Trident Nuclear Missile system

[Hopkirk]

Can anyone explain to me why we still need to spend huge amounts of money on nuclear missiles?

[Answerprancer]

LOL - now don't spoil the moment ;-)

[jake-the-peg]

As it happens on the trident review the conclusion was that adapting to different forms of nuclear deterrant would be more costly than renewing Trident.

Personally I find that very difficult to believe.

I suspect that maybe just maybe that would be the case in terms of the initial outlay but I very much doubt that the running costs would be anything like those of Trident.

It would be cheaper to adapt futher vessels than building more nuclear subs and be much more flexible.

I suspect the books were well and truely cooked.

We'll have to see what happens - I think Osbourne is still insisting that renawl of Tident will have to come out of the existing armed forces budget and the Navy chiefs are still spluttering into their pink gins at that.

If Osbourne sticks to his guns the Navy might suddenly discover that actually there are cheaper options after all.

But my money's on Osbourne rolling over

[rov1200]

I agree we don't need these nuclear missiles. Just put it into perspective, these missiles do not threaten the leaders of these unstable countries but just the general population. So we are threatening joe bloggs in North Korea not President Jong. He will like that as it ensures the population will be solidly behind him to ensure their existance.

These ideas are a throw back to WWII and no longer valid. We now have drones that can attack individuals in a confined area. There will be no escape for these crack-pots, you just aim a missile in his direction.

[modeller]

Having read all your pacifists posts they are identical copies of those issued in the 1930s
which left us so weak that Hitler was free to do what he liked. The result WW II .
We now know from German records had we been strong he would not have entered the Rhineland which was the precursor to the war . He was led to believe by the pacifists we would not fight and he was right until 1939 by which time it was too late.
.

[Hopkirk]

I'm not a pacifist, I just don't see that a nuclear bomb is the right deterrent today.

If, for example, Iran launched a nuclear missile at Israel, would we actually throw one at Tehran?

I think not, and therefore the whole deterrent idea falls down.

[modeller]

# If, for example, Iran launched a nuclear missile at Israel, would we actually throw one at Tehran?
I think not, and therefore the whole deterrent idea falls down. #

Your question would have more validity if you had asked what would Israel do if Iran launched a nuclear missile attack against her . I think you know the answer. Iran will not do it .they dare not.. That's the deterrent .
The same applies to us Russia will never launch a nuclear attack against us or the reverse.
That's a deterrent

Its expensive but a lot cheaper than another WW .

[rov1200]

During the last cold war Russia had loads of missiles primed to attack the UK. They did not have them pointing at the rest of Europe. They also had bombers skirting our airspace and we had to send fighters to intercept them. Why was this? Because we was a threat to them with our nuclear weapons probably primed to attack Russia.

The moral is if you try to act big you will get crushed. Having these nuclear missiles made us a target.

[modeller]

Interesting philosophy , pity it didn't work in 1914 and 1939 when all the weak countries in Europe were the first to be over-run.