With ground based and air launched nuclear weapons why has Britain to spend millions on a Trident replacement?

Question

I'm asking this again. I received many replies explaining the strategic points about which I was already aware being ex air force. From the replies I see the sub would be used to retaliate after the UK was already destroyed. So it it really worth the expense in this day and age when other countries are frowned upon for considering nuclear power for peaceful requirements?

Answer 1

It's another one of those 'punching above our weight' on the international stage things .... same as keeping an army on operations as much as possible...

I used to joke that we didn't have Trident because of the Russkies, it was because of the French (if they have it we need it too!) but these days I've given up - too many people take it seriously!

I believe an independant nuclear capability is useful as a deterrent in an uncertain and unstable world ...

And I think the world has become MORE dangerous since the end of the cold war because it is less predictable ...

Unfortunately as we have found out in the last few months since the debate began, it won't really be completely independant will it ...?

And is it worth the horrendous expense?

Now that's the real question ... and I honestly couldn't say.

I think that we would be better off developing a pan-european deterrent in partnership with our closest neighbors on the continent - same as the Eurofighter...

I have found a couple of interesting essays on this in the New Statesman by Dan Plesch - links below!

Hope this contibutes to the debate!

Philip

Answer 2

If the UK was unfortunate to be involved in a nuclear war its calculated that perhaps 8 or 10 Big nukes would be enough to wreck the entire country with no hope of ever rebuilding!. The likely targets for enemy missiles to be aimed at would be military bases where weapons of the kind you mention are stored.

You should see trident has being kinda like a insurance policy,
Its all about retaliation and survivability!.Any sane man realises that nuclear weapons are there has a deterrent! "The official name for such things is MAD mutually assure destruction!" - "I know its cold war doctrine but its still valid today", Countries who aspire to own nuclear weapons should realise this point". The UK for what its worth would never be first user in some sort of preemptive attack!.

The sneaky subs sailing unseen anywhere in the worlds oceans - armed with trident Mrev missiles are purely defencive Any enemy ought to think twice or thrice before lunching an preemptive attack on the UK. The retaliation would be swift complete and assured!.

Answer 3

It is called the TRIADE of NUCLEAR DEFENSE. By having three different methods to launch nuclear weapons, it is very unlikely the enemy can take out all three at the same time during a first strike. That leaves you with something to hit back with, and that is the primary idea behind the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine. If the enemy knows he can not take out all of your nuclear weapons with a first strike, if he knows he will get hit back, he will be unlikely to launch in the first place. If Britain gets rid of the submarine launched nuclear weapons, then everything they have is land based. Either land based missiles or land based bombers. If the enemy times it properly, he could take out the vast majority of it with a first strike. It might be worth trying. But with the submarines, at least 1/3 of the capability remains.

Answer 4

Britain doesn't have ground based or air launched nuclear weapons. I would have expected as ex-air force you would have realised that, or anyone who could read a paper, or even listen to the news. So with that your whole question becomes pointless. The reason for trident is its Britains sole nuclear detterent.

Ground based nuclear weapons were ruled at on space grounds, for example some of the states silos are bigger than wales! (not that theres any better use for it mind you). Ground based as in mobile truck born missiles, we happen to be surrounded by this pesky water, dunno what we could do, perhaps stick them in a boat or something.

Air launched weapons were ruled out due to us struggling to keep any planes airborne these days! Serriously that was decided against because of safety concerns I believe and the cost implications of designing planes capable of carrying nuclear weapons again, getting a suitable weapons system etc. It wouldn't be able to remain independant as we'ld have to rely on other nations etc. technically once purchased trident and subs are meant to be totally independent etc.

Ship launched were ruled out because of amount of ships that would eb required i.e. one nuclear ship, one anti aircraft destroyer one anti submarine frigate etc. minimum, just to keep them safe.

So thats why we have trident, most countries aren't frowned on for using it peacefully, in fact we encourage it, its frowned upon in nations we worry may stop using them for peaceful reasons. Hypocritical I know considering we have them, but thats another argument, if we could be sure everyone would only use nuclear peacefully then perhaps we wouldn't have them; but perhaps if we didn't have them we could be sure other nations would use it peacfully.

Answer 5

Cos we cant reach China with guided missiles quickly. Were you aware that nobody knows at any one time where our subs are, they are deep water based, underwater for up to three months at a time, and can quick launch when required.
Nuclear power is a deterrant, and when the likes of North Korea, China, Iran and other unstable countries go off we want and will be ready

Answer 6

The simple answer is that contrary to common belief Britain doesnt actually have any air or ground launched nuclear weapons. All we have are the submarines nowadays. We got rid of the V bombers years ago and didnt replace them.

Answer 7

Its not worth the expense. Britain is America's puppet.

The billions that will be spent on these weapons and the removal of the old should be spent on Health, Education and Housing.

Answer 8

because the problem with ground and air weapons is that you need to get within a certain distance of the enemy targets to use them effectively and said enemy tend to get a bit upset about this when they see your delivery systems getting closer and have an inconvenient habit of destroying said delivery systems by shooting down the airborne kind or dropping artillery barrages on the land kind, ballistic missiles are really the only way that we can get warheads within effective range, and if anyone doubts their effectiveness as a deterrent against nuclear war, please tell me when we had a nuclear exchange between 1949 when the Soviet Union detonated their first nuke to now?

Answer 9

The only reason the government proposes to spend a ridiculous amount of our tax money on nukes is for the sake of the nations ego and willy waving amongst other countries.

Answer 10

id feel safer with a nuk in my back garden.. lets not go CND,,, again.. we have one of the smallest armed forces in the world now.. so we need a detterent