Jeremy Corbyn not trusted on national security by 71%

Again, it doesn't work like that. We have 215 warheads so if you put most of them on one boat what would go on the others?

 

There is always one boat on active patrol. One travels out to replace it so the other can return to port. That is two boats at sea. 48 warheads is what is out there ready to use. Not 160.

 

---------- Post added 07-02-2016 at 21:10 ----------

 

 

Faslane would be the first target, i.e. the time allowed would be hours max

I think you would find that the subs would be well away from Faslane well before it came under attack. Unless of course an attack came out of the blue, which would probably never be the case. Conflicts on this scale don't build up overnight, they normally graduate from something really small before the crap hits the fan.

---------- Post added 07-02-2016 at 22:23 ----------

And they can all be sent permanently to bottom of ocean on that one sub.

Never going to happen. Needle in a thousand haystacks springs to mind.

At the risk of repeating myself.

 

During times of heightened alert we could put our 160 operational warheads onto one boat. We could put them onto two boats and sail them out, or do whatever we like with them. The fact remains we have the capability to hit Russia with 160 warheads each 5 times bigger than Hiroshima, which would do irreparable damage to Russia and as such are an effective deterrent.

 

This is what I'm suggesting.

 

Now if Russia decided to attack us out of the blue without any warning whatsoever, our nuclear capabilities to respond to the attack will be a lot more limited. This however, is also the case for all of our military capabilities and not just Trident.

Sorry but that is pure fantasy. You would have to remove most of the missiles from the boats, then remove all the warheads from the missiles, then reconfigure 16 missiles to have all the warheads, then put them back on one boat and send that boat out on permanent patrol with no backup boats.

That is the limitation of Trident. One active boat. 16 missiles and because of our restricted arsenal the logistics only allow for a limited proportion of the warheads to be available.

Russia has 165 cities with populations of over 100,000. Many of them are geographically isolated from each other. We can only hit a fraction of them. We can't bomb Russia back to the dark ages with Trident. It simply just isn't possible.

Sorry but that is pure fantasy. You would have to remove most of the missiles from the boats, then remove all the warheads from the missiles, then reconfigure 16 missiles to have all the warheads, then put them back on one boat and send that boat out on permanent patrol with no backup boats.

 

That is the limitation of Trident. One active boat. 16 missiles and because of our restricted arsenal the logistics only allow for a limited proportion of the warheads to be available.

 

Russia has 165 cities with populations of over 100,000. Many of them are geographically isolated from each other. We can only hit a fraction of them. We can't bomb Russia back to the dark ages with Trident. It simply just isn't possible.

I'm not taking about a permanent patrol, I was talking about a time of heightened alert. Also the boats missiles are loaded and unloaded when they go out and come back from patrol at RNAD Coalport, if you're interested have a read of this detailed history of the UK's submarine service.

The West's missile submarines are so quiet that it's extremely unlikely that they'd ever be detected by Russia or China, let alone sunk.

Still a possibility.

With one infiltrator.

Russians can come here and kill people working for British intelligence.

They could scuttle a sub from within.

People with some military experience probably know better and that is why something of this sort never happened and never will.

Still a possibility.

With one infiltrator.

Russians can come here and kill people working for British intelligence.

They could scuttle a sub from within.

People with some military experience probably know better and that is why something of this sort never happened and never will.

No, like IL you are confusing drama and films with real life.

As someone with extensive military service I can assure you that the secret Russian agent suddenly pressing the big red 'blow us up' button we do not fit our subs with was never an issue.

Stop making fools of yourselves.

Still a possibility.

With one infiltrator.

Russians can come here and kill people working for British intelligence.

They could scuttle a sub from within.

People with some military experience probably know better and that is why something of this sort never happened and never will.

You're an idiot. Watching too many films I think.

No, like IL you are confusing drama and films with real life.

 

As someone with extensive military service I can assure you that the secret Russian agent suddenly pressing the big red 'blow us up' button we do not fit our subs with was never an issue.

 

Stop making fools of yourselves.

The subs run on a variant of Windows XP. Might not be as difficult as you think to cripple one.

The subs run on a variant of Windows XP. Might not be as difficult as you think to cripple one.

Yes dear. Have a bun.

Yes dear. Have a bun.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19061/britains-doomsday-subs-run-windows-xp/

The subs run on a variant of Windows XP. Might not be as difficult as you think to cripple one.

The OS aboard US and UK subs never bore much of any resemblance to the vanilla Windows XP that powered consumer and enterprise desktops 10 years ago. I got that from an ex-RN submariner (the unlikeliest branch of service for him, when you see the size of him )

So NK has a number of low yield nuclear weapons. They have a missile. They are a long way from putting a warhead onto a missile, maybe decades.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12145527/Weve-treating-injuries-the-likes-of-which-we-havent-seen-before-says-Aleppo-doctor-after-Russian-strikes.html

The latest surge in Moscow’s air campaign was causing wounds so extreme that traumatised staff were working 24 hour shifts to cope with the severity and volume of the injuries, Dr Adel said.

 

"We’re not even treating wounds anymore - the bodies are just blown to pieces,” the doctor, director of a rehabilitation clinic near Turkey’s Oncupinar border crossing, said.

 

His staff said that most of the injured were civilians, due to indiscriminate bombing of built up residential areas, including those in which residents were seeking shelter from bombing elsewhere.

Where's Jeremy and Stop The War? Why aren't they campaigning outside the Russian Embassy?

Two months ago Jeremy and friends were campaigning against the UK apparently about to blitz Syrian cities and slaughter civilians. The 'progressive' left and the media were in uproar about the coming war crimes.

In the event, the RAF has done no such thing, just as it was previously doing no such thing in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Russians have been doing precisely what the Stop The War crowd were claiming the UK were going to do ... and the response of the oh so caring, principled 'anti-war' movement is ... silence.

Wow another link to a useless poll that had a sample of only 1,027 people.. :hihi:

 

PTechnical note

Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative sample of 1,027 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain. Interviews were conducted by telephone 23-25 January 2016. Data are weighted to match the profile of the population.

Well you can believe what you want or lie to yourself as you see fit. It doesn't alter the facts.

It is a fact that the majority of folk in the UK support our nuclear capability. It is also a fact that current Labour Party policy is to retain our nuclear capability. Just because the Labour Party now has some idiot from CND in charge doesn't alter that.

However it is amusing that Corbyn is attempting to rig party policy on the matter of our nuclear weapons. I image this is the first of many and the Labour Party will split down the middle and fight the next election as too parties neither of which has a snowball's chance in Hell of gaining a majority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35522768

A Labour MP would consider standing on a "alternative proposal" if his party changed its backing for nuclear weapons.

Stephen Kinnock said he was was "absolutely committed to us having a nuclear deterrent" when he spoke to Carolyn Quinn on Radio 4's Westminster Hour.