Its so 80's so out of date like the cold war concept its had its day like nuclear power itself.

When these subs go into service the Trident will be 70 years old.

The present Trident subs have plenty of life left they just need plugs and an oil change.

There is enough time to cancel the new Trident and install a less costly and more effective system which actually makes some sort of sense.

Corbyn just said that he would not authorise a 'first strike' that is all.

Not since the mid 90's when they retired Mirage IV, their Vulcan type bomber!

They can use smaller aircraft like Rafale, with aerial refuelling to deliver over long distance, but then so could the UK if it wanted to.

They don't use spark plus and oil filters (well not in the way its implied) they're nuclear powered submarines.

I think its been approved and contracts issued at least for the new reactors and submarines. So I suspect that any cancellation will involved penalty payment clauses.

One of the likely issues around Trident is that we buy the missile systems from the US, which is serious business between the UK treasury and US military trade.

Much as I might want him to win the election, I very much doubt he'll have to make that choice - and Trident isn't really a first strike solution anyhow.

The UK has no first strike capacity, short of unleashing at some 64 plus nuclear warheads, at a pre-selected target, that's with 4500 miles of the submarine (give or take 800 ft - Trident missiles aren't notably very accurate - but then nuclear warheads don't really require precision targeting).

No Prime Minister in the UK is going to order a first strike except as part of a NATO defence against an overwhelming force. Sure they might say they would 'in certain circumstances' but unless that's the use of a real WMD against the UK, its never going to happen (and the use in the case of WMD really constitutes a retaliatory strike).

It'd take one hell of a conventional attack to justify deploying nuclear weapons.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Jamie, as I said, the risks involved in a nuclear attack upon the UK are not straightforward, free of risk nor easy for any particular enemy with a conventional threat to us that we know about.

Added to this difficulty is the reality that any conventional action taken against us like this would inevitably involve going to war against Nato and hence America. So taking care of our complication would be as just a drop in the ocean compared to the planning involved against their arsenal.

It is a huge and largely pointless risk....Rationality says it would only be a last throw of the dice.

So I find the general implication that we don't have an effective deterrent to be highly spurious. It isn't the best in the world but is difficult to combat without risking significant losses yourself.

The options for this country not to have a nuclear option are far more riskier and tantamount to certain blackmail or implementation. This point is extremely important.

The concept of mutual destruction has worked extremely effectively. Compare how many lives we lost in wars before it to how many we lost in wars after having a nuclear capacity.

Without honest actors looking to also reduce their nuclear capacity we are left with the least risky option of maintaining a nuclear capacity.

Its influence goes far beyond just defence and those who think they know better are in my opinion not fit to make decisions that affect the security of my kids.

If we gave up our nuclear capacity we would further weaken Nato and leave America thinking that he doesn't have any real effective allies in an institution it eyes as more of a burden than a plus. Our influence in the world would lessen along with losing our seat on the security council....which has plenty of ethically doubtful people on it already.

In a Europe that for decades has looked to scrimp on defence spending and rely on big brother America (which plenty of the hypocrites hate) Britain along with France has a proud and respected tradition of standing up and maintaining military defences worthy of the name.

Those who want to turn us into a military Norway can sit and spin as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Apr 2017 4.29pm)

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

We don't, Trident doesn't and can't really work effectively like that. We need to move to either a long range Navy missile solution (possibly submarine based), using longer range missile systems or land based Long Range intercontinental ballistic missile system.

There is no point or value in surrendering our deterrent, as there is nothing really on the table to make that worth undertaking (and if we did, then NATO's only nuclear capacity is the French systems).

But Trident, isn't anything other than a almost out of date solution, to an enemy that's no longer a major threat, that just keeps us 'nuclear' for the sake of saying it.

Or we're going to need a lot more submarines if we're going to always have one 4600 miles off the coast of each potential nuclear threat.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

So which one is Trident going to be used against (hint it has to be Russia, because China is realistically outside the operational range of Trident).

Going forwards we need to realistically be able to deploy nuclear capability towards Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, pakistan and maybe Saudi Arabia. There is probably some wisdom in being able to target South America, as sooner or later Brazil or Argentina might go down the nuclear path.

As it stands, it takes three trident submarines to have 'a final strike' solution against one of country.

Because we've dilly dallied around Trident for political reasons, rather than face the fact that well be left with an increasingly obsolete system.

Last I heard the Polaris missile on a Trident Submarine had around a 4500 or so mile effective range.

Problem with Trident, is its going to be 80-120bn plus spent on an increasingly less effective and versatile system - largely because of deals in place with US and UK arms industry jobs and so we can say 'we have a nuclear option' (which might have to be launching a strike on a different country than the one that attacked us).

It was a mistake in the 80s for the Conservatives to move entirely to the Trident system (which just happens to be a huge US Arms industry spend), and its been a continual mistake to keep focused on Trident decade on decade, even though the world has been changing.

The problem isn't that 'the enemies of the cold war' aren't a threat, its that Trident isn't really any use against the enemies of the modern era and future.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]