That's not really the point though
It's a deterrent! Evil Iraniaqi's would be able to Nuke us wily nily if they had the capability and knowing there would be zero retribution from the UK.

Although I guess it could be argued that a 3rd party would step in with some nuclear pay-back, but that's no guarantee.

I think it is essential as a deterrent but I can't quite understand how big cuts cannot be made?
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:42, 3 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

IF they had the capability

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:47, Reply)

Are we happy to possess nothing
While Russia, France, USA and China definitely have them. And some if not all of N.Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, Iran will soon have the capability?
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:51, Reply)

yes
because if someone is mental enough to use nukes then it won't matter a damn if we have the capability to respond in kind
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:52, Reply)

There are plenty mentalists about
running countries. Generally though while being mentalists there is still a degree of self-preservation. I think trident is enough to deter the craziest of crazies..

Generally with these things it's best to err on the side of caution..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:00, Reply)

there are cheaper options than Trident though
and while we are on the same side as the USA, they've got plenty of nukes to go around.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:06, Reply)

except the USA
aren't exactly the most reliable of allies. I'd rather keep our own nukes thanks than rely on them.

They are a deterrent, and they are also a prestige item.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:19, Reply)

Yup
I mean ultimately the USA don't care about us and would happily sell us down the river for a quick buck..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:20, Reply)

and there are loads of countries without Nukes
and they don't get nuked willy nilly. Most of Europe for example. All African Countries, All South American Countries, Australia and surrounding countries, Mexico, Japan all nuke free. We do not need nukes.
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:50, Reply)

BUT WE MIGHT!!!!!!1!!!

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:52, Reply)

OMG UR RITE!!!!!1!!!

( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:57, Reply)

Ahem.
If you recall, Japan has been nuked a little bit. Understandable oversight, it was a while back after all, but still...
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:56, Reply)

Yup and their response rather than "We must get a deterrent so it doesn't happen again"
was to stick a monument at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a message that it should never happen again to anyone.
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:59, Reply)

Being a bit obtuse there really,
I mean they were utterly decimated by the war, so of course they weren't able to immediately develop a deterrant. Do you not think if they themselves had nukes Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have happened?
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:07, Reply)

Different time altogether
and they have had 70 years to develop/buy one
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:13, Reply)

That's why I felt it's not a good example
Japan are not an aggressive country at all now so you could class them as being under little threat from other countries.

We on the other hand have been stomping around for generations, not least recently in the middle-east where there are some prickly characters.

If our disarmment of nuclear weapons co-incided with our enemies acquiring them there could be room for worry there in an area you don't really want to be pissing about..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:20, Reply)

Of course nobody gets nuked now without that much conflict
but say for example Iraq had nuclear weapons a few years back and we didn't and we openly get involved in a war with them?

Or even if we have no Nukes and China/India/Pakistan/Iran/N.Korea developed Nuclear weapons? I would say they would have somewhat heavier bargaining power than ourselves if push came to shove.

It's not as if wars cannot happen with developed nations(Falklands/Iraq).
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:06, Reply)

Lots of countries without Nukes were in the coalition that invaded Iraq

( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:08, Reply)

I'm meaning if Iraq had nukes
that alone would be a deterrant to not give them any shit!
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:17, Reply)

Watch for the friendly fire though

( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:19, Reply)

Then tax us all to cover making 10 more
But don't actually make them. Leak out misinformation that they're out there on patrols, and prompt the media to bitch and moan about how much they cost.

Then give everyone tax rebates equal to the money you taxed from us. Thus you have the illusion of having a shit-ton of nuke subs, but you save money by not making them AND you give the populace a nice boost of morale with the rebate, which they then use to boost the economy.

Note: This is probably hideously flawed, but certainly said with a healthy chunk of my tongue in my cheek.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:47, Reply)

Well yeah
I am dubious about this gigantic figure
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:48, Reply)

You can't just lie to the world.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

not with that attitude

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

Everyone does
Every day, everywhere.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

^This

( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:51, Reply)

Yeah but a land based ICBM could do that
for 1/10th of the cost.
The only use of trident is to counter a serious superpower attack which can take out all of our land based ICBMs magically knowing thier exact locations and defences.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:49, Reply)

they need the subs
so they can cram them full of gays.

/jest
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:50, Reply)

I reas superpower as tupperware and laughed out loud.

( girlinthehole, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:52, Reply)

The sky is raining snap top lunch boxes!!
Run awaaaaaaaaaaaay!
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:40, Reply)

I confess I'm no expert
but I was under the impression that ICBM's are nowhere near as effective...
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:56, Reply)

They're incredibly effective at hitting borderline third world countries
The russians americans and to a lesser extent the chinese/europeans have some defence against them, but you're talking about a 50%ish chance of shooting them down before they detonate.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 15:58, Reply)

The subs are so we can hide the nukes
otherwise if we don't get teh land based missles in the air by the time the enemy missles land they may be destroyed before we can fire back.

I think that sentance highlights the pointlessness of nukes.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:10, Reply)

Is Trident not just submarine-launched ICBMs?
In which case, all you're gaining is slightly more surprise on a first launch (easier to monitor a land mass than all of the oceans, everywhere) and less chance of them being taken out if someone else shoots first.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:10, Reply)

yep for ten times the cost.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:11, Reply)

Cheapest option would be a suitcase-nukes-and-suicidal-fanatics scheme.
I cannot see any flaws with this idea.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:35, Reply)