Trident

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Trident

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 8 of 8 << First < 4 5 6 7 8

Stirlingsays 27 Apr 17 11.36am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Well that's actually how trident was envisioned. Its design and processes are all built around what the Soviet could potentially achieve. Trident is designed specifically so that even if everyone in the UK was wiped out in a surprise attack. The only way to stop Trident, is to sink the submarines. And to do that you have to know where they are, at any given time. We couldn't destroy the Soviet, but we could inflict such horrific causalities and damage in response that it was a effectively assured destruction. Its about a fail safe as a system as could be devised. Although thinking about it, Trident was more about what the other side was capable of doing. I'd argue that our place on the Security Council pretty much is based on being a nuclear nation (same as France). Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Apr 2017 10.01am) I agree. Whatever the system we use it has to go along with this general principle. The main threats are still Russia and definitely China, which is investing considerably in its military in a bid to compete with the US. We can't compete on the same terms but we must be able to inflict a significant cost for attacking us. As we can't shield ourselves that's the only deterrent option. As the technology exists turning our eyes away from it doesn't help us and isn't an option. We are only a support anyway. Reagan ultimately proved that if you win the economic battle and hence the technological....then that makes the military race unsustainable. I hope that reductions can be secured in the future but I know that this can only be done from a position of strength, not weakness. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

27 Apr 17 11.36am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Well that's actually how trident was envisioned. Its design and processes are all built around what the Soviet could potentially achieve. Trident is designed specifically so that even if everyone in the UK was wiped out in a surprise attack.

The only way to stop Trident, is to sink the submarines. And to do that you have to know where they are, at any given time.

We couldn't destroy the Soviet, but we could inflict such horrific causalities and damage in response that it was a effectively assured destruction.

Its about a fail safe as a system as could be devised.

Although thinking about it, Trident was more about what the other side was capable of doing. I'd argue that our place on the Security Council pretty much is based on being a nuclear nation (same as France).

Edited by jamiemartin721 (27 Apr 2017 10.01am)

I agree.

Whatever the system we use it has to go along with this general principle. The main threats are still Russia and definitely China, which is investing considerably in its military in a bid to compete with the US.

We can't compete on the same terms but we must be able to inflict a significant cost for attacking us. As we can't shield ourselves that's the only deterrent option.

As the technology exists turning our eyes away from it doesn't help us and isn't an option. We are only a support anyway.

Reagan ultimately proved that if you win the economic battle and hence the technological....then that makes the military race unsustainable.

I hope that reductions can be secured in the future but I know that this can only be done from a position of strength, not weakness.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 8 << First < 4 5 6 7 8

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Trident

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors