The Kintyre Forum

Under what circumstances would we ever use Trident missiles?

I'm more than happy to spend whatever is necessary to ensure that if someone attacks the UK we can defend ourselves - but I can't imagine the circumstances where we would fire a nuclear missile? Even if we get the 4 minute warning, and Glasgow is about to be hit, why would we fire one back at North Korea or wherever - just for spite? - we would never ever do it? Would we? What would be the point?

OK, so the bombs dropped in '45 were arguably a very effective way of shortening WW2 and saving allied lives, but there is no longer a big enemy all in one place that we could/would target. The 'enemy' (of the free world) has changed.

Assuming it costs half of the £25 billion to maintain a defence-only capability (ability to shoot down incoming missiles that sort of thing) - isn't there a spare £12/13 billion that could be put to better use? - investment in renewable technology/energy efficiency/massive investment in public transport?

Where am I going wrong in my thinking?

Even if we get the 4 minute warning, and Glasgow is about to be hit, why would we fire one back at North Korea or wherever - just for spite? - we would never ever do it? Would we?

I think thats where MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) the whole idea behind nuclear weapons comes in. I.e dont lauch at us because whatevers left of us will launch back at you.

Quite an appropriate acronym...

I find it laughable when you hear successive governments in the UK saying that we have nuclear weapons as a deterrent. A deterrant to what and whom. Jeez there has been more wars in the last 10 years than anybody cares to remember and nuclear weapons have been no deterrent whatsoever.

They certainly have not been a deterrent to those killing our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am totally against these wars but find it insane that we are spending these sums of money on something hopefully we will never use whilst our troops are using equipment which doesnt work properly or do not have enough equipment. Absolute sheer madness if you ask me.

peenkles21 wrote:

Even if we get the 4 minute warning, and Glasgow is about to be hit, why would we fire one back at North Korea or wherever - just for spite? - we would never ever do it? Would we?

I think thats where MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) the whole idea behind nuclear weapons comes in. I.e dont lauch at us because whatevers left of us will launch back at you.

Quite an appropriate acronym...

Bomb hittin' Glasgow would cause £25 billion worth of improvements.

petewick

You'll probably find that this was some commitment made to NATO years ago, to maintain the deterrent. I find it odd that Labour is going through with this, when you consider that all of the leaders before blair were anti nuclear weapons, the policy even lost them an election. Does anyone think that there would be an outcry if the government dismantled rather than upgraded the nuclear arsenal? I don't think so.

petewick wrote:

peenkles21 wrote:

Even if we get the 4 minute warning, and Glasgow is about to be hit, why would we fire one back at North Korea or wherever - just for spite? - we would never ever do it? Would we?

I think thats where MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) the whole idea behind nuclear weapons comes in. I.e dont lauch at us because whatevers left of us will launch back at you.

Quite an appropriate acronym...

Bomb hittin' Glasgow would cause £25 billion worth of improvements.

petewick

Here the bird that never flew
the tree that never grew
the fish that never swam
the bell that never rang

Fae awe the gid people in Glesga toon
who remember the bombs in Maryhill
Killing the weans murder most dark
petewick sings -tae hiv a laugh

ionnsaigh wrote:

petewick wrote:

peenkles21 wrote:

Even if we get the 4 minute warning, and Glasgow is about to be hit, why would we fire one back at North Korea or wherever - just for spite? - we would never ever do it? Would we?

I think thats where MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) the whole idea behind nuclear weapons comes in. I.e dont lauch at us because whatevers left of us will launch back at you.

Quite an appropriate acronym...

Bomb hittin' Glasgow would cause £25 billion worth of improvements.

petewick

Here the bird that never flew
the tree that never grew
the fish that never swam
the bell that never rang

Fae awe the gid people in Glesga toon
who remember the bombs in Maryhill
Killing the weans murder most dark
petewick sings -tae hiv a laugh

Aye

Why do we neeed to upgrade Trident?

It already has the power to destroy hundreds of cities.
Just think what that money could do for Scotland.

think your all missing the point here

its the government in power that proposes this action, a government that was duley elected by the people.

complain all you want if you voted for any other party, if you didn't? if you voted labour? then you gave them your permission to impliment this plan, you chose to upgrade trident, you chose to spend 25 billion which could be spent propping up scottish enterprise for the next year (joking!!!)

if this matter concerns you, don't you think you should have asked how your party of choice would act before you voted? hopefully the scottish elections next year will come before this plan is started, lets see how many if any teeth the executive have?

oooh theres the big helitopter again!!!!!

big tony wrote: .....don't you think you should have asked how your party of choice would act before you voted?....

Regardless of what was said pre-election, governments don't always stick to pre-election promises. I wonder if as sweltered suggests this is some kind of NATO commitment? Otherwise, the theme in the posts above seems to agree that it doesn't seem like a smart move - and a change in approach could have been taken i.e. "OK, we said we were going to upgrade, but given the change in world politics we think we're going to now do x instead."
I just wondered if there was rational reason for doing the upgrade other than either (a) "existing NATO commitment" or (b) "because we said in our manifesto we would." ?? Nobody is suggesting there is?

I also retain a (perhaps naive) belief that influence from "the people" does encourage politicians to act in a certain direction. OK not very successfully pre-Iraq war, but there's hope - and I wasn't sure if this is a done deal yet?

big tony wrote: hopefully the scottish elections next year will come before this plan is started, lets see how many if any teeth the executive have?

I thought defence was a Westminster matter - what could/would the scot executive do?

Well, I hope they ditch the upgrade......and DON'T waste the £25bn released by doing so.......

And what about the Eurofighter? is there any need for hundreds of them? is there any need for ANY of them? that could be another £20bn released.

Whether or not we need Trident is open to debate, but surely the RAF are entitled to expect the best aircraft in these troubled times...

Malcolm Chisholm has become the first member of the Holyrood Labour cabinet to come out against the First Minister's support for replacing Trident.
The Communities Minister has past form for adopting Left-wing stances in response to pressure from within his Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. So yesterday's decision to speak out can be seen in the context of next May's election battle....

more
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/76338.html

I'm confused...

Is it the actual missiles that are being replaced

or

the submarines that deploy them?

If it is the actual missiles, is there not world ruling on developing new nuclear weapons?? And if the UK can develop a replacement for the weapons, why are they trying to stop North Korea doing the very same thing.

If its to replace the subs, then i am for it (maybe the cost could be brought down though) having already got these weapons of mass destruction, it is a deterrent to stop other power mad countries sending them in our direction.

But with that said... any nation daft enough to attack MY country, will need to take out most of it in a single attack, as i and many like me, will defend it till the very end.

Targe and Claymore ready...