Should Britain Scrap Its Nuclear Weapons?
Discussion
It is expected that Vanguards Replacement (SSBN) will cost somewhere in the region of £15-20 billion in design and manufacture costs - this excludes the cost of the missile's upkeep and the infrastructure needed to support the launch platform. This is an awful lot of money, especially given we're facing a recession, and can are seeing spiralling costs fighting "the war on terror".
So what do you think?
Here are a few options to spark the debate?
So what do you think?
Here are a few options to spark the debate?
- Don't replace Trident - leaving France as the only EU member with nuclear weapons. i.e. we have no nukes.
- Make Trident a land-based missile
- Fit Trident to ships.
- Use tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and fire them from ships or SSNs.
- Revert to the old V Bomber Concept.
MiniMan64 said:
Gun said:
No, we shouldn't be in the position where we'd need other countries to defend us should the worst happen IMO.
How do nuclear weapons defend us? rhinochopig said:
- Make Trident a land-based missile
- Fit Trident to ships.
- Use tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and fire them from ships or SSNs.
- Revert to the old V Bomber Concept.
I say we should build a replacement. God knows what the world political situation is going to be like in the coming decades.
k with someone with nukes?rhinochopig said:
- Make Trident a land-based missile
The whole reason you have nuke subs is so they cant be destroyed or stoped, or even found, and could be anywhere.
With land based there either going to need huuuge boosters, be scattered all voer the country, or be plane based and be very very slow to deploy. Not even worth the thought thesedays.
Bombers are ineffective as a deterrent/nuclear weapons delivery platform. Dependance upon airfields + detectability + limited range + speed = weakness.
Ship launched = detectable = weakness.
Land-based = detectable = weakness.
ICBMs > "cruise" missiles: greater range, speed, more destructive.
Technically the UK doesn't have its own nuclear weapons. We just get them on HP from the US...
Ship launched = detectable = weakness.
Land-based = detectable = weakness.
ICBMs > "cruise" missiles: greater range, speed, more destructive.
Technically the UK doesn't have its own nuclear weapons. We just get them on HP from the US...
Edited by Jimbo. on Sunday 11th January 21:06
rhinochopig said:
It is expected that Vanguards Replacement (SSBN) will cost somewhere in the region of £15-20 billion in design and manufacture costs - this excludes the cost of the missile's upkeep and the infrastructure needed to support the launch platform. This is an awful lot of money, especially given we're facing a recession, and can are seeing spiralling costs fighting "the war on terror".
So what do you think?
Here are a few options to spark the debate?
1) Don't replace Trident - leaving France as the only EU member with nuclear weapons. i.e. we have no nukes.
2) Make Trident a land-based missile
3) Fit Trident to ships.
4) Use tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and fire them from ships or SSNs.
5) Revert to the old V Bomber Concept.
Discuss.
1) Hell no. So what do you think?
Here are a few options to spark the debate?
1) Don't replace Trident - leaving France as the only EU member with nuclear weapons. i.e. we have no nukes.
2) Make Trident a land-based missile
3) Fit Trident to ships.
4) Use tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and fire them from ships or SSNs.
5) Revert to the old V Bomber Concept.
Discuss.
2) Too vulnerable, and Trident is lacking sufficient range to be land mounted when it has global applications, not just Moscow.
3) Why? too vulnerable and it would ahve to be new ships anyway. The Italians allegedly considered this in the 70's with Polaris, but quickly came to their sences.
4) You have to get pretty close to use them, it changes the role of our current submarines, and none of the surface fleet have Tomahawk capability. It also limits the capability of the UK, especially in a more conventional nuclear engagement.
5) Arguably more expensive than replaceing Trident/V boats. For a start there are no suitable aircraft in production at the moment. Would also need a dedicated tanker force and ass with the other options is less survivable.
Trident on nuclear submarines is the best way of keeping the UK's nuclear deterrent safe and available. The current setup also provides the best range of options for the use of such weapons. The mssiles have mixed load; some carry a full set of 'big' bombs, while others provide a smaller, single stike capability in mor elimited engagements. It also keeps the UK's ability to (somewhat - after the US had to hired to sort out Astute) manufacture nuclear submarines. Without the order for new boats, the yards would shut up shop and we loose yet another manufactuaing capability, increasing our dependance on either the US or France.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff