I fucking hope not, I heard first hand how that went tits up. Every kipper airframe was up in 3 hours including the hangar queens. We had a unilateral parental Christmas that year. On the plus side i did get an awesome ATAT from santa!!!!Pseudo wrote:Able Archer 16 anyone?
Trident
Re: Trident
Re: Trident
I also got an AT-AT for Christmas that year and I'd entirely agree that it was bloody awesome.jimthelad wrote:I fucking hope not, I heard first hand how that went tits up. Every kipper airframe was up in 3 hours including the hangar queens. We had a unilateral parental Christmas that year. On the plus side i did get an awesome ATAT from santa!!!!Pseudo wrote:Able Archer 16 anyone?
Re: Trident
US Secretary of State for Defense chips in to the debate and uses sound bites "Punch above weight" and "Special Relationship."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35566480
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35566480
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Trident
On the "the US could shut it down by turning off the GPS" point, how easy would that actually be? Would it even be desirable if it was done after the UK launched it's weapons? If the 8 odd MIRVed TIID5 missiles hurtling towards military and political targets around Moscow suddenly became orders of magnitude less accurate who knows what they'd hit. I'd say there's a pretty good possibility of just indiscriminately showering the Russian capital with MIRVs. Essentially achieving a similar political effect to an accurately conducted strike (imo).
Also would "turning off the GPS" not also compromise the US Trident missiles? As, from what I know, they're exactly the same.
Also would "turning off the GPS" not also compromise the US Trident missiles? As, from what I know, they're exactly the same.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Trident
That argument has many flaws, like you say it would also degrade the Americans capabilities greatly.
The trident missile isn't GPS guided any way, only the MIRV's are.
The missile relies on internal guidance in the early stages, then star guidance in the later stage's, so achieving the correct ballistic trajectory would still be possible without GPS. The reentry vehicles also use internal guidance, so even without GPS it would still be capable of hitting close enough to ruin the targets day.
Do we really think the most credible military system would leave its self vulnerable to external influences.
Also, trident was invented befor the GPS was active
The trident missile isn't GPS guided any way, only the MIRV's are.
The missile relies on internal guidance in the early stages, then star guidance in the later stage's, so achieving the correct ballistic trajectory would still be possible without GPS. The reentry vehicles also use internal guidance, so even without GPS it would still be capable of hitting close enough to ruin the targets day.
Do we really think the most credible military system would leave its self vulnerable to external influences.
Also, trident was invented befor the GPS was active
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Trident
I agree with the premise of Trident {given the French still have Nuclear weapons we need to have them to }
If we are going to get rid of them eventually it should be as part of an international agreement that is comprehensive and verifiable.
However if the money that was being spent on trident was ring fenced for conventional Naval spending I'd have difficulty making that choice. How much money are we willing to invest and should it be to the detriment of conventional forces?
I suspect as soon as we give up Nuclear weapons we'll be replaced on the UN security council by Germany or India.
The only country to have given up nuclear weapons is Ukraine and that's gone well.
If we are going to get rid of them eventually it should be as part of an international agreement that is comprehensive and verifiable.
However if the money that was being spent on trident was ring fenced for conventional Naval spending I'd have difficulty making that choice. How much money are we willing to invest and should it be to the detriment of conventional forces?
I suspect as soon as we give up Nuclear weapons we'll be replaced on the UN security council by Germany or India.
The only country to have given up nuclear weapons is Ukraine and that's gone well.
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Trident
I have to play devil's advocate here and ask, would a zero nuclear world actually be desirable? Whatever happens we aren't ever going to un-invent nuclear weapons. The technology will still exist and as time goes on it'll get easier for pretty much any state to build one. When it comes down to it such a world would probably be defined by nuclear breakout capability, which would be extremely dangerous. Countries fighting conventionally would have every reason to be the first to build and use a nuclear weapon, before their opponents do.marktigger wrote:I agree with the premise of Trident {given the French still have Nuclear weapons we need to have them to }
If we are going to get rid of them eventually it should be as part of an international agreement that is comprehensive and verifiable.
It's what 6% of the defence budget. I don't think that's disproportionate or overly detrimental to conventional forces tbh.However if the money that was being spent on trident was ring fenced for conventional Naval spending I'd have difficulty making that choice. How much money are we willing to invest and should it be to the detriment of conventional forces?
Unlikely, any government with its head screwed on would veto such a move. Also neither Germany or India has a military capable of projecting force much more than regionally.I suspect as soon as we give up Nuclear weapons we'll be replaced on the UN security council by Germany or India.
