Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Trident ploughshares / CND etc
buster    10/31/2007 12:04:01 PM
I am a submariner based at faslane and I have been looking at the websites for the various anti-trident groups and have been reading what they have to say. The thing I have noticed is that the website doesnt have anywhere to discuss various views on trident. I was wondering if ther are any websites out there where there is debates from both viewpoints as to the benefit/cost of the system. I dont count strategypage as one as i know that the overwelming number of people who post seem to be in support of nuclear weapons(if not in principal then in practice). For example I have just got back from Glasgow and was approached by people trying to get me to sign a petition to ban trident. Stupidly I had my HMS Vanguard lanyard round my neck at the time as I didnt want to lose my base passes (although it was just sticking out of the top of my jumper.) When I said that I didnt want to sign the petition and they saw the lanyard I got a mouthfull of abuse. It just made me think about what they had to say and have a look to see what they think and thats when I noticed that you can only contribute to the debate if you agree with them. (I realise im ranting on but I have just got back and im not a happy chap at the moment) I will ask anyway what people here think of trident?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Herald1234    Of all, the rockets out there designed to kill people in a strategic war.   10/31/2007 4:22:32 PM
the two best are the upcoming French M-41 SLBM and the current D-5. You get your money's worth from an engineer's PoV.
 
If you want to argue with an anti-trident protestor, don't bother. Something like Trident is a question of conscience for sane nmen how they want to deal witrh the question of nuclear weapons and mass murder. Those idiots can't do anything but slogan think and follow the latest politically correct idiocy like lemmings, They lack the true courage to determine a deep moral choice. They also lack the reasoning skills to make that personal decision. griupthink for them is much easier.
 
The question for me comes down to this. Do I want bandits who have these weapons to be the only ones to have these weapons?
 
Imagine Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the current regimes in Rangoon, Islamabad, Riyahd, Khartoum, Pyong Yong, or Beijing to be the sole possessors of such weapons? Imagine France or the US alone with such weapons.
 
Do you get the point?
 
GOOGLE Kosovo and General Wesley Clark for the US reference.
 
Do you see why Britain has Trident?
 
Herald    
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       10/31/2007 4:40:21 PM

the two best are the upcoming French M-41 SLBM and the current D-5. You get your money's worth from an engineer's PoV.

 


If you want to argue with an anti-trident protestor, don't bother. Something like Trident is a question of conscience for sane nmen how they want to deal witrh the question of nuclear weapons and mass murder. Those idiots can't do anything but slogan think and follow the latest politically correct idiocy like lemmings, They lack the true courage to determine a deep moral choice. They also lack the reasoning skills to make that personal decision. griupthink for them is much easier.

 

The question for me comes down to this. Do I want bandits who have these weapons to be the only ones to have these weapons?
 

Imagine Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the current regimes in Rangoon, Islamabad, Riyahd, Khartoum, Pyong Yong, or Beijing to be the sole possessors of such weapons? Imagine France or the US alone with such weapons.

 

Do you get the point?

 

GOOGLE Kosovo and General Wesley Clark for the US reference.

 

Do you see why Britain has Trident?

 

Herald    




well there are some anti nuclear guys who can think straight but I agree that we (UK) need them if anybody else has them. but that same argument holds true for all countries who do not want to be bullied too far.
 
as for Clark.... not sure how much this story was blown up for political reasons back in US when Clark was looking at going into politics..... if you saw Jackson's remarks then it didn't get very far along the path.....     spin, spin, spin...  
 
 
and as they said on Yes Primeminster.... the Russian were not the reason that the UK had nukes.... its the French....   :-)
 
 
Paul
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/31/2007 4:47:54 PM
Trident specifically or the concept of an atomic deterrent?

Personally, I'm for the latter, at least. Even if you could develop a 100% successful missile interceptor, you still don't have any way of stopping somone lobbing nukes at you on the off-chance that it might work. The chance that your target can lob buckets of instant sunshine back is more of a, well, deterrent. Trident seems to be an entirely adequate way of doing such things.

A friend of mine had his own particular way of dealing with such people. 
First he would claim to be against atomic weapons. When asked why, he would reply:
"Well, I like to eat barbequed babies, and I find that the atomic flash quite ruins the flavour. Babies really ought to be broiled with napalm"

If one wanted to avoid such confrontation with frothing loonies, one might suggest that the use of a more civilian lanyard than one that basically states that "We can obliterate it for you, wholesale"
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Tridents forever....   10/31/2007 4:55:37 PM
Hello Buster,
 
First let me congratulate you on your service to your country. IMV your SSBN force serves to keep all of us in the western world free. I've just had a similar conversation with some of your countrymen regarding the Trident program and some of them are of the opinion that since the missile was built in the US and is serviced there it is not an effective nuclear deterent. Further, doing so places UK in a submissive position vis. US foriegn policy.
 
