NationStates Jolt Archive

The UK's Trident weapons systems are due to be decommissioned in 2020, and a decision is needed now on whether to replace it or go nuclear free.

http://login.passport.net/uilogin.srf?lc=1033&id=2

I think the weapons are needed as we cannot predict the direction the world will take in the future. If someone doesn’t like you and is coming at you with a big stick then you need a bigger stick to keep them at arms length; it’s no good trying to talk to people who aren’t open to reason.

So should the UK replace Trident?

4 out of 5 dentists recommend it. :)

So should the UK replace Trident?

On one hand, they are expensive hunks of military hardware that don't get used unless we have an end of the world scenario, which renders keeping them kinda moot for defense.

On the other hand, it's demonstrated that the guy with the biggest stick usually can bully the ones without and not fear being hit back.

So it's a matter of how much you trust the ones with sticks and their descendents I guess.

http://www.partiallyclips.com/storage/20050911_AlienCaveman_sm.png (http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1364)
http://www.partiallyclips.com/

:D

:eek: One more post till I get 1000 posts... and it will have only taken me 3 years...

I think it's because of the uncertainty of the future that the UK should maintain a stock of nuclear devices.

Not to be paranoid, but today's friend is all too often tomorrow's enemy. Britain could wind up in opposition to the US, or France, or Russia, or China, all too easily; and one thing is guaranteed - a non-nuclear nation CANNOT oppose a nuclear armed nation that is willing to use them.

In a very real way, there are those with nukes - and little people. Which is why non-proliferation is never going to work.

[QUOTE=Non Aligned States]On one hand, they are expensive hunks of military hardware that don't get used unless we have an end of the world scenario, which renders keeping them kinda moot for defense.

On the other hand, it's demonstrated that the guy with the biggest stick usually can bully the ones without and not fear being hit back.

-->So it's a matter of how much you trust the ones with sticks and their descendents I guess.[<--/QUOTE]


Replace 'em.

There's a happy medium, of course. Don't replace them all. The Cold War is over. Even if nations need nuclear weapons as a deterrent, doesn't mean they need enough to irradiate Earth's surface three times.

Seems like a good time to replace a bunch of missiles with a handful of better ones.

Seems like a good time to replace a bunch of missiles with a handful of better ones.

Such as? The Goofballian MK III Missile perhaps? :p

Such as? The Goofballian MK III Missile perhaps? :p

My missiles don't kill people. They kick em in the groin. :)

Trident will have to be repalced, butnot with another pure SLBM system.

Perosnally i would opt for a mix of submarine launched criuse missiles that are capable of accepting a variable yeild nuclear warhead in addition to a wide range of more conventioanl payloads (and not nessicarily tomahawk, MDBA have some nice looking ramjet ciruse missile ideas). In addition we should aquire a supersonic air launched nuclear capable missile roughly similar to the French ASMPA program and load it on both the Typhoon Tranche 3 and the F-35, thus we would have a tailorable solution, that cna either be a very low yeild precision implement or a massive end of the world tool (if we converted the vagurds for criuse missiles we could get 5-8 criuse missiles in the sapce of each trident missile, giving roughly similar nuclear output at max load).

...one thing is guaranteed - a non-nuclear nation CANNOT oppose a nuclear armed nation that is willing to use them.

In a very real way, there are those with nukes - and little people. Which is why non-proliferation is never going to work.exactamente.
5 stars post.

My missiles don't kill people. They kick em in the groin. :)

And you don't think a supersonic kick with a mass ranging from 800 kilos and up delivered to the testicles wouldn't kill people? Not even you could survive that LG.

Nukes are a great prevention weopon. WWIII between NATO and the USSR would have broken out durring the cold war without them. I trust humanity enough, we won't use them. Just keep them there adn stop eachother from using them.

Personally, I think Superman should take all of them, make a giant ball out of them, and throw them into the sun.

Wait... that was one of the crappier Superman movies...

Personally, I think Superman should take all of them, make a giant ball out of them, and throw them into the sun.

Wait... that was one of the crappier Superman movies...

As a child I used to believe that if we launched nuclear weapons into the sun we could keep it going forever.

My missiles don't kill people. They kick em in the groin. :)
I was thinking they were more along the lines of Dilbert's probe in the last two episodes of the animated series. *nods*