You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[i] scotroutes - Member
Ok, we're agreeing. They thought we wouldn't use it so it didn't deter them. Not much bloody use then! [/i]
Not quite, the reasoning is flawed. Invasion by means of deploying conventional military assets where there wasn't previously. Is and will be met with a similar deployment of conventional assets to repel the invasion, etc, etc.
If someone decides to send us a nuke, then they can rest assured, that we can send one back! Well, so long as have them.
[quote=Solo ]
Not quite, the reasoning is flawed. Invasion by means of deploying conventional military resource where is wasn't previously. Is and will be met with a similar deployment of conventional assets to repel the invasion, etc, etc.scotroutes - Member
Ok, we're agreeing. They thought we wouldn't use it so it didn't deter them. Not much bloody use then!
If someone decides to send us a nuke, then they can rest assured, that we can send one back! Well, so long as have them.So - nukes are only a deterrence against a nuclear attack. Back to my other question then; what it was had been the Shetlands or the Western Isles? Or what of it had been all of the Highlands/Scotland etc. You're saying that we would never deploy nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear invasion force. That implies that the Russians (as an example) could roll into the UK and we (and none of our allies) would threaten nuclear retaliation?
I was in favour of the coalition for the Liberals I thought it would give them a chance, after years in the wilderness, to be part of the decision making process and deliver their polices.
I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but doesn't that pretty much invalidate everything else you say? 🙂
So - nukes are only a deterrence against a nuclear attack. Back to my other question then; what it was had been the Shetlands or the Western Isles? Or what of it had been all of the Highlands/Scotland etc. You're saying that we would never deploy nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear invasion force. That implies that the Russians (as an example) could roll into the UK and we (and none of our allies) would threaten nuclear retaliation?
You understand the concept of escalation?
As (repeatedly) pointed out, nobody has ever suggested the response to an attacking or invading force would be immediate use of nuclear weapons. The classic scenario for use of nuclear weapons in an east-v-west scenario (or indeed a India-v-****stan, north-v-south Korea etc. Scenario) is where a large scale conventional confrontation descends into either threatened collapse (whereby the side about to lose uses nuclear or chemical weapons as a last ditch effort to neutralise enemy forces) or stalemate (where the attacking forces have run out of steam and resort to chemical or nuclear attack to break the stalemate by neutralising defending forces) - this would be an [u]escalation[/u] from conventional warfare to nuclear. Retaining a nuclear capability ourselves is not only the deterrent against [u]escalation[u] to nuclear confrontation - it is a strong argument that the inevitability of escalation from conventional to nuclear has prevented either side in the major "cold" wars from engaging in the risky business of large scale conventional "hot" warfare (forget your minor territorial squabbles).
(I have delibaretly included chemical weapons above, as soviet doctrine for conventional warfare very much included the use of chemical weapons, whereas NATO doctrine would almost inevitably seen the use of large scale chemical bombardment that led to massive loss of life as a serious escalation that may draw a proportionate nuclear response)
Note the use of words like escalation & proportionate - this is where your black and white 'we would never' argument falls down.
An excellent explanation of why we dont need a constantly deployed force in order to deliver weapons at any time- we just need weapons we could deploy after escalationThe classic scenario for use of nuclear weapons in an east-v-west scenario (or indeed a India-v-****stan, north-v-south Korea etc. Scenario) is where a large scale conventional confrontation descends into either threatened collapse (whereby the side about to lose uses nuclear or chemical weapons as a last ditch effort to neutralise enemy forces) or stalemate (where the attacking forces have run out of steam and resort to chemical or nuclear attack to break the stalemate by neutralising defending forces) - this would be an escalation from conventional warfare to nuclear.
Thanks you for taking the time to do this and explaining why we dont really need the subs
I know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but doesn't that pretty much invalidate everything else you say?
nope, I'm not against coalition's. I'd hope for a good stronger government with a majority to get policies through. It was if you like a form of PR, I take your point. More voters got represented. Just think a lot of the minority parties getting seats just confuse and slow down the process of good government without adding any value as well adding a huge administrative and financial burden.
Way OT sorry
An excellent explanation of why we dont need a constantly deployed force in order to deliver weapons at any time- we just need weapons we could deploy after escalation
Thanks you for taking the time to do this and explaining why we dont really need the subs
thats an oxymoron - the only way we can guarantee having weapons we can deploy [u]after[/u] escalation is through having them constantly deployable (or for "deployable" in a submarine sense, read it as "widely dispersed in unknown locations underwater making decapitation essentially impossible)
Well now you have changed your account and altered your view that is another excellent post. I will forgive the complete reversal of opinion as its you and its what you do to just keep arguing
PFFttt to consistency eh
@ junky - Have just Edited the above to clarify between deployed and deployable
Your own argument that "we just need weapons we could deploy after escalation" underlines everything, and is exactly why trident works.
that argument was yours not mine and no it does not support your view that we need them for instant deployment as your whole argument was about escalation
you know this but you wont back down as we were and why I rarely bother. Waste of a good mind IMHO.
PS thanks for saying about the edit.
it does not support your view that we need them for instant deployment as your whole argument was about escalation
and you well know that 'instant deployment' isn't what I said.
Whichever side you fall (ignoring tabloid hysteria) Corbyn has opened up the debate about Nukes, better than it ever would have been
[i] kimbers - Member
Whichever side you fall (ignoring tabloid hysteria) Corbyn has opened up the debate about Nukes, better than it ever would have been[/i]
Needlessly! Come on, I'm sure there's other, more significant issues of the day, that could use some useful consideration/debate.
Have any of your noticed the state of the MTB industry?
🙄
quiet alot of miss information about submarines on here but then thats not surprising. having a deployable submarine thats actually alongside is no cheaper than having it at sea.
quiet alot of miss information about submarines
You mean all the armchair generals and sealords on here have got it all wrong?
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/11/trident-the-british-question ]the long read[/url]
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38711418 ]looks like we'll be more dangerous to our allies than our enemies, and why so evasive [/url] 😯
Russians hacked it whilst captain of boat was being pissed on I reckon.
A non-story. A high tech piece of kit malfunctions during a test.
That's the point of "testing".
Even less of a story than that, as the accepted miss fire rate for an ICBM is about 20%, because they sit unused for years, and aren't tested much (because of costs) and ultimately, if one misses, we've got another 30 in the back of the boat, each of which has the capability of erasing a large city off the face of the earth.........
each of which has the capability of erasing [s]a[/s]several large [s]city[/s]cities off the face of the earth.........
FTFY
Poor wee missile was just trying to do its best and fix the Trump situation for us 🙁
A high tech piece of kit malfunctions during a test.That's the point of "testing".
which is fine if it's a new radio, more of a problem if it's a weapon with the destructive power of a small sun, going entirely the wrong way isn't really a "malfunction".
If it's such a non-story why was May so evasive in her answer to Andrew Marr?
If it's such a non-story why was May so evasive in her answer to Andrew Marr?
it is odd, for sure, in some ways makes the case for upgrading 😕
which is fine if it's a new radio, more of a problem if it's a weapon with the destructive power of a small sun, going entirely the wrong way isn't really a "malfunction".
You do realise the test missiles don't have warheads in them?
What goes on in the military is generally subject to the official secrets act, this includes a missile going off track on a test. As above this is the perfect demonstration that the kit needs updating. The delay in doing so during 2010-15 Coalition has a cost in functionality and increased risk.
You do realise the test missiles don't have warheads in them?
no shit Sherlock, I think we can all pretty much agree that the most basic thing that ANY weapon from a catapult to a nuclear tipped missile has to be to achieve is that it goes where you point it, no?
I mean that's a pretty fundamental cock up! Great! We ****ing daren't use the damned thing 'cos it might hit us! I don't think that's what they meant when they said it's a deterrent 😆
I think Corbyn's unarmed subs might actually be safer...
What goes on in the military is generally subject to the official secrets act
especially so when it's a bloody embarrassing cock up like your missile doesn't go where you aimed it...
Do you think the designers of the missile might have thought about just such an eventuality, and included suitable safeguards, or perhaps the firers just have to sit around and watch as the missile veers out of control and explodes some kittens or something?? 😆
Who really gives a shit whether it works or not ? ..........anyone ?
Who really gives a shit whether it works or not ? ..........anyone ?
wanna buy a bridge ?
tell everyone we have one of these 😉
If it's such a non-story why was May so evasive in her answer to Andrew Marr?
Because if the weapons aren't 100% reliable it would be a very poor political outcome even if it is militarily acceptable.
Because if the weapons aren't 100% reliable it would be a very poor political outcome even if it is militarily acceptable.
Do you really think that they could say it was 100% reliable ?
If they did would you believe them ?
Do you really think that they could say it was 100% reliable ?
I think theyd rather not say.
If they did would you believe them ?
Not personally, I think it'd be almost absurd. But some seemed shocked at it not apparently being the case.
First failure in over 160 launches isn't it?
First failure in over 160 launches isn't it?
[url= http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/17/us/trident-failures-in-tests-are-tied-to-flawed-design.html ]No[/url]
Hmm, you're relying on pre-service development testing?
Sunnyvale, Calif., Nov. 10, 2015 – The U.S. Navy conducted successful test flights Nov. 7 and 9 of two Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missiles built by Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT). The world’s most reliable large ballistic missile, the D5 missile has achieved a total of 157 successful test flights since design completion in 1989.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/november/missile-space-trident.html
That story is from 1989 .. so no failures since in 160 launches ? (EDIT: I see ninfan has the answer)
Nothing is 100% reliable, missiles included. Not every gps guided bomb lands in the targeted place.
As I said even more reason to crack on with the new ones. We've already wasted 5 years at least.
We've already wasted 5 years at least.
Or either five years where the present system has fulfilled its role or not been needed so no waste
no shit Sherlock, I think we can all pretty much agree that the most basic thing that ANY weapon from a catapult to a nuclear tipped missile has to be to achieve is that it goes where you point it, no?I mean that's a pretty fundamental cock up! Great! We **** daren't use the damned thing 'cos it might hit us! I don't think that's what they meant when they said it's a deterrent
Well, the Americans have been hitting the wrong targets for years, killing significant numbers of people, including British troops in a clearly identified vehicle, and getting away with it.
OK, so we know it doesn't go where it's pointed, shall we launch a missile at North Korea? Where will it land, hmm? South Korea maybe, Japan? China..?
How about we fire one off to Iran, where will that land? Turkey? Israel?
Yesterday we had a deterrent, now we have a pointless underwater whale impersonator fleet
Well, the Americans have been hitting the wrong targets for years, killing significant numbers of people, including British troops in a clearly identified vehicle, and getting away with it.
Yes.... but I think we all have to agree that this is definitely the nuclear option in retaliation for past friendly fire
the issue is more the fact that the PM did not seem to be aware of the failure , and it was days before a vote in the Commons on the Trident funding .
Yesterday we had a deterrent, now we have a pointless underwater whale impersonator fleet
You do realise that these things are based on rocket science?
Rocket science is exactly rocket science.
Yesterday we had a deterrent, now we have a pointless underwater whale impersonator fleet
No I disagree. if you don't know where it's going to land it's an even bigger deterrent. 😉
Because if the weapons aren't 100% reliable it would be a very poor political outcome even if it is militarily acceptable.
Nothing is 100% reliable.
This is a political drama (rightly so) and not a technical one, despite all the armchair engineers coming out to play.
Missiles are an engineering nightmare because they sit dormant for years, occasionally doing some built-in-test. Then you warm one up and shoot it, expecting it to work first time. If you add in too much redundancy then you end up with something too heavy to fly.
Missiles are an engineering nightmare because they sit dormant for years, occasionally doing some built-in-test. Then you warm one up and shoot it, expecting it to work first time.
Sounds like a good reason to scrap the whole Trident programme. If it isn't going to work whem we suddenly need it, why spend loads of money on it???
natrix - 'cos we are never going to need it so why does it matter if it works. Its just a giant phallus for impotent tories
cchris2lou - Memberthe issue is more the fact that the PM did not seem to be aware of the failure , and it was days before a vote in the Commons on the Trident funding .
Weeeel that's part of the question isn't it. Did she know, and suppress the news til after the vote? Or did she not know, when she should have. She's going to take flak for it either way and right now she doesn't seem to be able to decide.
It's all a bit of a nonsense really from a capability point of view, tests sometimes go wrong, that's one of the reasons you do tests. If this test exposes a systematic issue then that's obviously a massive deal but this isn't the first test ever and it's worked before. Probably just needs to go back to a system restore point or get hit with a hammer.
But it's created an interesting wee stramash. If it turns out that they really did bury the news, that'll be kind of fascinating, because there was absolutely no need- they'd still have steamrollered the vote. And with the whole brexit politicking backdrop, anything about keeping information from the House while also showing dodgy judgement is pretty toxic.
But is the actual incident important? Doubt it.
Sounds like a good reason to scrap the whole Trident programme. If it isn't going to work whem we suddenly need it, why spend loads of money on it???
Which is why you carry more than one missile. It isn't like you actually nuke London by mistake - there are safeguards in the case of missile failures.
Same is true of pretty much everything. Small arms jam or misfire so why use them? Why have a mobile when it might not work when you need it?
Anyway, Trident works everyday - it is a deterrent (and also the cost of our permanent seat at the UN Security Council). I'm all for global nuclear disarmament but our nuclear forces are at a realistic minimum level and I wouldn't advocate reducing them further until other, more prolific nuclear powers disarm significantly. Unfortunately, Trump.
grumpysculler - Member(and also the cost of our permanent seat at the UN Security Council)
People say that but there doesn't seem to be much to support it. We have our permanent seat as a winner of WW2 and UN founder, basically. We weren't a nuclear power then. And there's been no changes in the permanent membership since- other nuclear powers haven't gained access of course.
The other thing you have to ask is, why is it important? What has it gained us? We've only used the veto unilaterally 5 times and they were all about Rhodesia. The last time we used it was the invasion of Panama! It's not all about the veto of course, but that's quite emblematic. We don't use our seat to lead policy. So mostly what remains is the capacity to use it to shape international relations, which is hard to quantify and seems to be largely about sucking up to the US, which we never struggle to find ways to do...
So, even if it's true that it keeps us our seat, is that worth it?
Turns out May did know about the trident test before the vote, but kept it quiet.
Confused Greg Clark caught out on sky news, when he thought he'd be talking about the big new skils/investment plans
MPs blaming spin doctors who are blaming Cameron...
Wonder how many other test failures they are covering up?
Be sadly ironic if in some (far fetched) future Prime Minister Corbyn is forced after much agonsing and soul searching ultimately to sacrifice his last remaining principle and order a nuclear strike only to accidently blow up Aberystwyth with an off target missile
Wonder how many other test failures they are covering up?
My guess would be quite a lot across the military.
It makes a lot of sense.
Sunday Times reporting that the government have been covering up problems with the guidance system for years !
[img] 
[/img]
Weapons do seem to be a problem