Trident replacement

[maxmaximus 10]

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

 

Go on this you was right.

 

No European power established a settlement until 1764, when the French built a garrison at Port Louis on East Falkland,

 

 

Britain set up a West Falkland outpost at Port Egmont, on Saunders Island, in 1765.

[Cyclone 10]

That was military though right? Not a permanent settlement.

[maxmaximus 10]

That was military though right? Not a permanent settlement.

 

It doesn't say but I think it’s a reasonable assumption that it was a military settlement.

 

The first known sighting of the Falkland Islands was in 1592 by the British explorer John Davis in his ship Desire, from which the Islands take their motto, 'Desire the Right'. The first recorded landing was made in 1690 by the crew of the British sloop Welfare, commanded by Captain Strong. The Islands were uninhabited until that time. The first British settlement was established in 1766. There followed a period of almost 70 years during which several countries, including Britain, France, Spain and the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate established small, temporary settlements on the Islands, none of them lasting for more than a few years.

 

It was not until 1833, when Britain eventually assumed control of the Islands, that a permanent settlement was established, at Port Louis. Since then, and at the expressed wish of the Falkland Islanders, the Islands have been governed continuously, peacefully and effectively by Britain - apart from a brief period of occupation by invading Argentine forces in 1982.

[Phanerothyme 12]

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?

 

Like I said, in all probability, a return strike would have been unlikely. I don't believe MAD kept "the peace" for those decades at all. I think we were all very lucky to escape even a limited nuclear exchange, I don't know anyone who would deny that east and west came perilously close a few times. What both sides understood was that a full pre-emptive strike would be a pyrrhic victory without a retaliatory strike. That was a certain outcome, even if the probability of a return strike from the UK was near zero.

 

 

 

 

Whilst I might support unilateral nuclear disarmament, I'm resigned to the fact that UK will retain an independent nuclear deterrent, what I'm questioning is whether the like-for-like or even an improved ICBM system is really suitable.

 

It's difficult to predict future threats, but defence procurement has always been a balance between the failure to see into the future, and a failure to equip for the present.

 

But to my mind the efficacy of asymmetric warfare means we'd be remiss not to use it if required, and ICBMs aren't really a deterrent against it.

[andygardener 10]

If they need replacing they need replacing, we need something to keep those dodgy Argentinians in check.

 

The Falklands surely showed the limitations of nuclear deterant. It only deters ICBM launches which in Britains case means it deters Russia and (I think) China if they now have the range or the subs to reach the UK. (Much as we may argue with the US and France from time to time I don't think anyone is seriously saying we need nukes to protect us from them.)

 

We had far more varied nuclear options in 1982 than we do now and it neither provided a deterant to the invaision nor was it ever on the table as an alternative to retaking the islands the hard way. We had the ability to threaten a nuclear strike, even to drop a nuclear bomb on a remote military instalation by way of warning and we didn't, because we'd have been international pariahs overnight. Ditto for terrorist attacks, if britain were attacked by a dirty bomb which caused huge casualties and in time we managed to prove beyond doubt that a foreign government was responsible would we really murder millions of people in say Cairo or Tehran possibly months after the event as payback? I doubt it and even if we would it would not act as a deterent to the sort of fanatics who would be prepared to launch such an attack on us.

 

As I see it Trident is the price of keeping the permenant seat on the UNSC. Whether it's worth it depends on the value of that seat to Britain. For the last few decades all it seems to ensure is that we get dragged at least politically into every conflict around the world and don't seem to get a lot of benefit in return but I could be wrong.

[whiteowl 54]

The old adage applies here I think. Would rather have them and not need them, than not have them and need them.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

The way I see it our Trident missiles tie our security up with the Americans, and it places us under their nuclear umbrella.

 

Currently we do have our NATO treaty obligations with the Americans, but it has always been a heavily debated issue whether the Americans would happily risk a nuclear strike on one their big cities by retaliating for a single attack upon one of our cities, or as it is often questioned, would they swap New York for Birmingham?

 

There is currently no way for an aggressor nation to discern between a retaliatory attack from an American Trident or a British Trident so they would be forced to respond against both countries. So in effect this almost certainly means that it gives a tangible reason to a would be aggressor as to why the Americans would respond to an attack upon us, or as I said it places us under the US nuclear umbrella.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Suppose some demented christians/muslims/jews/UKIP members/zoroastrians/hindus/bhuddists* steer an A-bomb into Portsmouth Harbour and set it off.

 

Who do we fire Trident at?

 

*delete as applicable.

[Phanerothyme 12]

As I see it Trident is the price of keeping the permenant seat on the UNSC.

 

Yes, that's how I see it.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Suppose some demented christians/muslims/jews/UKIP members/zoroastrians/hindus/bhuddists* steer an A-bomb into Portsmouth Harbour and set it off.

 

Who do we fire Trident at?

 

*delete as applicable.

 

I don't think that anybody has claimed that Trident deters terrorists.

[Phanerothyme 12]

They are equipped to dealt with that eventuality, in fact. My point is twofold - a)does it deter them? b)it it the most suitable method of dealing with asymmetric attacks like that?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

They are equipped to dealt with that eventuality, in fact. My point is twofold - a)does it deter them? b)it it the most suitable method of dealing with asymmetric attacks like that?

 

I don't doubt that they are equipped for the situation that you describe, however I cannot see them ever being used in the event of terrorist attack as it is a too blunt instrument. I also don't think that terrorists that are more than happy to martyr themselves cannot be really be deterred effectively.

 

However, this is not the sort of the situation where the nuclear deterrence is effective by a long long way, but every weapon has it's own strength and/or weakness so I feel that it's wrong to judge one on a situation where it was never meant to be used.

 

The value for money debate is a fair debate, and if we do get rid of our nuclear deterrent I'm sure it will be for the simple reason that we can no longer afford it, or it no longer offers us value for money.