Jump to content


Trident replacement

Recommended Posts

They may well be pretty clapped out and given that nuclear submarines need to be exceptionally quiet (if they want to stand a chance against the hunter-killers) it may well be that the existing boats need to be replaced. The Vanguard class boats are already 16 years old. Whether they're obsolescent or not is a question for people who 'know about such things' (and I'm not on that list) but I doubt they will be any better in 10 years time or so.

 

Why don't you tell us how good they will be in the 2020's Phanerothyme?

 

The PWR2 reactors used on the Vanguard class subs are not designed to be refulled - the core is loaded with HEU and then sealed for life. A service extension would essnetially mean the ull being opened with welding kit and then a new reactor core dropping in and welding up the hull again - an immense amount of work. I'm not able to say how long the lifetime of the core actually is, but most of the nuclear boats in the UK fleet tended to be built for about 20 to 25 years life - sonar and other systems jumping so far ahead in that time that it makes no sense to have a reactor that can far outlast the sonar kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why shouldn't they be there? It's their home.

 

And why does being there mean that they shouldn't wish to be a colony of the UK?

 

It wasnt thiers in the first place. If someone from another country wanted to live here they would need permission from us the UK. The same way if they want to live on Argentinian soil they should get permission from the Argentinians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's was it then? It's never been argentinian.

 

It has been British for >150 years, was Spanish for a few years, was British before that, and I think previous to that was unpopulated.

 

Argentinia hasn't existed as a country for as long as the Falklands has been a British colony. So before they demand that the British leave, maybe they should all head back to Spain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who's was it then? It's never been argentinian.

 

It has been British for >150 years, was Spanish for a few years, was British before that, and I think previous to that was unpopulated.

 

Argentinia hasn't existed as a country for as long as the Falklands has been a British colony. So before they demand that the British leave, maybe they should all head back to Spain...

 

Umm, argentina was independant from Spain in 1810, we settled the Falklands in 1833, then the Argentians had it for a few months, then we booted them back out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s the point of using subs; if you were the captain of a sub and the UK had been turned to rubble would you launch a counter attack and turn the enemy to rubble.

 

What I wanted would, if I was a loyal navy officer, not be relevant. In such an event, and with no orders coming out of the UK, I would open the sealed letter written by David Cameron and carry out those orders to the best of my ability. It may fall upon me to act on my own best judgement, in which case I don't think incinerating another 70 million people is really going to help matters. But it's unlikely to get that far, as I will either have retaliated, or turned my sub over to US, or failing that, Australian command.

 

They may well be pretty clapped out and given that nuclear submarines need to be exceptionally quiet (if they want to stand a chance against the hunter-killers) it may well be that the existing boats need to be replaced.

I really have no idea, but if Trident still works, but the subs don't then replacing the subs (if you're going to keep trident) seems reasonable.

 

Simple answer - No. You can't shield all (or even a significant proportion) of your ICBM's against an attack. If you want to be able to retain a massive retaliatory force (which is one hell of a deterrent! - I smack you and you can still smack me back so hard I die? - Sounds like a pretty good argument for me not smacking you in the first place.

That's an answer to someone elses' question. I was alluding to the point that the strategic landscape has changed enormously since the late 60s, but our nuclear deterrent hasn't functionally altered at all.

 

Were you actually thinking when you wrote that? - Believe it or not, the submarines will not be in the Serpentine.

 

Yes, they will indeed [in the event that they are ever used] be a weapon of 'mass retaliation'. That's one of the ways in which 'deterrents' work.

Saying they work is like saying elephant repellent works due to the absence of elephants. And if you have to use them in retaliation, they have irrevocably and indisputable failed completely in their role as a deterrent.

If you've got a big stick and I've got a big stick, but you know that in the event that you whack me hard with your stick I won't belt you back, what's the purpose of me having a stick?

 

I spent a significant chunk of my life 'deterring' people. I - and my colleagues - were very well known to the people working on the other team. (Well, what would you expect?) I also spent a reasonable amount of time talking to psychiatrists. (Somebody obviously thought it would be a pretty good idea to be sure that the people with the big sticks were prepared to whack somebody else around the ear with one.)

 

The usual questions were:

 

1. "If they come over and drop a bomb on us, are you really going to want to go and drop one on them? - bearing in mind you may not come back."

 

given that the answer was "Yes" (and if it wasn't. you'd have another job within a couple of hours) then

 

2. "Why?"

