Our Nuclear Deterrent?

[hobinfoot 25]

Who are the potential enemies that we would have any chance of prevailing against in a nuclear shootout?

 

Other than Israel and North Korea we are the smallest geographic country to have nuclear capability.

 

Israel is surrounded by nations wanting to obliterate it and North Korea is run by a lunatic, which are the reasons they possess such weaponry.

 

The other countries which possess this weaponry are some of the largest in the world and may have some chance ( slight ) of some form of recovery afterward however slim.

 

In any nuclear war Britain would be reduced to ashes in the first exchanges.

 

We need to withdraw from the nuclear club which has the effect of making us a target, beef up our conventional forces to deter invasion, and stop interfering in other countries politics which also makes us a target.

even our nuclear

Deterrent would leave a country the size of Russia a burning wreck. That's the deterrent.

[Obelix 11]

You are the one moving the goalposts dear boy.

 

My contention was that our nuclear deterrent wasn't independent, and it isn't..

 

Can the submarine captains at this moment fire the missiles in accordance with the Letter of Last Resort if it orders him to do so?

 

The answer is yes. We therefore have an independent launch facility.

 

Is the missile recallable after launch?

 

The answer is no. Therefore we have a independent strike and deterrence facility.

[Carlinate 10]

Can the submarine captains at this moment fire the missiles in accordance with the Letter of Last Resort if it orders him to do so?

 

The answer is yes. We therefore have an independent launch facility.

 

Is the missile recallable after launch?

 

The answer is no. Therefore we have a independent strike and deterrence facility.

 

If he does will it head toward its target or fly toward Florida as the last one did?

 

Can the US abort our missile if they wish, seeing as they designed it?

 

We don't know for sure because we didn't have full control over its design and manufacture, on account of it not being independent.

 

Should we be stupid enough to launch a one off strike from our single at sea submarine will we be deprived of its use after that?

 

Yes, because it isn't independent .

 

Could the French launch a missile strike and continue to retain their deterrent afterward?

 

Yes, because theirs is independent, you get what you pay for.

 

See the difference?

[Obelix 11]

If he does will it head toward its target or fly toward Florida as the last one did?

 

Can the US abort our missile if they wish, seeing as they designed it?

 

We don't know for sure because we didn't have full control over its design and manufacture, on account of it not being independent.

 

Should we be stupid enough to launch a one off strike from our single at sea submarine will we be deprived of its use after that?

 

Yes, because it isn't independent .

 

Could the French launch a missile strike and continue to retain their deterrent afterward?

 

Yes, because theirs is independent, you get what you pay for.

 

See the difference?

 

You've ducked the questions. Answer them and I'll answer yours.

 

Can the submarine captains at this moment fire the missiles in accordance with the Letter of Last Resort if it orders him to do so?

 

Is the missile recallable after launch?

[Carlinate 10]

You're obviously only considering Russia, China and the US, maybe India and conveniently ignoring France, which is basically the same size as us.

You're also ignoring Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey.

All of which have US weapons stationed there and are of the same size order of magnitude as the UK.

 

The idea that not having a deterrent somehow makes you immune from attack, as one of the most advanced nations in the world, is ludicrous. It's like appeasing bullies by ensuring that you won't retaliate. Even if the retaliation is merely horrific and crippling to those potential aggressors, rather than fatal.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 16:58 ----------

 

Specifically though, you're claiming that US control of GPS means that the UK doesn't have unilateral launch control of it's trident weapons.

You're wrong and as that was the only support you could offer for the US being able to somehow stop us launching our missiles, QED.

Irrelevant, they can't turn off the missiles at sea.

Wow. Conspiracy much.

 

Okay, so now your entire argument has been reduced to unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy theory about something you clearly have little understanding of.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 17:00 ----------

 

 

An entirely different postulation. Any other goal posts you'd like to move?

 

You might as well argue that I don't have independent control of my car, because petrol stations might refuse to sell me fuel or garages might refuse to maintain it. It's nonsense. (Particularly when the analogy starts with a statement that I can't drive my car without permission from Shell, but later comes down to "well if they refuse to sell you fuel").

 

You don't let facts get in the way of opinion do you?

 

" France which is basically the same size as us ".

 

France consists of 643,801 square km whilst the UK consists of 243,610 square km.

 

France is well over twice the size of the UK and even more so if you compare it to Britain.

 

France is the 49th largest country in the world while the UK is 79th.

 

If nuclear deterrent is absolutely necessary for defence why do only 9 out of the worlds 195 countries have it?

 

I dealt with the 'one off ' situation at post 26. My point being that using it without American authority would result in our losing the capability thus proving that it isn't independent!

 

Your car analogy is weak. They want you to drive your car so you can buy their oil and wear out your car so they can sell you a new one.

 

They don't want us to launch our missiles unless they specifically request us to do so, and as they will only do that when it suits US policy we don't have an independent system.

 

Please explain why France were willing to pay so much more for their deterrent?

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 18:11 ----------

 

You've ducked the questions. Answer them and I'll answer yours.

 

Can the submarine captains at this moment fire the missiles in accordance with the Letter of Last Resort if it orders him to do so?

 

Is the missile recallable after launch?

 

Just like you I have no idea, and don't try to pretend that you do.

 

Bearing in mind that the letter of last resort is written by every incoming PM and supposedly destroyed without reading on receipt of a new one, it's anyone's guess as to what it might say.

 

You do realise that it's only opened when all communication is cut off and the BBC signal can't be picked up by any means whatsoever?

 

With that in mind my letter would read " We're buggered, save yourselves if you can, and I hope you have a mixed gender crew onboard because it's time to play Adam and Eve, take care".

 

Hopefully it can be recalled, because if it was just a failure in satellite/ internet/wireless/broadcasting communication caused by a solar flare or something it's going to be a bit embarrassing if the letter says " Launch everything at em!!! " and a few minutes after launch they get a call saying " sorry about that, bloody weather, anything interesting happening? "

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 18:28 ----------

 

even our nuclear

Deterrent would leave a country the size of Russia a burning wreck. That's the deterrent.

 

No it wouldn't, have you any idea how big Russia is?

 

We have one nuclear armed submarine at sea at anyone time.

 

In the event of that sub launching its full compliment of missiles at Moscow this is an estimate of the effect.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjtsvXa2tHTAhUJOsAKHe5KBn4QFggtMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.banthebomb.org%2Farchives%2Fwmd%2Fch4mosc.htm&usg=AFQjCNG15oVKmS6FyNSOE9zw-Bc1RGvYMw

 

That study assumes a lot, it assumes that all missiles get through to target.

 

Israel has a missile defence system comprising short range rockets called Iron Dome.

 

We know about it and how effective it is because they've used it, and had an incident where they destroyed 15 incoming rockets simultaneously.

 

I'd imagine Russia would have something at least on a par if not better.

 

We are out of our league here and a dignified withdrawal would be a good idea.

[Obelix 11]

You don't let facts get in the way

 

Just like you dont answer valid questions...

 

Can the submarine captains at this moment fire the missiles in accordance with the Letter of Last Resort if it orders him to do so?

 

Is the missile recallable after launch?

[Cyclone 10]

You are the one moving the goalposts dear boy.

 

My contention was that our nuclear deterrent wasn't independent, and it isn't.

It wasn't your contention, it was Rebels contention, and specifically his contention was that the deterrent couldn't be used without US permission.

We've quite clearly established that to be incorrect.

You've since changed the goal posts several times in an attempt to apparently prove something, although what I don't know.

Have a read at those, and if you still claim it's independent there is no use continuing the discussion as debating with someone who refuses to accept facts is both tedious and a waste of time.

 

I agree, you keep changing your argument and make little sense, banging on about a guidance system that isn't required to fire the missiles, about the maintenance procedures, about submarine inertial guidance, none of which are required to use the deterrent.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 22:10 ----------

 

France which has basically the same population as us, I'm not sure why nuking lots of basically uninhabited mountains would be strategically important, or indeed why you think the area of a country is important as to its nuclear capability.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 22:11 ----------

 

Y

Israel has a missile defence system comprising short range rockets called Iron Dome.

 

We know about it and how effective it is because they've used it, and had an incident where they destroyed 15 incoming rockets simultaneously.

 

I'd imagine Russia would have something at least on a par if not better.

 

We are out of our league here and a dignified withdrawal would be a good idea.

 

You don't know what you're talking about do you.

 

Incoming Hezbollah rockets versus incoming ballistic warheads...

 

I dealt with the 'one off ' situation at post 26. My point being that using it without American authority would result in our losing the capability thus proving that it isn't independent!

So you admit that it could be used, independently, but claim that this is evidence that it can't be used independently. I've no idea what's going on in your head, but it's not what I call logic and you fail to make any logical argument to support your 'argument' (if we can call it that) that trident is not independently deployable without the involvement of permission of the US or anyone else.

If he does will it head toward its target or fly toward Florida as the last one did?

 

Can the US abort our missile if they wish, seeing as they designed it?

