Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
UK must keep Trident nuclear deterrent - David Cameron 
Author Message
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22023184

Quote:
The UK would be "foolish" to abandon Trident in the face of the potential threat of nuclear attack from North Korea and Iran, David Cameron has said.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, he said the country still needed the "ultimate weapon of defence".

Wow North Korea are barely capable of reaching the US let alone us. Iran does not even have the bomb yet.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:56 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:10 pm
Posts: 1057
Reply with quote
Another "dodgy dossier" moment?

_________________
Image


Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:50 am
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am
Posts: 6954
Location: Peebo
Reply with quote
The thing I think Cameron is missing here is that the old 'death from above' missile based route of delivery is unlikely to be what we have to worry about.
If you have nuclear capabilities then loading it onto a missile that can be tracked back to the point of launch is foolish if facing off against an opponent with a bigger box of toys. The smart money says you expend the effort into smuggling it into the target location by other means and have it in place long before things start kicking off. A pre-placed nuke going off in an urban centre with no warning is going to be virtually impossible to trace and by definition leave very little viable evidence of who did it afterwards. That's the whole reason nuclear armed terrorists are a much bigger worry than a traditional opponent.

The US could presumably turn the whole of North Korea into blackened radioactive glass before they even knew they were under attack. The collateral damage both physical and political would be horrendous of course and the chances of it happening are virtually nil. If NK does try something then all bets are off.

_________________
When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum.
-Billy Connolly (to a heckler)


Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:53 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am
Posts: 6954
Location: Peebo
Reply with quote
JohnSheridan wrote:
Another "dodgy dossier" moment?


I'm not sure how likely that is this time. Unlike Iraq NK definitely does have a nuclear capability not to mention the Chinese sitting behind them (for now anyway) and I also doubt that the UN security council will be as willing to accept intelligence produced by the US in the same manner as before.

_________________
When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum.
-Billy Connolly (to a heckler)


Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:56 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
davrosG5 wrote:
JohnSheridan wrote:
Another "dodgy dossier" moment?


I'm not sure how likely that is this time. Unlike Iraq NK definitely does have a nuclear capability not to mention the Chinese sitting behind them (for now anyway) and I also doubt that the UN security council will be as willing to accept intelligence produced by the US in the same manner as before.

Yes the US has blown all their intelligence credibility over Iraq to be trusted again, possibly for decades. The fact is that we do not need trident or any ballistic missile system. This is a white elephant as we can't really use them. Hunter killer subs with the option to put nuclear armed cruise missiles in the air are a much more viable and flexible weapon. The cost savings could be huge and would eliminate the needs for massive defence cuts elsewhere.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:13 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:23 pm
Posts: 710
Reply with quote
Big steel tubes stuffed with cash and dropped in the ocean?

_________________
No Apples were used in the making of this post.


Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:17 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
Quote:
Yes the US has blown all their intelligence credibility over Iraq to be trusted again, possibly for decades. The fact is that we do not need trident or any ballistic missile system. This is a white elephant as we can't really use them. Hunter killer subs with the option to put nuclear armed cruise missiles in the air are a much more viable and flexible weapon. The cost savings could be huge and would eliminate the needs for massive defence cuts elsewhere.
Indeed. We could easily add nuke tipped cruise missiles to the Astute class. It would take longer for them to attack a country that nuked us first (compared to ICBM's), but it would still happen. The cost saving would be massive add the design is already in service, plus we would get more attack subs.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:56 pm
Profile WWW
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
Quote:
Yes the US has blown all their intelligence credibility over Iraq to be trusted again, possibly for decades. The fact is that we do not need trident or any ballistic missile system. This is a white elephant as we can't really use them. Hunter killer subs with the option to put nuclear armed cruise missiles in the air are a much more viable and flexible weapon. The cost savings could be huge and would eliminate the needs for massive defence cuts elsewhere.
Indeed. We could easily add nuke tipped cruise missiles to the Astute class. It would take longer for them to attack a country that nuked us first (compared to ICBM's), but it would still happen. The cost saving would be massive add the design is already in service, plus we would get more attack subs.

Well considering that asymmetric warfare means that technological advantages could be completely nullified by different tactics means we need to think differently. There was a war games in early 2000's were a US marine general wiped out a US battle group in war games with motorbikes as messengers to defeat the intelligence gathering capabilities of the US navy and launch one single overwhelming attack with simple rockets and aircraft completely overwhelming the US carrier group. That was unexpected so they redid the war game without the tricks to get the test they wanted. So we also need to think differently.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:44 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.