Trident

[AFCB_Mark]

News story today about a Royal Navy submariner who has written and publicly released a report cataloging various scary and dangerous situations and practices he has encountered whilst on tour in our Trident nuclear subs. Lapses in security and dangerous near misses etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32771925

And whilst it's still up and available, the actual report by the bloke in question is here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/265119365/The-Sec-ret-Nuc-lea-r-Th-re-At#

Having presumably broken the secrets act etc, the submariner in question is expected to hand himself in shortly.

If even half of what he reports is true, then it paints a pretty poor picture of our current deterrent. For example, not even being able to successfully complete it's missile launch tests. It could either strengthen the calls for a replacement deterrent or add weight the view of this bloke that the deterrent should be scrapped all together.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Insanely short-sighted to not have a nuclear deterrent in my view.

 

[Red]

Massive respect to this man for doing what he's done.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

The Nuclear stuff will never be used and frankly it doesn't matter that much if it works or not because no one will ever push a button, nor will a situation arise where it should be pressed.

the whole idea of this stuff is simply a deterrent to Russia.....nothing more than that. The ONLY reason Russia hasn't just upped and grabbed Ukraine and Eastern Europe is that risk......slight risk a US or UK may launch one......and vice-versa for us in hitting them.

its not to stop ISIS or to stop terrorists or a Scottish invasion of the north, just simply Russia.

all that sort've report does is tells Russia it doesn't work properly......a great move.

 

[Freakyteeth]

After rising from the depths I knew I had gained enough information to eliminate the biggest threat the UK faces. I also gained the knowledge that my desire to serve the people no matter what.... If I die it wasn't suicide. I'm willing to sacrifice everything, but I would never use my own hand to take my life. If I'm killed and this report is made public, there will be a high chance of a violent revolution.

coo coo for cocoa puffs

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The Nuclear stuff will never be used and frankly it doesn't matter that much if it works or not because no one will ever push a button, nor will a situation arise where it should be pressed.

the whole idea of this stuff is simply a deterrent to Russia.....nothing more than that. The ONLY reason Russia hasn't just upped and grabbed Ukraine and Eastern Europe is that risk......slight risk a US or UK may launch one......and vice-versa for us in hitting them.

its not to stop ISIS or to stop terrorists or a Scottish invasion of the north, just simply Russia.

all that sort've report does is tells Russia it doesn't work properly......a great move.

You're talking about infrastructure that takes years to implement not being necessary to thwart threats that manifest in days and weeks. If the Nobel Peace Prize could be handed to an inanimate object, then a nuke should win every year. A smaller proportion of the world's population dies today because of war than ever has in human history, thanks in large part to the fact that world wars are now unthinkable. It's easy to say that we'll never need it when you've spent most of your life living in a bubble in time when the country has never faced an existential threat, but without nuclear weapons I don't see how that could ever last. It's not difficult to envision a future in which we and France both disarm our deterrents and the US gets tired of interventionism. I would bin our blue water navy before I would get rid of the nuclear deterrent. The suggestion is absolute madness when you look at it in a historical context.*



* as is the fact that we have no arc capable of preserving the human race and/or a means to detect and destroy rogue asteroids, but that's a rant for another time...

 

[Gladders]

Like above its purely a deterrent, it doesn't matter if it doesn't work, if we ever get into the situation were we have to use it, we have already lost. Making it public that it doesn't work is stupid.

 

[The Southbank]

Absolute waste of money, if we need to use it we're all dead anyway.

 

[silkyman]

Already been deleted.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

You're talking about infrastructure that takes years to implement not being necessary to thwart threats that manifest in days and weeks. If the Nobel Peace Prize could be handed to an inanimate object, then a nuke should win every year. A smaller proportion of the world's population dies today because of war than ever has in human history, thanks in large part to the fact that world wars are now unthinkable. It's easy to say that we'll never need it when you've spent most of your life living in a bubble in time when the country has never faced an existential threat, but without nuclear weapons I don't see how that could ever last. It's not difficult to envision a future in which we and France both disarm our deterrents and the US gets tired of interventionism. I would bin our blue water navy before I would get rid of the nuclear deterrent. The suggestion is absolute madness when you look at it in a historical context.*



* as is the fact that we have no arc capable of preserving the human race and/or a means to detect and destroy rogue asteroids, but that's a rant for another time...

Surely the period between 1815-1914 constitutes a longer period without an existential threat than 1945-now?

Nuclear weapons don't prevent wars because the threat of nuclear war is unbelievable, and if nuclear war was a believable threat it would be an even better reason not to have nukes.

Russia established its hegemony over Eastern Europe while the USA was the sole nuclear power. Nuclear weapons didn't stop North Vietnam defeating the US or Algeria overthrowing French rule. Nuclear deterrent didn't stop Argentina invading the Falklands or Egypt invading Israel in 1973.

Similarly, Taiwan manages OK with a nearby hostile nuclear power despite not having nukes, Japan's lack of wmds doesn't allow China to ride roughshod over its territorial disputes.

Basically nukes aren't a deterrent to war, nor is not having nukes a deterrent to peace. It's almost like international diplomacy is slightly more complicated than totting up the size of your respective armies and the number of nuclear weapons you have.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

The Nuclear stuff will never be used and frankly it doesn't matter that much if it works or not because no one will ever push a button, nor will a situation arise where it should be pressed.

the whole idea of this stuff is simply a deterrent to Russia.....nothing more than that. The ONLY reason Russia hasn't just upped and grabbed Ukraine and Eastern Europe is that risk......slight risk a US or UK may launch one......and vice-versa for us in hitting them.

its not to stop ISIS or to stop terrorists or a Scottish invasion of the north, just simply Russia.

all that sort've report does is tells Russia it doesn't work properly......a great move.

Nah, the reason Russia hasn't expanded beyond troops in Donbass is they're pretty much only interested in the Russophone/pro-Russian parts of Ukraine. I don't think they see much point in attempting a military occupation of the rest of Ukraine.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Nuclear weapons don't prevent wars because the threat of nuclear war is unbelievable, and if nuclear war was a believable threat it would be an even better reason not to have nukes.

I think the Cold War falsified your first point, and your second is nonsensical. If nuclear war were believable, then the threat of mutually assured destruction would be our only hope of protecting ourselves. Well, unless you're suggesting bending over as a first option instead.

Russia established its hegemony over Eastern Europe while the USA was the sole nuclear power. Nuclear weapons didn't stop North Vietnam defeating the US or Algeria overthrowing French rule. Nuclear deterrent didn't stop Argentina invading the Falklands or Egypt invading Israel in 1973.

Similarly, Taiwan manages OK with a nearby hostile nuclear power despite not having nukes, Japan's lack of wmds doesn't allow China to ride roughshod over its territorial disputes.

I'm pretty sure that Eastern Europe didn't have nukes, and if it had, then the Russians wouldn't have swallowed it up. Similarly had the Faklland Islanders, Algerians or North Vietnamese had nukes then there would have been no conflicts in the first place. Japan and Taiwan have only stayed safe through alliances with another nuclear power, same goes for most of Europe. The question I suppose you have to ask is whether you want to be responsible for your own safety, or gamble it on the benevolence of the Americans and/or French.

 

[Red]

Like above its purely a deterrent, it doesn't matter if it doesn't work, if we ever get into the situation were we have to use it, we have already lost. Making it public that it doesn't work is stupid.

What's stupid is the tax payer paying billions for something that doesn't even work

 

[mnb089mnb]

This fella is telling the public rather than foreign spy agencies who probably know a heck of a lot about our nuclear deterrent already. Chinese and Russians will know all about these issues already I suspect.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

What's stupid is the tax payer paying billions for something that doesn't even work

It does work though. It's primary use is a deterrent. If the country is always in a position where we feel like we don't ever need it then it's done it's job for the most part. I don't see what positives could come out of this report beyond it forcing the government to invest billions in sorting it out, which the guy who leaked it is seemingly against. He doesn't seem the sharpest tool in the shed. Sounds like he just wants to be seen as a Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden type hero.