The only country to have given up nuclear weapons is Ukraine and that's gone well.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
- WhitestElephant
- Member
- Posts: 389
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
Re: Trident
Its a permanent seat.marktigger wrote:I suspect as soon as we give up Nuclear weapons we'll be replaced on the UN security council by Germany or India.
The only country to have given up nuclear weapons is Ukraine and that's gone well.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Trident
Permanent is a word and given pressure it can be changed to be politically expedient if it's in other members interests to have us removed they will. India and Germany are bigger economic powers and the EU would like a seat on the security council.WhitestElephant wrote:Its a permanent seat.marktigger wrote:I suspect as soon as we give up Nuclear weapons we'll be replaced on the UN security council by Germany or India.
The only country to have given up nuclear weapons is Ukraine and that's gone well.
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Trident
What mechanism would they use to remove us? From where I'm standing the only way it could be done is voluntarily through the UNSC itself. Otherwise you'd have to rewrite the UN charter, a can of worms I doubt any of the other P5 members would like to open. Germany is also a bigger economic power than Russia, does that mean they should lose their P5 seat too?marktigger wrote:Permanent is a word and given pressure it can be changed to be politically expedient if it's in other members interests to have us removed they will. India and Germany are bigger economic powers and the EU would like a seat on the security council.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Trident
an extra 6% on the conventional navy budget would provide some additional capability and maybe reverse some of the recent cuts.
(I'm also being devils advocate)
A nuclear weapon free world would be great it would save a fortune that could be reinvested into conventional forces. Its not going to happen as the gene is out of the bottle.
Like I said above if it's politically expedient France and the UK could probably loose their seats maybe to the EU and another emerging economic regional power. emerging countries will eventually start demanding their seats at the top tables in the place of former colonial powers who are on the wane.
(I'm also being devils advocate)
A nuclear weapon free world would be great it would save a fortune that could be reinvested into conventional forces. Its not going to happen as the gene is out of the bottle.
Like I said above if it's politically expedient France and the UK could probably loose their seats maybe to the EU and another emerging economic regional power. emerging countries will eventually start demanding their seats at the top tables in the place of former colonial powers who are on the wane.
- WhitestElephant
- Member
- Posts: 389
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
Re: Trident
Neither Britain nor France can be forcibly removed from their permanent seats.marktigger wrote:Like I said above if it's politically expedient France and the UK could probably loose their seats maybe to the EU and another emerging economic regional power. emerging countries will eventually start demanding their seats at the top tables in the place of former colonial powers who are on the wane.
What has economic power to do with it anyway? This is the UNSC not the IMF, besides, Britain is still the 5th economic power globally if you feel that metric is so bloody important.
Furthermore, apart from India or Brazil, what emerging countries can realistically put forward a credible claim to be a permanent memeber of the UNSC? Not to mention that Brazil and India seek to be "in addition to" and not "instead of" the current members of the UNSC.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Trident
WhitestElephant wrote:Neither Britain nor France can be forcibly removed from their permanent seats.marktigger wrote:Like I said above if it's politically expedient France and the UK could probably loose their seats maybe to the EU and another emerging economic regional power. emerging countries will eventually start demanding their seats at the top tables in the place of former colonial powers who are on the wane.
What has economic power to do with it anyway? This is the UNSC not the IMF, besides, Britain is still the 5th economic power globally if you feel that metric is so bloody important.
Furthermore, apart from India or Brazil, what emerging countries can realistically put forward a credible claim to be a permanent memeber of the UNSC? Not to mention that Brazil and India seek to be "in addition to" and not "instead of" the current members of the UNSC.
International politics deals with what is expedient so there is no such thing as "Can't" i
Re: Trident
I can't see the US being keen to see a friendly voice leave the security council and be replaced by one that might not always share the same outlook or goals.marktigger wrote:International politics deals with what is expedient so there is no such thing as "Can't"
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Trident
I can't see it either, But then who could have foreseen 9/11? or the rise of ISIS?Pseudo wrote:I can't see the US being keen to see a friendly voice leave the security council and be replaced by one that might not always share the same outlook or goals.marktigger wrote:International politics deals with what is expedient so there is no such thing as "Can't"
Re: Trident
The CIA, but I'm not sure what they've got to do with the UK's seat on the security council.marktigger wrote:I can't see it either, But then who could have foreseen 9/11? or the rise of ISIS?Pseudo wrote:I can't see the US being keen to see a friendly voice leave the security council and be replaced by one that might not always share the same outlook or goals.marktigger wrote:International politics deals with what is expedient so there is no such thing as "Can't"
Re: Trident
A deterrent of conventional forces?