 

We don't know for sure because we didn't have full control over its design and manufacture, on account of it not being independent.

 

Should we be stupid enough to launch a one off strike from our single at sea submarine will we be deprived of its use after that?

 

Yes, because it isn't independent .

 

Could the French launch a missile strike and continue to retain their deterrent afterward?

 

Yes, because theirs is independent, you get what you pay for.

 

See the difference?

 

I see that you're not making the argument that we cannot launch our missiles. And that the rest of your post relies on unsupported conspiracy theory.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Cyclone

[Carlinate 10]

Just like you dont answer valid questions...

 

Can the submarine captains at this moment fire the missiles in accordance with the Letter of Last Resort if it orders him to do so?

 

Is the missile recallable after launch?

 

How in hell would I know that?

 

Do you? Or do you like to pretend you do to suit your ridiculous claim?

 

As you're so keen on valid questions answer this, what's the difference between our deterrent and the French deterrent?

 

Here's a couple of clues.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwim4bnAm9LTAhVJJMAKHWbgAoAQFgg3MAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Finternational%2Feurope%2Fdeterrent-lite-a-look-at-britain-s-and-france-s-nuclear-arsenals-a-688504.html&usg=AFQjCNEMSCl3jf_qwXj5zatcVomCpwbdvw

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwim4bnAm9LTAhVJJMAKHWbgAoAQFgg-MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.parliament.uk%2FResearchBriefing%2FSummary%2FSN04079&usg=AFQjCNGcfhgDN0VSVfWsjwmTxvuSLFhqLw

 

Third sentence first paragraph, second link.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwim4bnAm9LTAhVJJMAKHWbgAoAQFghLMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FForce_de_dissuasion&usg=AFQjCNGKXy8xRKJn_w-TzS32Nj4SeOSUWg

 

Information under the heading 'History'.

 

This is now getting tedious, for you to continue to claim that the UK deterrent is independent whilst it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of rationality that it isn't, is making you look foolish.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 23:29 ----------

 

It wasn't your contention, it was Rebels contention, and specifically his contention was that the deterrent couldn't be used without US permission.

We've quite clearly established that to be incorrect.

You've since changed the goal posts several times in an attempt to apparently prove something, although what I don't know.

 

I agree, you keep changing your argument and make little sense, banging on about a guidance system that isn't required to fire the missiles, about the maintenance procedures, about submarine inertial guidance, none of which are required to use the deterrent.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 22:10 ----------

 

France which has basically the same population as us, I'm not sure why nuking lots of basically uninhabited mountains would be strategically important, or indeed why you think the area of a country is important as to its nuclear capability.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2017 at 22:11 ----------

 

 

You don't know what you're talking about do you.

 

Incoming Hezbollah rockets versus incoming ballistic warheads...

 

 

So you admit that it could be used, independently, but claim that this is evidence that it can't be used independently. I've no idea what's going on in your head, but it's not what I call logic and you fail to make any logical argument to support your 'argument' (if we can call it that) that trident is not independently deployable without the involvement of permission of the US or anyone else.

 

 

I see that you're not making the argument that we cannot launch our missiles. And that the rest of your post relies on unsupported conspiracy theory.

 

Post 26 for the love of God!

 

And this information which you appear incapable of comprehending!

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwim4bnAm9LTAhVJJMAKHWbgAoAQFgg3MAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Finternational%2Feurope%2Fdeterrent-lite-a-look-at-britain-s-and-france-s-nuclear-arsenals-a-688504.html&usg=AFQjCNEMSCl3jf_qwXj5zatcVomCpwbdvw

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwim4bnAm9LTAhVJJMAKHWbgAoAQFgg-MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.parliament.uk%2FResearchBriefing%2FSummary%2FSN04079&usg=AFQjCNGcfhgDN0VSVfWsjwmTxvuSLFhqLw

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwim4bnAm9LTAhVJJMAKHWbgAoAQFghLMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FForce_de_dissuasion&usg=AFQjCNGKXy8xRKJn_w-TzS32Nj4SeOSUWg

 

The French have an independent nuclear deterrent for which they paid multi millions more than we did for ours, precisely so that they could have an independent system.

 

We got ours on the 'cheap' because the US have retained overall control.

 

Understand?

 

Stop digging, you're in a hole!

[Obelix 11]

How in hell would I know that?

 

In which case you cannot claim that the deterrent is not independant. You just said you don't know. QED.

[Cyclone 10]

Post #26 are you claiming that the "or" at the end of the post is you making an assertion?

Or was there an assertion somewhere else in the ramblings about sub guidance and GPS?

 

Post #22 is where you join the thread, attempting to support Revel and strawmanning as first contribution. You know what a strawman is right? Where you argue against an point that nobody ever made.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 08:28 ----------

 

 

The UK nuclear deterrent is not independent it requires the co operation of the USA

 

This is from post #22. It's wrong. It was wrong, it's still wrong. All the goal shifting you did afterwards hasn't altered that Revel was wrong and you're wrong.

[Carlinate 10]

In which case you cannot claim that the deterrent is not independant. You just said you don't know. QED.

 

Your problem is that you struggle to understand the meaning of words.

 

Independent = Free from outside control; not subject to another's authority; not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwim1bWLmdPTAhXlDsAKHZH-BH0QFgihATAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.cambridge.org%2Fdictionary%2Fenglish%2Findependent&usg=AFQjCNGXV3a9Kw9Yig32v7ODuEVTVRzseA

 

Dependent = Needing the support of something or someone in order to continue existing or operating.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiWvM-bm9PTAhWrI8AKHV3VDX4QFghlMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.cambridge.org%2Fdictionary%2Fenglish%2Fdependent&usg=AFQjCNEXRQRS6uXDQFG5QEwrKzviUXHayw

 

Clear enough for you?

 

Under those definitions the UK nuclear deterrent isn't independent, which was and is my point.

 

You have lost this one and are in danger of looking extremely foolish.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 08:59 ----------

 

Post #26 are you claiming that the "or" at the end of the post is you making an assertion?

Or was there an assertion somewhere else in the ramblings about sub guidance and GPS?

 

Post #22 is where you join the thread, attempting to support Revel and strawmanning as first contribution. You know what a strawman is right? Where you argue against an point that nobody ever made.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 08:28 ----------

 

 

This is from post #22. It's wrong. It was wrong, it's still wrong. All the goal shifting you did afterwards hasn't altered that Revel was wrong and you're wrong.

 

In post 26 I'm pointing out that trying to claim that we could get off one launch prior to being closed down for good by the USA does not make us independent,it makes us very much dependent.

 

No it is not wrong.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjg7vOIndPTAhWkJsAKHVB-DQIQFghWMAY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2Fdefence-and-security-blog%2F2014%2Fjul%2F01%2Ftrident-nuclear-weapons-uk&usg=AFQjCNGwQJgAVHzfYS9EAsMgg0T-WvAi2Q

 

You are another one who appears to struggle with the meaning of words.

 

Independent

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwim1bWLmdPTAhXlDsAKHZH-BH0QFgihATAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.cambridge.org%2Fdictionary%2Fenglish%2Findependent&usg=AFQjCNGXV3a9Kw9Yig32v7ODuEVTVRzseA

 

Dependent

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiWvM-bm9PTAhWrI8AKHV3VDX4QFghlMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.cambridge.org%2Fdictionary%2Fenglish%2Fdependent&usg=AFQjCNEXRQRS6uXDQFG5QEwrKzviUXHayw

 

The UK deterrent isn't independent and to try to claim it is against all the evidence is ridiculous.

 

The parliamentary cross party Trident commission agrees with my view while you and Obelix disagree.

 

I prefer to take the opinion of people informed with the facts rather than a couple of posters with some bee in their bonnet which apparently forces them to disregard facts and keep insisting that black is white.

[Cyclone 10]

Your problem is that you jumped in to support this statement and are now desperately trying to reframe it to mean something else.

All of our nuclear weapons are controlled (more like "owned") by the USA anyway. We can't press the big red button without their permission.

 

You started strawmanning with post #22 and have continued to try to change the discussion ever since.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 09:05 ----------

 

You spent most of page 2 arguing about GPS, when you finally gave up on that, you switched to conspiracy theory about the US having a kill switch we didn't know about.

Since then you've switched to an argument about us only having the ability to use trident once because support would be withdrawn afterwards.

 

Using it once is the exact definition of it being independent though, and the assertion that I've been making since Revel claimed that we couldn't fire it without permission, a position you jumped in to support.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 09:06 ----------

 

Y

 

In post 26 I'm pointing out that trying to claim that we could get off one launch prior to being closed down for good by the USA does not make us independent,it makes us very much dependent.

 

Yes, that's you trying to change the point of the discussion. Instead of supporting the assertion made by Revel, which you were doing, you've now made up a new assertion. One which nobody else is discussing.

 

The UK nuclear deterrent is functionally independent, it can be fired without reference to or permission from any 3rd party.

Revel was wrong in post #3, you were wrong in post #22, your subsequent attempts to reframe the discussion are transparent to everyone.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Cyclone