that this is the only strategic nuclear weapons capability that the UK has, or are there still bombers and cruise missiles lying around over there?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

as an amateur naval enthusiast, i would probably ask what is wrong w/ the existing class of SSBNs (vanguard class)? i mean, these boats have all been commissioned w/in the last 15 yrs iirc and they're definitely top-notch in terms of performance etc. so obsolescence isn't necessarily a problem. considering this, i would like to know why the vanguards won't suffice...

The decision needed to be made now because of the length of time needed to design and build the replacements. The Government are making plans now for Subs which are going to be needed around 20 years from now.

Oh, and we have to save up for them first

 

[bhsup]

These are more or less the same as our Ohios. I strongly urge you to keep them for the inevitable time when the ChiComs are breathing down the worlds' neck. In the meantime, you can use them to help environmental groups study marine life and whatnot.

 

[ComradeDavo]

In case of nuclear war we'dall be screwed anyways, so we might aswell get rid of the weapons. Anyone nuking us would be nuked by the USA, Isreal and France (and probably India) as well....so pratical reasons and logic dictate we might aswell save the cash and spend it elsehwere.

 

[Leonel]

Yeah I think nowadays a Trident missile system is probably obsolete as we still have ICBMs in the Midwest. Not to mention the advancement of unmanned drones that may someday have the same range as an ICBM but have the capability of literally zerging a target accurately instead of a massive nuclear explosion.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Since when is the UK going to blast a large part of the earth. considering that you are so anti Iran this is increadable hypocracy. This is why I boycott anglo saxon goods and trash their servers at night.

 

[JohnRM]

I don't know. The United Kingdom is not a world power anymore. It is no longer the primary target of any major nuclear power and is not likely to become involved in nuclear war within the foreseeable future. They have the know-how and if tensions rise once again and they feel threatened, they can develop nuclear weapons of their own in the future. If I was the UK, I would opt out of the program and give people a tax break or something. Of course, that will never happen as long as France still has nuclear weapons and proliferation is going ahead relatively unchecked.

 

[Hotpoint]

We would be far better off forming a partnership with France to jointly develop and manufacture an Anglo-French SLBM to replace the current RN Tridents and the French M51 in due course.

That way both production and maintenance could be kept under local control (identical maintenance facilities in both countries) and you still get some benefit from a longer production run.

Hoping that US/UK relations remain cordial to the extent they'll maintain our nuclear missiles until the second half of the twenty-first century seems to me to be crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. I'd rather not have all my eggs in one basket and have the ability to maintain a far more independent deterrent than we have now.

 

[Nylan]

Since when is the UK going to blast a large part of the earth. considering that you are so anti Iran this is increadable hypocracy. This is why I boycott anglo saxon goods and trash their servers at night.

How is this hypocrisy?

 

[JohnRM]

Yeah I think nowadays a Trident missile system is probably obsolete as we still have ICBMs in the Midwest. Not to mention the advancement of unmanned drones that may someday have the same range as an ICBM but have the capability of literally zerging a target accurately instead of a massive nuclear explosion.

It is the ICBM that is nearly obsolete. They are highly vulnerable to surprise first strikes and cannot reach every target in the world in a matter of minutes. The ballistic missile submarine can park more firepower than has ever been released in all wars combined off the coast of any nation in the world and rain down warheads in a matter of minutes. The only region that I know of that is out of reach are some central parts of Siberia and northern Kazakhstan. The ballistic missile submarine is very elusive and hard to take out. It is, by far, the stronger of the nuclear triangle (ICBMs, SSBNs, and Bombers).