Reminds me of France, Serbia and Russia
Versus
Austro-Hungary, Germany and Turkey
Circa June 1914.
To quote Captain Blackadder, "It was bollocks!"
Reminds me of France, Serbia and Russia
Versus
Austro-Hungary, Germany and Turkey
Circa June 1914.
To quote Captain Blackadder, "It was bollocks!"
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Trident
We've seen what that world of conventional deterrence looks like. I'll be blunt, democracies do not do well out of it. Authoritarian and Totalitarian states that can mobilise and maintain vastly more of their societies under arms would be the winners in such a world.marktigger wrote:A nuclear weapon free world would be great it would save a fortune that could be reinvested into conventional forces. Its not going to happen as the gene is out of the bottle.
Politically expedient for who exactly? You're assuming the EU will become a sovreign federal super-state which, judging by its current predicament, is a pretty big assumption. Honestly P5 membership is more about the ability to act than any measure of economic strength or population. Despite its vast population and armed forces is India really able to project significant force outside South Asia? Probably not. Is the UK able to project significant force beyond Europe and the Atlantic? Absolutely.Like I said above if it's politically expedient France and the UK could probably loose their seats maybe to the EU and another emerging economic regional power. emerging countries will eventually start demanding their seats at the top tables in the place of former colonial powers who are on the wane.
If you consider the P5 to be the UN's "go-to guys" when force needs to be used in its name then the UK and France absolutely still deserve their seats whereas India and Brazil probably still don't.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Re: Trident
Brazil's just mobilised 200,000 members of its armed forces.
They're handing out leaflets about zika virus.
They're handing out leaflets about zika virus.
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Trident
Shit, better abandon our P5 seat then. Our 70,000 ton aircraft carriers will be powerless in the face of their leaflets!arfah wrote:Brazil's just mobilised 200,000 members of its armed forces.
They're handing out leaflets about zika virus.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Re: Trident
I don't see what's so funny, paper cuts sting like a bugger.Engaging Strategy wrote:Shit, better abandon our P5 seat then. Our 70,000 tob aircraft carriers will be powerless in the face of their leaflets!arfah wrote:Brazil's just mobilised 200,000 members of its armed forces.
They're handing out leaflets about zika virus.
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: Trident
So do those Zika mosquitos... *FAR TOO SOON*Pseudo wrote:I don't see what's so funny, paper cuts sting like a bugger.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Trident
Often used as an argument, but forgets the time profile.Engaging Strategy wrote:It's what 6% of the defence budget. I don't think that's disproportionate or overly detrimental to conventional forces tbh.
SSBNs (with their weapons) are about the most capital intensive platforms; B2s might be a worthy competitor. They are hugely expensive to acquire (call that phase 20 years, even though with the Trident renewal only from 2040 onwards, the problem has been somewhat addressed).
- with yearly budgets (even rolling 10-early ones, like what Denmark has; our 10-yr EP is a plan rather than a budget) the crowding-out effect on other things to do with defence is huge
- the 6% claim (true in itself) is from the typical Treasury intellectual dishonesty mill. I'll try a similar approach: Why not buy Polaris again, only 3% of defence expenditure? 3% (as at 1982) only because defence budgets were more like 4% of the GDP, rather than the 2 of today.
The good news? Once you've got pass that "hump" in expenditure, for the next 30 years CASD will be dirt cheap, for what it achieves.
What can we make of all of this? Probably just that Mr. Osborne did not believe he would be the Chancellor for this Parliament when he, at the beginning of the previous one, insisted that "strategic projects" be part of core Defence expenditure.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Trident
If the treasury and its astute political master was to think strategically about the trident system procurement. They could use hybrid funding structure for the submarine replacement with a 60-40 split. With the Treasury funding 40% of the replacement submarines . This would mitigate the adverse effects of the successor submarines on the rest of the procurement budget. The inclusion of the strategic weapons system in the core defence procurement is one of the worst aspects of the treasury driven S.S.D.R 10. and our political masters(all party's) refusal to fund the sandpit wars they engaged our military in. Causing procurement deferments and reductions ultimately costing us the tax payer more . This would allow the direct treasury oversight of the submarine replacement pleasing the occupant of no11 Thought should be given to the equipment fitted and if extra equipment fitted in build would result in lesser refit bills later in service. Once we have procured the Submarines a hybrid fund structure used for future Strategic weapons procurement. This includes the weapons and I.C.B.Ms
Re: Trident
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.