 

The answer to that (my answer anyway) was: "If they want to come over and nuke my friends then I'm more than prepared to go back and spoil their whole day."

 

Whether my answer (and I suspect my colleagues had very similar answers) was logical or not was irrelevant. The people in PVO Strany (and their bosses) believed that we would do it.

And vice versa.

 

Question is, would your prime minister have authorised it? Probably not. The only senior minister whose had the briefing and spoken on the record, and who served during the height of the cold war, gave his answer much as I did mine at the top of this post. What would be the benefit to anyone, anyone at all, in incinerating another 70-100 million people? The whole day is spoiled, no need to spoil it any further.

 

I've no idea. I retired some years ago.

 

I didn't bother to tell you or anybody else on this forum (or elsewhere) about 'the threat' before I retired ... What makes you think that my successors would do anything different?

The threat was pretty plain to see I think, no need for you to spill the beans on Top Secret Stuff, agent Baehr.

 

The retaliation argument is the entire point of having a sub based nuke. MAD is ensured even if the UK is reduced to a smoking ruin by a pre-emptive strike.

 

Or is it?

 

David Cameron's primary executive order, lying within the sealed envelope within the 1st safe within the 2nd safe in the submarine, might be to sail to Australia. You'll have to ask him. But I'd hazard you don't actually know. Besides which, you won't really have an opinion if he (the sub commander) needs to open that letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we really need nuclear capabilities to defend ourselves against those pesky suicide bombers.

 

The world has moved on from the cold war arms race and mutually assured destruction. We could save the money and invest in better intelligence rather than a unusable WMDs

Edited by taxman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S aitch one TEE!

 

I hadn't realised you were CDS, taxman.

 

Do ýou think that perhaps (just, occasionally. perhaps) there might be one or two people working for HMG who are so far above your pay grade that they've never even heard of you? Do you think they give a stuff about you? Do you think they should consider your opinions?

 

Why do you think they should?

 

(And yes, I was one of those people. So far above your pay grade. Never heard of you, Didn't give a damn who you were, either.

 

And at the end, having done my share of running the nuclear detergent, I retired.

 

Did you care about me when I retired? - No.

 

Did I care about you when I retired? - No.

 

Why didn't you take over my job when I retired?

 

Were you not good enough ? - Or were you too lazy to work for the promotion?

 

I didn't hand my job to anybody. It went to the best-qualified person.

 

Why wasn't that you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S aitch one TEE!

 

I hadn't realised you were CDS, taxman.

 

Do ýou think that perhaps (just, occasionally. perhaps) there might be one or two people working for HMG who are so far above your pay grade that they've never even heard of you? Do you think they give a stuff about you? Do you think they should consider your opinions?

 

(And yes, I was one of those people. So far above your pay grade. Never heard of you, Didn't give a damn who you were, either)

 

Rudeness and snobbery are clearly richly rewarded in your line of work then.

 

What a reassuring thought.

 

But if you can't debate the topic, and maybe elucidate the reasons he is wrong [without giving away any state secrets], and you're just going to trumpet your alleged 'seniority' like some kind of forum Colonel Hathi, then please, don't let me interrupt you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, argentina was independant from Spain in 1810, we settled the Falklands in 1833, then the Argentians had it for a few months, then we booted them back out...

 

So the Falkland Islands was originally settled by British people, whats the argument that the Argentinians should have it - it's abit near to them?

 

We still own Gibraltar, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

But you don't hear people harping on about how we should give those up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We still own Gibraltar, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

But you don't hear people harping on about how we should give those up.

We really, really should give up Gibraltar, the Channel Islands and the IOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, argentina was independant from Spain in 1810, we settled the Falklands in 1833, then the Argentians had it for a few months, then we booted them back out...

 

That's what I get for trying to remember instead of checking wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or is it?

 

David Cameron's primary executive order, lying within the sealed envelope within the 1st safe within the 2nd safe in the submarine, might be to sail to Australia. You'll have to ask him. But I'd hazard you don't actually know. Besides which, you won't really have an opinion if he (the sub commander) needs to open that letter.

 

Any potential aggressor doesn't know either, but for a deterrent to be effective the 'other' side has to believe that you'll use it.

There's never been any suggestion that we wouldn't use it, otherwise MAD doesn't exist and there is no stability in a nuclear world.

 

Apparently you already knew this, so why bother asking why we need a nuclear deterrent or why trident needs replacing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.