35bn trident costs..what a waste of money

[woolyhead 15]

No,  apelike, I don't think it does.  They haven't been ordered not to do it. only advised not to. And if the navy were ordered to launch, do you think they would fail to do so? Of course not.  And if people were conscripted and didn't turn up the police would pretty soon be round looking for them.  "What they wanted" wouldn't come into it.

Edited August 2, 2020 by woolyhead

[apelike 10]

Well I can only say that we disagree on that but the situation around the world at the moment shows how unhappy some of the young are in being told what to do. They are the ones suffering mainly because of no jobs, lack of housing, no prospects and no spare cash to spend. When the cold war was in its prime spending on weapons did in part make sense but spending billions on something that wont be used as after all it's a "deterrent" is now pointless. How many do we need to make it a deterrent anyway?

 

If a nuclear war was to happen now all that they have come to rely on will stop, no internet, no mobile phones, no social media, no freedom just control, censorship and rationing, and I think that would be more important to them now than the prospect of going to war. To me modern technology is changing the very nature of how any potential war may take place and that is now very unlikely to be nuclear.

[Bargepole23 337]

9 hours ago, woolyhead said:

No,  apelike, I don't think it does.  They haven't been ordered not to do it. only advised not to. And if the navy were ordered to launch, do you think they would fail to do so? Of course not.  And if people were conscripted and didn't turn up the police would pretty soon be round looking for them.  "What they wanted" wouldn't come into it.

What's conscription got to do with Trident or its successor?

[L00b 441]

On 1 August 2020 at 13:57, woolyhead said:

Apelike, you said    "People are now so addicted to social media now they would be rioting and committing suicide if their ideal life on the social media platforms suddenly stopped."    This is an exaggeration of course but in any case what makes you think that "what people want" matters if conscription into the armed forces, or orders to launch nuclear weapons  should occur?  We do what we're told, don't we?

Not anymore, according a recently-retired nuclear sub commander interviewed in a broadsheet last week. He'd have a very serious issue launching, as the trust compact with the political executive is, to all intents and purposes, broken under the current post-truth politics.

[woolyhead 15]

13 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

What's conscription got to do with Trident or its successor?

It has something in common with the order to launch Trident. That is that people would obey the relevant  instruction, no matter what Loob says. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by woolyhead

[apelike 10]

2 hours ago, woolyhead said:

It has something in common with the order to launch Trident. That is that people would obey the relevant  instruction, no matter what Loob says. 

But forced Conscription, National Service or Draft is different kettle of fish, and the Human Rights Council  now states the following:

 

"...... the right of everyone to have conscientious objection to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.... etc."

 

Conscription is different to that of the act of joining the armed forces voluntarily and then taking the Queens oath. Its is questionable now if conscription would work and be followed en mass.

Edited August 3, 2020 by apelike

[L00b 441]

3 hours ago, woolyhead said:

It has something in common with the order to launch Trident. That is that people would obey the relevant  instruction, no matter what Loob says. 

It's not me saying it, it's the former Trident sub driver 

 

That article is here, by the way.

 

I've been conscripted and done my national service, as well. 24 years ago this September. Sod all to do with nuclear deterrence. No logical, causal or factual link what-so-ever.

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by L00b

[Bargepole23 337]

8 hours ago, woolyhead said:

It has something in common with the order to launch Trident. That is that people would obey the relevant  instruction, no matter what Loob says. 

In what way does your statement demonstrate a link between conscription and a willingness to launch a nuclear missile?

[woolyhead 15]

OK Loob, he said it but you brought it to this forum. And why does the personal opinion of a single ex submarine commander carry any weight? I did my National Service  65 years ago and the situation then was similar to what happens now with Trident, ie a lot to do with nuclear warheads. I don't believe that young people have changed so much during that time that they wouldn't do what they were ordered to do. They might not like it, I know, but with a bit of educating and some training they would soon come round.

Edited August 3, 2020 by woolyhead

[Bargepole23 337]

10 hours ago, woolyhead said:

OK Loob, he said it but you brought it to this forum. And why does the personal opinion of a single ex submarine commander carry any weight? I did my National Service  65 years ago and the situation then was similar to what happens now with Trident, ie a lot to do with nuclear warheads. I don't believe that young people have changed so much during that time that they wouldn't do what they were ordered to do. They might not like it, I know, but with a bit of educating and some training they would soon come round.

It carries as much weight, more in fact, than a single opinion of someone who did national service 65 years ago. In the RAF presumably?

[L00b 441]

11 hours ago, woolyhead said:

OK Loob, he said it but you brought it to this forum. And why does the personal opinion of a single ex submarine commander carry any weight? I did my National Service  65 years ago and the situation then was similar to what happens now with Trident, ie a lot to do with nuclear warheads. I don't believe that young people have changed so much during that time that they wouldn't do what they were ordered to do. They might not like it, I know, but with a bit of educating and some training they would soon come round.

I brought that interview here, because you had stated your opinion earlier, to the effect that, ordered with launching Trident missiles at target X by Dim & Dom, any military personel would press the button no-questions-asked.

 

That interview of a Trident sub captain offers a contrary opinion, from someone who's been there and got the t-shirt, which explains ins and outs of the launch decision-making process (which is a political decision first, that is then validated and implemented by the boys in blue or khakis).

 

I'll take that opinion as carrying much more weight and authority than yours, until and unless you can offer some form of evidence supporting your opinion, which trumps that of a Trident sub captain.

 

As for your national service strawman, when and how would a conscript ever be placed in a situation of turning the launch key? Get real, please. Nuclear-equipped armies in the XXIst century are professional armies, conscripts (for the few countries that still have them) don't get within a country mile -or ten- of a launch vehicle or console. They're lucky if they get to drive the pool car/humvee once in a blue moon. Feel free to drop the rose tinted glasses some time.

[andysm 18]

On 09/04/2015 at 14:17, Timeh said:

Russia would favour an electronic attack, the sort they used against the USS Donald Cook in the Black sea last year by a couple of Sukhoi-24's.

America has now banned its fleet from Russian waters and its got their military rattled.

 

100% nonsense. Where did you read this rubbish, Russia Today or Sputnik News?