Trident

Give me ONE (1) good reason why we shouldn't renew Britain's nuclear deterrent

BECAUSE MURICA HAS YO BACK BRIT BRO

The reason doesn't exist. Any MP that votes against the program renewal should be hung as a traitor.

1) muh
2) bennies

silos would be cheaper

The submarines have unlimited theoretical range though

Gotta keep dem gibs

Because the US already has enough.
The fuck you need a SSBN for? Second strike?
yeah, ok.

Because the number of nuclear armed states has increased every single decade since the 1940s, and the most recent crop of members to the club are known proliferators.

Nuclear weapons are going to become typical in the next few decades.

>radiation
>money
>scary
Feelings will have the UK subjugated.

Silos can potentially be taken out in a first strike.

The advantage of a submarine based deterrent is you don't have to decide if you want to retaliate straight away; the UK could be reduced to ash but the submarines could still launch a counter strike months after the initial event.

They're also hard to track and so pretty safe from a preemptive strike.

no serious nuclear power uses silos anymore. static targets are easily eliminated before you can respond

>The fuck you need a SSBN for
>need

SHALL

irrelevant question. nukes arent real. but might as well let the goyim think they are

The renewal cost is undisclosed. It will be at least 4 subs built to replace the current ones. Which we will not see for at least 30 years.

The cost for the British taxpayer to fund Afghanistan was 37 billion £. The cost to simply build (not man, and arm) four subs will be in the region of 41 billion.

There are alternatives. If we want to remain a nuclear power we could invest into cheaper delivery, and faster, such as stealth bombers, etc, or even put the money into better carriers, fund our military more, etc.

Tbh though I don't think we need nukes in the uk, it's just a pissing contest and I feel the money woukd be better spent in other areas of the military if not put toward decent infrastructure for brexit; invest it into business etc, give the uk more things to trade with.

it is a vestige of the MAD aspect of the Cold War, and our focus should not be on striking others, but defending ourselves. Therefore we should put our nukes on our own land, in our own borders.

I think the cost is reasonable

I'd rather cut the aid budget first

Unlike the rest of Sup Forums I have stock market investments and I like long term stability

>SHALL BIN THY KNIFE!

friendly reminder to not teach your kids hate speach.

>trying to burgerpost
cute

Because you have "migrants" to pay for.

Because i'm posting from a Russian Submarine currently under the Clyde.

Your deterrent is useless. We could wipe Europe off the map in 42 minutes.

You have 1 sub at sea, and we always know where it is roughly. The other 2 are at Faslane or Rosyth, so its pretty fucking easy to take them out.

It's like having nukes just for the fuck of it.

I grew up next to a sylo. They will withstand pretty much any anything.

>I grew up next to a sylo
such is life in the eastern bloc

Ah yes, because nukes can shoot down incoming nukes
Brilliant idea for a deterrent. Have you emailed the MOD yet?

>They will withstand pretty much any anything.

No silos are prime targets for ICBMs and their accuracy will doom any installation. Nothing on Earth can stand up to a near hit from a nuke (within 100m). Even guided bunker busters could render it mission killed.

Yes they do, stupid. That's one of the only reasons why anyone is ever nice to Turkey.

They actually built nuclear-tipped anti ballistic missiles, I think Moscow is still protected by them.

There were also nuclear air to air missiles for destroying bomber formations.

Yes because an extra carrier is more scary to Russia than the prospect of having their capital city wiped out by a nuke

I don't think that you understand how nukes work burgerfriend. They don't impact, and don't dig holes. They explode above the target.

Silos are designed to withstand huge nuclear and conventional blasts.

Education yourself, come back when you are less stupid

Based Ivan telling it like it is. Burgers like to brag about their conventional forces but you guys would destroy them before they could even leave port/airfield.

>the prospect of having their capital city wiped out by a nuke
pic related would like a word

Love that pic.

>They don't impact, and don't dig holes. They explode above the target.


That's pretty interesting that you think I'm the retard here. I don't think you understand the accuracy and power of modern physics packages. There's a reason silos are target #1 & #2 between our countries. Cheyenne mountain can't stand a direct hit from a nuke and it's considered the most hardened facility on the planet.

Nice try though.

It's a waste of money. Finish the carriers instead. Carriers are the key to modern warfare.

We crowned trident?

>brits build a submarine, a vehicle that goes underwater
>they make a hole in the top
A FUCKING BONG

because why bother paying for your own defense when America will do it for free

that seems to be the motto of all NATO countries

Ah yes, because America is always guaranteed to uphold all her treaty obligations, even when it doesn't suit her

because being defenseless is a virtue? and we can just give free hugs to anyone who hates us

Morality man is against it.

we are not in a cold war anymore, a small nuclear deterrant is enough.

the cost of maintaining it is causing us to neglect our conventional forces

Where are the all those m8s that love posting webms of nuclear tests when you need them?

There's no good reason, nukes a fucking beautiful.

There's no way we would leave our Britbros flapping in the wind. Anglosphere is united to the bitter end.

Anglos to the end, dearest burger, get in here Ausbros, Newzealads and fuck it, Leafs too.

Brings a tear to my eye, lads.

it takes literally 2 torpedoes from a sub to take out any carrier
every single war games scenario we run ends with the carriers going down fucking fast
the escort group can't find the subs until it's too late

You realize we know where all Russian subs are right?

Nobody knows where any subs are besides through information sharing with allies or sometimes when they leave/enter port or surface for whatever reason. If a submarine doesn't want to be found, it won't be. Ivan is talking bollocks, as are you.

There are none.

fix the rest of your navy so you dont actually have to rely on your nuclear forces as a deterrence

4th > from bottom
Need $$$
>America kicks out Turkey from NATO
>Turkey sides with Russia
>West no likey no lighty
>Back's Greece against Turkey
>Cypurs is reunified
>Turkey is kicked out of Europe at Constantino... Istanbul
>NATO controls the Dardanelles
>Russia scared so appeals to China
>China gets south sea, Russia gets the Black sea and some satellite states
>WW3
>NATO winning
>Sino-Russian alliance appeals to blacks about communism and how evil whitey is
>FREE WELFARE N SHEEEIIIT
>5th column in Baltimore
>Olympushasfallen.jpeg
>USA collapses
>Europe appeals to Australia for help
>Australia has gone dark since the Emu's are communist sleeper agents and comms arn't functional as the Australian Radio operators are just trying to derail the European pleas for help with bantz and shit posting
>Europe appeals to New Zealand for help
>Too busy filming the Silmarillion
>Europe deploys its secret EU army to defeat Russian zerg rush
>There is no army as Rompuy spent all the money on housing terroris... migrants
>Peirre, one of the last free Frenchman gazes over the channel as the continentals make there last stand at Calais
>An armada of ships are steaming straight from Blighty
>"Mercie England Mon Amie" Peirre shouts as the French are inspired by the reinforcements from England
>Millions of Poles and Romanians are unleash from the ships which are not reinforcements but evicted continentals post article 50
>The defenders do little as they fear that protesting against the influx of Gypsies will lead to them getting cursed, and Supreme European commander Merkel stated that any xenophobia will be punished by death.
>Only the UK is left
>muh fight on the beaches speech
>Can't attack as army was gutted to pay for 6 more refrendum re-run campaigns (funded by the government) to see if the British people really did want to leave
>Starved out and surrendered
>100 years later EA released battlefield 0.0095 set in WW3
>On the box art is a Martian pretending to be a Russian soldier

because all the bases for your nuclear subs are in Scotland and they'll be jumping ship soon.

I didn't find this amusing but you took a lot of time and effort to write it so here's a (You)
Keep trying

The only reasons I can think of is that the UK is not a world power anymore and that nuclear missiles being launched means we are all fucked anyway as billions will die once they hot their locations.

>ONE
can't be used on your #1 enemy
>your leftists and muds

I don't have any reasons, you guys should do it

>hung as a traitor

Hanged. You fucking Ameritard.

Because you are about to become the new West Pakistan,
We already have 1 Pakistan with nukes and it's shitting up the entire world

Sorry m8, only we burgers can SHALL.

Because I need my job

>renew

Because you should build new ones instead.

That submarine looks terrible

Your_moms_dildo.jpg

Just buy our subs for nuclear deterrence.
Should be cheaper.

Why do you need such a big sub?

That's what we would be doing you silly amphibian

>Give me ONE (1) good reason why we shouldn't renew Britain's nuclear deterrent
You did though, so...

That would never stop a MIRV.

>British ship naming

What a pretty sub.

Which German submarines can launch a Trident missile?

The Jews built one with nuclear warhead for our subs.
Ask them.

Just use the warheads.

