Jeremy Corbyn not trusted on national security by 71%

[apelike 10]

So all it now takes is to have one missile in each active submarine at any one time to become a deterrent or maybe just bluff that we have them as nobody would be able to check.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

It would be suicidal to fire a trident missile with a conventional warhead. Russia et al would not wait for it to land to find out if it was a conventional warhead or a nuclear one before they retaliated.

 

Russia et al would also not know if the missile was fired by us or the Americans, so they'd have to retaliate against them as well, so you are talking a potential full scale nuclear Armageddon if you fired a trident with a conventional warhead.

 

---------- Post added 17-01-2016 at 15:20 ----------

 

So all it now takes is to have one missile in each active submarine at any one time to become a deterrent or maybe just bluff that we have them as nobody would be able to check.

 

It's a good plan but the thing is, how many people would know that the submarines were only carrying one missile? It would be impossible to know 100% that it would be kept a secret.

 

Anyway the missiles and the warheads are only a small part of the expense, the biggest expense is the submarines themselves, so the savings wouldn't be that great if we has just one missile in the submarine.

 

It must be noted that the missiles carry several warheads, each able to be aimed at different targets.

Edited January 17, 2016 by JFKvsNixon

[apelike 10]

Russia et al would also not know if the missile was fired by us or the Americans, so they'd have to retaliate against them as well, so you are talking a potential full scale nuclear Armageddon if you fired a trident with a conventional warhead.

 

Does that not also apply if a Nuke was fired and the basic idea behind MAD?

[tinfoilhat 11]

I was always for keeping or replacing Trident but as Peter Hitchens points out, it's a solution to a threat (from Russia) that doesn't exist any more.

 

Better maybe to have a bigger standing army with decent equipment than spend £100 billion or whatever on a Trident replacement?

 

It's a threat that doesn't exist much NOW. 10, 20 years time who knows - it's been 15 years since 9/11 and the world changed a lot from then. One massive event 12 months down the line and nuclear capable subs might sound like a handy thing to have.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Does that not also apply if a Nuke was fired and the basic idea behind MAD?

 

Yes, it's part of the attraction because it ties America's fate with ours.

 

It has always been doubted that in the event of a very limited confrontation, say one where just Birmingham was nuked as part of a nuclear blackmail, whether the Americans would be happy to risk losing one of their cities to retaliate.

 

---------- Post added 17-01-2016 at 15:30 ----------

 

It's a threat that doesn't exist much NOW. 10, 20 years time who knows - it's been 15 years since 9/11 and the world changed a lot from then. One massive event 12 months down the line and nuclear capable subs might sound like a handy thing to have.

 

Very true, it must never be forgotten that currently both China and Russia currently have missiles that are able to be targeted and fired at us without warning.

 

Another consideration is that we don't know what would happen if an isolationist president ever got in the White House, and took the US out of Nato.

[foxy lady 10]

Yes, it's part of the attraction because it ties America's fate with ours.

 

It has always been doubted that in the event of a very limited confrontation, say one where just Birmingham was nuked as part of a nuclear blackmail, whether the Americans would be happy to risk losing one of their cities to retaliate.

 

---------- Post added 17-01-2016 at 15:30 ----------

 

 

Very true, it must never be forgotten that currently both China and Russia currently have missiles that are able to be targeted and fired at us without warning.

 

Another consideration is that we don't know what would happen if an isolationist president ever got in the White House, and took the US out of Nato.

 

There are a couple of other problems along the way. One is the increasing nuclear threat from North Korea. The other is the idiot Corbyn wants to take us out of NATO. So North Korea (or whover else gets nukes in the next 30 years or so) wouldn't have to worry about America if they knew our missiles were made from cardboad and yogurt pots.

[tinfoilhat 11]

There are a couple of other problems along the way. One is the increasing nuclear threat from North Korea. The other is the idiot Corbyn wants to take us out of NATO. So North Korea (or whover else gets nukes in the next 30 years or so) wouldn't have to worry about America if they knew our missiles were made from cardboad and yogurt pots.

 

Whoa calm down a bit. North Korea (with or without nukes) is no threat to us.

[apelike 10]

There are a couple of other problems along the way. One is the increasing nuclear threat from North Korea. The other is the idiot Corbyn wants to take us out of NATO. So North Korea (or whover else gets nukes in the next 30 years or so) wouldn't have to worry about America if they knew our missiles were made from cardboad and yogurt pots.

 

I dont think we have much to worry about when it comes to N Korea and nukes. If they do get to a stage when they can start to produce any viable Nukes in any quantity then I believe China would put a stop to it.

 

The modern world is now governed by money and economics and China has plenty to loose in that situation. Relationships between the two are already strained because of what N Korea are doing and I cant see it improving given that N Korea is a poor country. Russia stopped aid and now China is their biggest trading partner, without China N Korea would collapse. China is the dominant player at the moment and they wont want that dominance threatened.

[foxy lady 10]

Whoa calm down a bit. North Korea (with or without nukes) is no threat to us.

 

Can you guarantee that they won't be in 2050?

 

---------- Post added 17-01-2016 at 16:33 ----------

 

I dont think we have much to worry about when it comes to N Korea and nukes. If they do get to a stage when they can start to produce any viable Nukes in any quantity then I believe China would put a stop to it.

 

 

Ah that's OK then. If you think its OK we should base our entire defence strategy on that.

 

By the way. North Korea have conduted several viable nuclear expolsions and China haven't done anything.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Can you guarantee that they won't be in 2050?

 

---------- Post added 17-01-2016 at 16:33 ----------

 

 

Ah that's OK then. If you think its OK we should base our entire defence strategy on that.

 

By the way. North Korea have conduted several viable nuclear expolsions and China haven't done anything.

 

I'll probably be dead by then but, yeah I'll totally guarantee North Korea won't be a major threat by then. What has it got to make you think it will be? Handful of uranium. It's got no allies to speak of (that are subservient anyway) not a huge population (which starving anyway) not blessed with natural resources, is broke and is led by a nut case.

 

Case closed.

[apelike 10]

Can you guarantee that they won't be in 2050?

 

---------- Post added 17-01-2016 at 16:33 ----------

 

 

Ah that's OK then. If you think its OK we should base our entire defence strategy on that.

 

By the way. North Korea have conduted several viable nuclear expolsions and China haven't done anything.

 

N Korea have carried out 4 since 2006 and there is doubt as to whether some were actually nuclear blasts. Even the last one failed to work properly and has not been verified to have been a hydrogen bomb, and produce an explosion much smaller than the primitive Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. A nuclear explosion gives out a noticeable EMP pules that is detectable and so far they have failed to detect any or pick up much in the way of radiation. Even the scientists and people in the know doubt that they are that far ahead. Its a bit like the Iranian scare with them allegedly wanting to produce them.

 

In fact the footage shown by N Korea of the blast was taken from a Russian test so they were lying about it.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

N Korea have carried out 4 since 2006 and there is doubt as to whether some were actually nuclear blasts. Even the last one failed to work properly and has not been verified to have been a hydrogen bomb, and produce an explosion much smaller than the primitive Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. A nuclear explosion gives out a noticeable EMP pules that is detectable and so far they have failed to detect any or pick up much in the way of radiation. Even the scientists and people in the know doubt that they are that far ahead. Its a bit like the Iranian scare with them allegedly wanting to produce them.

 

In fact the footage shown by N Korea of the blast was taken from a Russian test so they were lying about it.

 

The lack of an EMP might might be a red herring because underground have an extremely small EMP.