UK question about Trident replacement.

[Darat]

Just a quick poll, should we replace Trident or not?

For details see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5104918.stm

My view is a very strong yes.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh drat. Read this on the home page and thought you were talking about http://www.tridentgum.com/trident.html

[andyandy]

i vote no....
:D

[Seismosaurus]

Definite yes. And not with some low rent cruise missile launcher, either. A new generation SLBM launcher.

[ceo_esq]

Oh drat. Read this on the home page and thought you were talking about http://www.tridentgum.com/trident.html

I expect we'd want to consult those notorious four dentists prior to replacing it, then.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I expect we'd want to consult those notorious four dentists prior to replacing it, then.

Well, I thought it was an odd suggestion to replace chewing gum with nuclear arms, but what do I know? *shrug*

[geni]

The weapon itself is fine (I assume we still use the Mk 28 warhead). We will need a new launch system. There is no other responcible course of action for the goverment to take.

[Luke T.]

There are a couple terms in the article I would appreciate someone explaining to me just for my own general edification.

"Labour backbencher" and "shadow defence secretary".

Thanks.

[geni]

There are a couple terms in the article I would appreciate someone explaining to me just for my own general edification.

"Labour backbencher" and "shadow defence secretary".

Thanks.

Labour backbencher= an MP who is a member of Labour but not a minister of any type. Run of mill MP.

Shadow defence secretary= memeber of her majesty's loyal opposition who speaks on defence matters.

[Dcdrac]

The last truley independent nuclear force the UK had were the V-Bombers, Valiant, Victor, and Vulcan.

Since Polaris the UK has been a de facto client state.

[Dcdrac]

And we could use th emoney on something far more useful, getting this country ready for the real threat it faces, the rising economic superpowers in the east, nukes wont do anyhitng to help that.

And Polaris didn't stop Galterei in 1982.

[Seismosaurus]

And we could use th emoney on something far more useful, getting this country ready for the real threat it faces, the rising economic superpowers in the east, nukes wont do anyhitng to help that.

And Polaris didn't stop Galterei in 1982.

They could have, though. If we'd nuked a small Argentinan city, then said we would do one more each day until they surrendered, that would have ended the war pretty handily I think.

[Kiwiwriter]

I'm for a follow-on to Trident.

It's one of the few things that keeps Britain a major power. No, Polaris did not deter Galtieri. But it could deter Iran. And it has helped to deter the Soviet Union and Libya.

[geni]

The last truley independent nuclear force the UK had were the V-Bombers, Valiant, Victor, and Vulcan.

Since Polaris the UK has been a de facto client state.

Not quite true we hung onto WE.177 untill 1998 and could build ICBMS pretty fast if we really had to.

[Darat]

The last truley independent nuclear force the UK had were the V-Bombers, Valiant, Victor, and Vulcan.

Since Polaris the UK has been a de facto client state.

This is something I do wonder about - the delivery mechanisms are our own, why not go all out and develop our own warheads?

(After all we know there is a ready market for such weapons so it's not as if we wouldn't be producing with commercial potential... ;) )

[mummymonkey]

We could just buy them from Iran.

[andyandy]

We could just buy them from Iran.

lol :D

[Cylinder]

I voted yes. I just wonder how the reduction of CEP with GPS technology will factor in to the MIRV to payload ratio. It seems that having a single warhead option would be a good one for any given platform, though I do not pretend to know the average ballistic missile submarine load-out.

[geni]

This is something I do wonder about - the delivery mechanisms are our own, why not go all out and develop our own warheads?

(After all we know there is a ready market for such weapons so it's not as if we wouldn't be producing with commercial potential... ;) )

The uk did with the Green Granite devices. Then we built Red Snow. Not sure what we fit the Tridents with but it is build by the UK.