My bad. I misread the statement.
Then my answer is: DO IT!

>Why do you need such a big sub?
Because a real man can't lose a dick contest, Hans. The bigger the better.
Don't you become pic related if I whisper "Wunderwaffen" into your ear?

Because you're a pathetic little island that'll never be a great power again, no matter how much you splurge on nukes.

Because they cant afford it

Because then we'd be reliant on you for parts and maintenance. Nice try Hans.

Basically this.

If you dig a 500 foot hole in the ground and have several reinforced concrete locks between the missile and the outside, save a literal proton torpedo in the form of a guided bomb coming in at very close to 90 degrees.

Plus the fact, with emerging technology that the we, the Ruskies, and Chinese seem to be pouring money into, its probably more assured method of nuclear deterrence if you have a faster and longer ranged ICBM as opposed to a slower moving SLBM.

We seem to be living in an era of month on month drastic political alliance changes though.

Apart from the Suez canal? Right, you weren't ready? Right.... RIGHT?!

Because America would just do it for us. They aren't really even ours, we need Obongo's permission to fire them.

>They aren't really even ours, we need Obongo's permission to fire them.

>people still parrot this myth

The theory since the cold war, which the US government agrees with, is that a potential enemy might pick off the UK under the gable that America wouldn't retaliate if it was no itself attacked. Of course America most likely would retaliate if someone started firing nukes, but by then it'd be too late for the UK.

I stopped reading at " turkey sides with Russia".. it was only the second line!
Try harder prick.

Been told that by family in the government, didn't even know it was public knowledge. Have fun with nukes controlled by Hillary.

we are no longer a super power, we are an island getting ready to close its boarder, and if they nuke britain, france would be hit and in turn the EU and all its might anyway?

China also have unfinished business with their Russian friends.

>Pakistan and India relevant to the entire world
Top kek, fuck off you curry nigger

give this man a cookie

It isn't true. America services them because it's cheaper. We can fire them whenever we want. The point of the trident system is that the submarine may be the last British asset left in the world, and it can still retaliate against anyone anywhere.

Because I don't want another Muslim state packing nukes.

The point of nukes was to make damn sure that you hit the target. You'd nuke Moscow, and you'd be pretty sure that you got the Kremlin in the process.

This was necessary because guidance systems used to be complete dogshit, and if you're firing at a target with a rocket from the other side of the planet, then "the general geographical area of the target" is the best you can do.

Now we have good guidance systems, drones, cruise missiles, and can literally land a rocket on a barge in the middle of the ocean, nuclear weapons don't serve a great tactical advantage.

The only strategic niche the weapons now serve is threat of widespread indiscriminate destruction and death against civilian population centres. The only likely way that's actually going to happen is by accident, or through someone going rogue and somehow pressing a button. But even if that does happen today's world leaders aren't fucking stupid enough to retaliate in kind, they'll backpedal and wring their hands and the world will carry on turning less one city.

So I think nukes are kinda pointless due to the lack of a legitimate Cold War arms race scenario.

If NK with their dummy nooks can be relevant then so can we with our real ones

>That would never stop an MIRV

The kicker is that it wouldn't stop an MIRV on most ICBM's, but just might stop a slower moving MIRV slugged by an SLBM, kind of like how the SM-3 works if it were upgraded.

This idea would work if you can spot out areas where it isn't soil and sediments halfway through. If you a dig a deep hole through solid rock and layer in concrete locks then it becomes almost impossible to take out in a first strike scenario; which is the whole point to having a nuclear capable submarine, and while digging a 400-500 foot hole in solid rock is expensive, it cannot be less expensive than building a sophisticated instrument of death known as a SSBN.

Just by german or sedish submarines.
They're better than 90% of nuclear subs.

>Nukes are pointless civilian targeting mechanism.

Well, nukes didn't exist in world war I or almost all of II. You think that can't happen again, especially with the middle east melting down?

>shitting
You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?

*buy

what about when the americunts droped them on the gooks

>can't afford it

There, you have it. Btw, Scotland and the SNP won't store them.

muslims should not have access to nuclear capabilities

I'm expecting a civil war to hit Europe someday like the previous wars Europe had like the medieval period, Napoleonic Wars and World War 1.

There won't be nukes used but civilians, militias and soldiers will be common-used and cannon fodder.

>shut down the atoms

rio de janeiro

Turkey doesnt have any nuclear weapons of their own though, stupid