 

[Gladders]

What's stupid is the tax payer paying billions for something that doesn't even work

It does work, it provides a deterrent and gives us a permanent seat on the UN security council and a veto

 

[Red]

Ok, let's just not pay billions for Trident, buy an empty bottle of washing up liquid which costs fuck all and tell everyone else we've got a deterrent.

 

[Gladders]

If it costs fuck all no one will believe it might work.

 

[Red]

Who do you mean by no one? Potential enemies? The potential enemies who attend open days where we show them our nuclear capabilities and evidence that it works?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I reckon the absence of four nuclear submarines would raise a few eyebrows.

 

[Red]

Not if we peddle a lie that such is the advanced capabilities of these sub's they are now invisible and not detectable by any radar known to man. Don't see why not, we're clearly not adverse to telling lies about the capabilities.

Alternatively, keep the current subs, gut them and fill them with plastic balls that you get in ball pools. It would save billions.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Not if we peddle a lie that such is the advanced capabilities of these sub's they are now invisible and not detectable by any radar known to man. Don't see why not, we're clearly not adverse to telling lies about the capabilities.

Yeah, but one lie is plausible (and probably not even a lie), and the other isn't. Besides, I'm pretty sure you don't detect submarines with radar

 

[Red]

Yeah, but one lie is plausible (and probably not even a lie), and the other isn't. Besides, I'm pretty sure you don't detect submarines with radar

Good call. I meant sonar.

 

[Gladders]

We allow states including Russia to fly over our territory and take pictures and gather information on our military forces under the open sky treaty, pretty sure they might see us filling a sub with plastic balls.

 

[Red]

On reflection and havinng all my ideas taken apart I'm thinking this bloke should have kept his mouth shut now and we should keep Trident.

 

[HertsWolf]

I think the Cold War falsified your first point, and your second is nonsensical.

As opposed to pretty much everything that you write being nonsensical.

You base all your statements on scenarios for which you cannot possibly know the outcome. They are simply hypotheses which hold no more validity than those of anyone else.
By the way, the Falkland Islands **did** have nukes because they are a British Overseas Territory and the head of state is the Queen. It didn't stop the invasion by Argentina. Good deterrent.

Saying that because we have a nuclear deterrent we therefore have peace in Europe is abusing cause and effect: it's like blaming the increase in sexual offences in the UK on the rise in the use of tumble-driers because both have increased in number since the 1950s.

 

[HertsWolf]

We allow states including Russia to fly over our territory and take pictures and gather information on our military forces under the open sky treaty, pretty sure they might see us filling a sub with plastic balls.

When do we let them fly over our territory?

 

[Red]

What about unstable leaders with nuclear weapons who don't give a fuck about mutually assured destruction EG?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

As opposed to pretty much everything that you write being nonsensical.

No. Don't embarrass yourself.

You base all your statements on scenarios for which you cannot possibly know the outcome. They are simply hypotheses which hold no more validity than those of anyone else.

Of course they do, given that they're informed by what happened during the Cold War, and the apparent cosmic coincidence that no nuclear states have ever attacked one another. That and the most basic understanding of human nature too of course.

By the way, the Falkland Islands **did** have nukes because they are a British Overseas Territory and the head of state is the Queen. It didn't stop the invasion by Argentina. Good deterrent.

Yeah, well done. The Argentinians didn't even believe that we'd attempt to retake the islands, so they certainly wouldn't have believed that we'd fucking nuke them. Besides, I pretty clearly said Falkland Islanders.

Saying that because we have a nuclear deterrent we therefore have peace in Europe is abusing cause and effect: [...]

It's also not what I said. We don't even have peace in Europe.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

What about unstable leaders with nuclear weapons who don't give a fuck about mutually assured destruction EG?

They'll exist or not exist whether we have a deterrent for the sane ones in place or not.