Work starts on new nuclear subs

Originally Posted by Mr K

Best to spend over £200 billion on weapons we'd never use, more than double the annual cost of the NHS. Britain must have the best kit after all, how else are we going to showcase our shiny weapons to dodgy foreign regimes, who might just use them against us....

This is a common misconception - Trident missiles *are* in use, every day of the year. Their primary purpose is to exist and to provide a credible threat of retaliation to a nuclear first strike. By being deployed aboard Vanguard subs and patrolled around the North Atlantic Ocean, they are being used right now.

Their fall-back purpose is to actually be fired at Moscow or wherever in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK.

"Best kit" meanwhile, is a term better ascribed to conventional arms that can be used in conflicts where the UK has legitimate concerns at levels below that of existential threat. Overwhelming military superiority has a deterrent effect of its own, and also has benefits on the battlefield if deployment is necessary. That was a lesson hard won by the US in Vietnam.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

This is a common misconception - Trident missiles *are* in use, every day of the year. Their primary purpose is to exist and to provide a credible threat of retaliation to a nuclear first strike. By being deployed aboard Vanguard subs and patrolled around the North Atlantic Ocean, they are being used right now.

Their fall-back purpose is to actually be fired at Moscow or wherever in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK.

"Best kit" meanwhile, is a term better ascribed to conventional arms that can be used in conflicts where the UK has legitimate concerns at levels below that of existential threat. Overwhelming military superiority has a deterrent effect of its own, and also has benefits on the battlefield if deployment is necessary. That was a lesson hard won by the US in Vietnam.

We'd never use them and they know we wouldn't.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

This is a common misconception - Trident missiles *are* in use, every day of the year. Their primary purpose is to exist and to provide a credible threat of retaliation to a nuclear first strike. By being deployed aboard Vanguard subs and patrolled around the North Atlantic Ocean, they are being used right now.

Their fall-back purpose is to actually be fired at Moscow or wherever in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK.

"Best kit" meanwhile, is a term better ascribed to conventional arms that can be used in conflicts where the UK has legitimate concerns at levels below that of existential threat. Overwhelming military superiority has a deterrent effect of its own, and also has benefits on the battlefield if deployment is necessary. That was a lesson hard won by the US in Vietnam.

I agree with you in terms of a credible nuclear deterrent but "Overwhelming military superiority" on the battle field?

We no longer have "The boots to put on the ground" due to sucessive cut to our armed forces which in peacetime (for the UK) are stretched to the limit acting as pseudo - mercenaries.

I was thinking in terms of aspiration rather than in practice when it comes to conventional arms, it has to be said.

---------- Post added at 09:26 ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

We'd never use them and they know we wouldn't.

Thank you, Mr Bloefeld. Don't suppose you'd care to name your moles in Whitehall and the Kremlin?

[Osem]

... and the name of his crystal ball supplier.

The only certainty is that if we don't have them we definitely can't use them, no matter what. Definitely no deterrent. Now that's a fact for you...

Better to have them and not need to use them then need to use them and not have them our own independent nuclear capability keeps the UK in the bigger game. In an ideal world we wouldn't have them or any offensive capability our military would be there for airshows and tourist stuff but given our world is not ideal it's best to have all the options we can. An increase in ground forces would be a good next step as we are too stretched atm.

[Mr K]

Most other European countries don't see the need
Not in favour of disarmament while Russia et al have nukes, but the US has more than enough. The cost alone is obscene, and we overestimate our own importance.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Most other European countries don't see the need
Not in favour of disarmament while Russia et al have nukes, but the US has more than enough. The cost alone is obscene, and we overestimate our own importance.

Most other European countries are content to shelter behind Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which is only worth the paper it's written on because it is backed up by nuclear arms, and crucially arms held by three different governments with overlapping but not identical military and foreign policy outlooks. That makes any calculation such as you appeared to make earlier (we wouldn't use them and they know we wouldn't) impossible for any opponent to make. Three capitals, three heads of government, three different fingers on three different triggers and three different sets of standing orders.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

Most other European countries are content to shelter behind Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which is only worth the paper it's written on because it is backed up by nuclear arms, and crucially arms held by three different governments with overlapping but not identical military and foreign policy outlooks. That makes any calculation such as you appeared to make earlier (we wouldn't use them and they know we wouldn't) impossible for any opponent to make. Three capitals, three heads of government, three different fingers on three different triggers and three different sets of standing orders.

AH! I see what you mean Chris. - A minefield! Better than nothing though.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

Most other European countries are content to shelter behind Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which is only worth the paper it's written on because it is backed up by nuclear arms, and crucially arms held by three different governments with overlapping but not identical military and foreign policy outlooks. That makes any calculation such as you appeared to make earlier (we wouldn't use them and they know we wouldn't) impossible for any opponent to make. Three capitals, three heads of government, three different fingers on three different triggers and three different sets of standing orders.

Yes they certainly don't mind being protected by those within Nato who do have the nukes.

[Pierre]

On this issue, agree with Trump.

If you want to be protected by NATO, pay for it. At least pay you bit, your 2%