[geni]

I voted yes. I just wonder how the reduction of CEP with GPS technology will factor in to the MIRV to payload ratio. It seems that having a single warhead option would be a good one for any given platform, though I do not pretend to know the average ballistic missile submarine load-out.

Current goverment policy is to have 48 per sub or fewer. Probably a couple of the missiles are fitted with only a single warhead. Since the UK stockpile is at most only a little over 200 the 48 figure is probably kept to.

[shemp]

Well, I thought it was an odd suggestion to replace chewing gum with nuclear arms, but what do I know? *shrug*

But you should see how bright they make your teeth!

[Mojo]

I'm for a follow-on to Trident.

It's one of the few things that keeps Britain a major power. No, Polaris did not deter Galtieri. But it could deter Iran. Or the USA. ;)

[Dcdrac]

It's one of the few things that keeps Britain a major power. No, Polaris did not deter Galtieri. But it could deter Iran.

i has not so far they seem to be very busy with their centrifuges, it has not stopped them sponsorering terrorism either.

[Dcdrac]

Britain a great power now that really is debateable.......great in what sense exactly?

[Dr Adequate]

Britain a great power now that really is debateable.......great in what sense exactly?We can spell "aluminium" properly.

[The Don]

I'd rather we spent the money on good dentistry.

[Darat]

Britain a great power now that really is debateable.......great in what sense exactly?

Still one of the top ten economies (just about).

[Darat]

Britain a great power now that really is debateable.......great in what sense exactly?

Thinking about it unlike the USA and most other countries there can be no doubt Britain is great.

[andyandy]

only a truly great nation would prefix its own name with an adjective announcing to the world its own importance.....:D

[Seismosaurus]

Britain a great power now that really is debateable.......great in what sense exactly?

"Great" is a rather loaded word, "major" rather less so.

I'm no expert, so the following is all strictly my possibly biased opinion...

Militarily, the UK is nowhere near the top in terms of numbers, but is reasonably well up there in terms of quality. And it is one of a very small handful of nations with the ability to project military force at a distance. Not a very great deal of conventional force, to be sure, but for instance the UK armed forces could bomb Australia, whereas the Australian armed forces could not realistically bomb Britain. Ditto troops; the British could land a couple of thousand troops on more or less any coastline in the world. They wouldn't be able to conquer China say, but the Chinese would not be able to land a single platoon in England for all their numbers.

There are perhaps three or four other countries in the world with that sort of capability.

And of course with Trident, the UK is capable of destroying, or at least very badly damaging, pretty much any other nation on Earth. Which does indeed make us a militarily great power, again ranking along with perhaps three or four others.

If you are talking about economic or political weight, it's hard to judge. I'd say not especially high; we tend to have a small voice in a lot of places, whereas others have a big voice in their own region (the likes of Brazil say) but not a lot beyond that.

[andyandy]

If you are talking about economic or political weight, it's hard to judge. I'd say not especially high; we tend to have a small voice in a lot of places, whereas others have a big voice in their own region (the likes of Brazil say) but not a lot beyond that.

Well, the UK is the 5th largest economy in the world in terms of market exchange rates, and the 6th largest in terms of PPP ....and London is one of the largest financial centres in the world...

so economically speaking it's a pretty big economic power.....

the queen still is the head of the commonwealth of nations - which comprises of 53 countries, 16 of which she's also the head of state for.....

and it's one of only 5 permanent UN security council members

so politically too Britain is a pretty big power....


rule britania :D

[Seismosaurus]

so politically too Britain is a pretty big power....

When you are talking about political or economic strength, it's easy to minimise others because there's such a gulf between the USA and everybody else.

[Almo]

We can spell "aluminium" properly.

You keep mentioning that. But you don't know how to pronounce "aluminum."

[andyandy]

When you are talking about political or economic strength, it's easy to minimise others because there's such a gulf between the USA and everybody else.

sure....it's all relative....the UK is a bigger global political power than most other countries in the world, but it's certainly got signifiantly less clout that the US....