I'd love to hear your take on their positions, either here or on the other thread.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
ht***tp://strategypage.com/militaryforums/23-1396.aspx
 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       10/31/2007 5:48:17 PM

Hello Buster,

 

First let me congratulate you on your service to your country. IMV your SSBN force serves to keep all of us in the western world free. I've just had a similar conversation with some of your countrymen regarding the Trident program and some of them are of the opinion that since the missile was built in the US and is serviced there it is not an effective nuclear deterent. Further, doing so places UK in a submissive position vis. US foriegn policy.

 

I'd love to hear your take on their positions, either here or on the other thread.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

ht***tp://strategypage.com/militaryforums/23-1396.aspx


doing so places UK in a submissive position vis. US foriegn policy.
Admit it youre just trying to coax F.S. back in arent you - the old britain is the US vassel argument.
 
for the record im not a fan of nukes (but is any sane person) id rather they didnt exist, but as they do best stable countries have them if only to discourage the lunatic fringe.
 
 I do like the current logic - they are no longer useful as the only nuclear threat is from terrorists and so we will never strike back or even be able to. Now this may be true but if you were say syria thinking of funding such an operation, would you really be willing to bet damascus on that.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/31/2007 6:39:50 PM
Current thinking is all very well, but the amount of engineering that has to go into these things means that we need to use in-twenty-year's-time thinking. 

The threat NOW is from terrorists (incidently, there could be one under your bed - woooaaah, scary) but what's it going to be in twenty year's time? Ten? Five? How much do you have to spend to get it back. Can you get it back? 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    One comment about that idiot, Clark.   10/31/2007 10:38:31 PM
 
 
You must understand, that to an American, when a general grandstands the way Clark did, and defies the express orders of his Secretary of Defense, his own  next senior in command, tries to bully an ally, and ignores the Chairman of JCS then he has to go out on his ear. One MacArthur is enough.
 
That factor damns the general in my book, plus Clark, though unquestiuonably brave, is incredibly incompetent in a carteresque way.
 
Herald  
 
Quote    Reply

buster       11/1/2007 8:47:41 AM
I personally think that nuclear weapons are a bad thing but also I think that if North Korea Iran and any general mad man wants them then we should have them (and the ability to hit back).
I agree with the trident ploughshares and CND in that they are not a good thing, but looking at it practically we need them. I wouldnt be on bombers if I didnt agree with them( and the navy wouldnt let me on them otherwise) the practical use of them afterall to me it is only a question of scale.
With nuclear weapons heroshima was flattened, but to me (and i know this sounds harsh) it isnt any different than dresden the people still died in a horrible way and it is still a tragedy that it had to happen at all but the fact of the matter is if it comes to it if you die of horriffic burns you wont care what caused them.
 
does anyone here know of any websites where there is actually a balanced debate about nuclear weapons as i say here the majority support them and if i go to CND you cant contribute unless you share their viewpoint.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       11/1/2007 9:38:27 AM
I think the bomb is the best thing to happen since we invented the wheel.
 
Imagine what could have become of the world from 1945 until today if it were not for the stabilising deterrent of the bomb?
 
For a start, I can't fathom that the USA would have remained mobilised in Europe, while we all know the USSR never reduced her forces (in part to counter our atomic deterrent with a conventional one, but also with Western Europe within Communisms grasp).
 
Would Russia not have over-run us if not for our bomb?
Would the Arabs not have over-run Israel if not for their bomb?
Would the Chinese not have over-run Taiwan if not for Americas bomb?
 
et al
 
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       11/1/2007 10:39:09 AM


 

link
 

You must understand, that to an American, when a general grandstands the way Clark did, and defies the express orders of his Secretary of Defense, his own  next senior in command, tries to bully an ally, and ignores the Chairman of JCS then he has to go out on his ear. One MacArthur is enough.

 

That factor damns the general in my book, plus Clark, though unquestiuonably brave, is incredibly incompetent in a carteresque way.

 

Herald  


well thats one way to spin.
 
where does it say he ignores the chairman of the JCS? (and re reporting from the Guardian.... blimey!)
other reports on the issue had his bosses in Washington supporting him to take whatever action and then they tell him to back off when Guthrie gets involved and he does back off??????
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics