Our Nuclear Deterrent?

[Carlinate 10]

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

 

 

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

 

You're getting a bit pathetic now mate.

 

You've comprehensively lost the point with regard to the independence of the system and you're now desperately clinging on to the lame " We could use it once! " " we could show em! " " OK, after that they'd take our toy away and never let us play with it again, but for one glorious nuclear moment it would be our decision! "

 

My point was that we are totally dependent on the US for the system, the cross party Trident commission agrees.

 

We don't have an independent system, let it go, it's getting boring.

[sgtkate 10]

You're getting a bit pathetic now mate.

 

You've comprehensively lost the point with regard to the independence of the system and you're now desperately clinging on to the lame " We could use it once! " " we could show em! " " OK, after that they'd take our toy away and never let us play with it again, but for one glorious nuclear moment it would be our decision! "

 

My point was that we are totally dependent on the US for the system, the cross party Trident commission agrees.

 

We don't have an independent system, let it go, it's getting boring.

 

No he hasn't. I'm sorry but it's you who seems to be changing the argument. Noone is saying that the US doesn't have a lot of fingers in our nuclear pie, more than would be ideal and more than France, but you initially supported Revels post where he/she stated that we would be unable to fire our nukes without US agreement. This is untrue. Since then you've changed argument several times:

- We can't fire our nukes with US say so - untrue

- We can't actually fire our nukes without GPS - untrue

- Our nuclear deterrent isn't independent - yes it is. our nuclear *program* might not be, but the deterrent is as we can fire them without anyone else being involved

 

So now it's 3 of us, Cyclone, Obelix and myself all saying the same thing, I'm anti-nuclear and want rid of them and I'm not certain of C and O's stance but I think they support them pragmatically if not ethically? So it's even like we have a specific agenda to push.

[Cyclone 10]

Carlinate - Having to resort to calling me pathetic instead of actually disputing anything in my post now. It's quite clear what positions you've taken throughout, how they kept changing and how you tried to reframe the discussion to be able to claim to be correct.

[hobinfoot 25]

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 ----------

 

 

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 ----------

 

 

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.

I'm well aware how big Russia is. A single Trident Submarine carries 16 missiles each with 8 warheads. That would leave over 100 cities destroyed. If that's not leaving a country a burning wreck I don't know what is.

[Carlinate 10]

No he hasn't. I'm sorry but it's you who seems to be changing the argument. Noone is saying that the US doesn't have a lot of fingers in our nuclear pie, more than would be ideal and more than France, but you initially supported Revels post where he/she stated that we would be unable to fire our nukes without US agreement. This is untrue. Since then you've changed argument several times:

- We can't fire our nukes with US say so - untrue

- We can't actually fire our nukes without GPS - untrue

- Our nuclear deterrent isn't independent - yes it is. our nuclear *program* might not be, but the deterrent is as we can fire them without anyone else being involved

 

So now it's 3 of us, Cyclone, Obelix and myself all saying the same thing, I'm anti-nuclear and want rid of them and I'm not certain of C and O's stance but I think they support them pragmatically if not ethically? So it's even like we have a specific agenda to push.

 

So you and Obelix and Cyclone are all claiming that our deterrent is independent?

 

Claiming that something can be used once and if that use is against the wishes of the USA it's use will be denied us thereafter, if the US so decides, is not an independent system.

 

You three are desperately hanging on to one irrelevant point, you believe that we could launch once under own command.

 

Even if that was true how does it make it independent when we would have to face consequences not just from the enemy but from our 'ally' as well?

 

Given the facts, other than in a complete Armageddon situation what submarine commander is going to destroy his career and risk possible imprisonment by taking it upon himself to launch?

 

That is the situation and that means that considerations regarding the Americans wishes will play a part in the decision.

 

That is another factor which proves it isn't independent.

 

These people agree with me, they are far better informed than you.

 

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

[Obelix 11]

Independent = Free from outside control

 

Lets see...

 

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?

 

Yes he can. There is independence of launch control

 

the missile recallable after launch?

 

No. So once launched the missile is autonomous and independent.

 

Ergo we have an independent nuclear deterrent. QED.

[Carlinate 10]

I'm well aware how big Russia is. A single Trident Submarine carries 16 missiles each with 8 warheads. That would leave over 100 cities destroyed. If that's not leaving a country a burning wreck I don't know what is.

 

You didn't open the link I provided did you?

 

Had you have done so you wouldn't have posted that inaccurate comment.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 10:33 ----------

 

Lets see...

 

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?

 

Yes he can. There is independence of launch control

 

the missile recallable after launch?

 

No. So once launched the missile is autonomous and independent.

 

Ergo we have an independent nuclear deterrent. QED.

 

 

No we don't.

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

 

Ergo you have difficulty with reasoning and understanding and accepting fairly straightforward concepts.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi6h4a8sdPTAhWKI8AKHSJqBR8QFghWMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.co.uk%2Fdavid-morrison%2Ftrident-nuclear-deterrent_b_7041482.html&usg=AFQjCNGu91vdS9fwEA8hEPUWqoOu21NWoQ

 

Read the parts below the headings 'Independent foreign policy' and ' Deterrent Independent?

 

Nine countries have nuclear weapon capability. Eight of them have independent systems where they manufacture,supply, and maintain their own systems.

 

Only one country, the UK, is reliant on another nation to provide these essentials.

 

You are falling for British politicians BS.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwit9bPTtNPTAhUTOsAKHa6pAaMQFghQMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.middleeasteye.net%2Fcolumns%2Fbritain-s-nuclear-deterrent-isn-t-independent-1589678972&usg=AFQjCNFvCrrbmM8yDBCWTlBeZmop9-MgnQ

 

We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, accept the fact, learn to live with things as they are, rather than how you would wish them to be.

 

You'll be happier in the long run.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 10:45 ----------

 

Carlinate - Having to resort to calling me pathetic instead of actually disputing anything in my post now. It's quite clear what positions you've taken throughout, how they kept changing and how you tried to reframe the discussion to be able to claim to be correct.

 

My position throughout has been that this country doesn't possess an independent nuclear deterrent, it doesn't.

 

Rambling on about a single point ' we could fire it once' does not prove your point.

 

Were the system to be independent and we launched a missile no outside party would have an input to what happened next as regard to further use of the system, because it would totally belong to us.

 

That's not the case, the Americans would decide as to what happened next.

 

They could only do that because we are dependent on them for the continued use of the system.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi2qO2bt9PTAhVMI8AKHbyWBR4QFggzMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.parliament.uk%2FResearchBriefing%2FSummary%2FSN04079&usg=AFQjCNGcfhgDN0VSVfWsjwmTxvuSLFhqLw

 

House of Commons library, first paragraph in bold.

 

Getting incredibly bored with this now, my point was it's not independent and however much British politicians try to blow smoke up your rear end because it suits them to do so. it isn't independent.

[sgtkate 10]

So you and Obelix and Cyclone are all claiming that our deterrent is independent?

 

Claiming that something can be used once and if that use is against the wishes of the USA it's use will be denied us thereafter, if the US so decides, is not an independent system.

 

You three are desperately hanging on to one irrelevant point, you believe that we could launch once under own command.

 

Even if that was true how does it make it independent when we would have to face consequences not just from the enemy but from our 'ally' as well?

 

Given the facts, other than in a complete Armageddon situation what submarine commander is going to destroy his career and risk possible imprisonment by taking it upon himself to launch?

 

That is the situation and that means that considerations regarding the Americans wishes will play a part in the decision.

 

That is another factor which proves it isn't independent.

 

These people agree with me, they are far better informed than you.

 

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

 

Around in circles we go. Yet another circling thread on SF...All we are saying is that we can CLEARLY fire our own nukes. You said we couldn't. If you accept we can fire our own nukes with no direct involvement from any other nation then we can all move on to another row where neither side is prepared to stand down out of misplaced belief in their Googling skills.

 

Not a single country has a full independant system. All will buy in electronics, steel, oil etc from elsewhere meaning that every single nation with nukes is relying on someone else to keep their system up and running. Ours most definitely pushes this reliance to the extreme making yet another reason we why should abandon trident anyway.

Edited May 3, 2017 by sgtkate

[Carlinate 10]

Around in circles we go. Yet another circling thread on SF...All we are saying is that we can CLEARLY fire our own nukes. You said we couldn't. If you accept we can fire our own nukes with no direct involvement from any other nation then we can all move on to another row where neither side is prepared to stand down out of misplaced belief in their Googling skills.

 

Not a single country has a full independant system. All will buy in electronics, steel, oil etc from elsewhere meaning that every single nation with nukes is relying on someone else to keep their system up and running. Ours most definitely pushes this reliance to the extreme making yet another reason we why should abandon trident anyway.

 

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

I have provided numerous links supporting my view which you three are conveniently ignoring without any evidence to back up your argument.

 

The only people attempting to claim that it's an independent system are politicians who , as usual , are lying for their own purposes.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi_m-ybwNPTAhWlIMAKHRZXCHsQFghgMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fbritains-nuclear-deterrent-isnt-independent-is-a-british-prime-minister-really-free-to-strike-any-target-in-this-world-with-nuclear-weapons%2F5536475&usg=AFQjCNFSZM8kaZV4boBZ19oayodbposjAw

 

This report states that although British politicians like to claim the independence of the system anyone making such a claim is being fraudulent.

 

You are now resorting to making stuff up. Show me proof of other countries dependence.

 

I'm going to leave it at that, arguing with people who won't accept facts and prefer to cling onto a belief about launch capability that they obviously have no real proof of is pointless.

[Obelix 11]

You didn't open the link I provided did you?.

 

I didn't need to. I've demonstrated above how we have an independent deterrent. Until you address that you are flailing in the wind like all other CND activists. So sorry.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 11:40 ----------

 

. Show me proof of other countries dependence..

 

How many transistors does France make?

 

They don't. By your "argument" above therefore the French have nothing electronic that is independent....

 

[Carlinate 10]

I didn't need to. I've demonstrated above how we have an independent deterrent. Until you address that you are flailing in the wind like all other CND activists. So sorry.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 11:40 ----------

 

 

How many transistors does France make?

 

They don't. By your "argument" above therefore the French have nothing electronic that is independent....

 

 

You've demonstrated nothing of the kind only in your own delusional mind.

 

Transistors?

 

You're hilarious, I worked in an electronic systems business for thirty three years and ran my own company for sixteen of them.

 

I made sure that I never became dependent on one source of supply for any

item. The reason being that if I did and they went out of business or put their prices up ridiculously I'd be adversely affected.

 

France can buy transistors from wherever they want, we can't buy components for Trident other than from America or with American approval.

 

That's why we're dependent on them.

[Obelix 11]

I worked in an electronic systems business for thirty three years and ran my own company for sixteen of them.

 

No you didn't - no ones going to believe that for the slightest.

 

Trident can be fired independently of the USA. That's what the original postulate was, and it's proven as noted above.

 

Anything else is just some whiney CND wannabee moving the goalposts.