Cost of Nuclear Deterrence

Practically speaking, do you think the UK spending money on something that is realistically just a nuclear deterrent and unlikely to be used in any actual conflict worth it?

And even then, do you think that deterrent is necessary? If you got rid of the subs, can you think of a realistic threat they would face that would have otherwise been deterred?

Do you think they just maintain this program to be a better ally for the US and not force them to deal with the costs of deterrence alone?

I love submarines anyway so spend away, just discussing.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CT34ZgKgERY
youtu.be/XXRC4TfmHEs?t=15m
youtube.com/watch?v=215uknUDJLs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I don't see why UK needs a deterrent present year.
They could maintain a very small V weapon stockpile in case they do get nuked.

A country owning a nuke is comparable to a household owning a firearm. A law abiding country owning one is their right, but a criminal country owning one can be very dangerous.

No, the cost of deterrence for the UK is very small for what it gives them. 40 billion dollars isn't that much money in the grand scheme of things. A lot can change in a short period. The US could leave NATO and then France would more or less be the de facto most powerful country in Europe.

The operating cost of Trident for an entire year is equivalent of 1 week of the NHS, it's a bargain.

From a purely military perspective, I want Britain to keep nukes just so it doesn't all fall on the US to do everything in the event of a nuclear wear.

From a pragmatic perspective, Britain would probably be safer without nukes because they wouldn't be a target then.

Read the Art of War and you'll think differently about submarines. These things are meant to give the autistics a hard on.

Submarines a distraction that employs 50,000 "smart" engineers who if left to their own devices might actually create something that's a real threat to the Illuminati (who conveniently put self-destruct mechanisms into all U.S. military systems from their inception, as they controlled the military during the industrial revolution and have simply stepped aside to let it rot). When they see fit they'll blow up the entire U.S. arsenal with a single button press.

I wonder what the Successor class will cost.

Any particular reason as to why that sub is getting put on a barge on wheels?

youtube.com/watch?v=CT34ZgKgERY

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Land subs.

>Britain would probably be safer without nukes because they wouldn't be a target then.

What would they target exactly? Since our nuclear weapons are based at sea, it's not like they could take them out with a surprise nuclear attack anyway. Seems pointless to target the government since early warning would detect the launch anyway and we would strike back. Hell for that matter, what would we target? Their government? Their empty missile silos?

The whole concept of a nuclear war seems pointless, but I suppose that's why it's never happened.

>scottish votes and opinions matter.

So we can invade Austria and make Lech into the winter version of Benidorm

That is just bizarre logic to me.
1. If I am nuked I definitely want the people nuking me to die too. What kind of point was she trying to make?
2. She doesn't understand mutually assured destruction as a deterrent.
3. Both the US and Russia would use nuclear weapons first if their sovereignty were seriously threatened. That is the whole point of getting nuclear weapons. It makes it hard to impossible to ever be truly conquered. You can't be defeated in the same way that Japan or Germany were defeated in WWII.

So she completely misses the point of a deterrent then, gotcha.

It's an Indian navy sub, so it probably had to find a street somewhere so the sailors could take a shit.

Don't know where you are getting those numbers mate. NHS is around £95 billion annually. The government expects the trident renewal to come to around £31 billion. With anti trident parties saying it could go as high as £205 billion.

I figured as much when so few people even showed up. Lmao.

holy shit the top tier bants

kek

Why don't you guys leave the EU, too? It's not as if you're some impoverished shithole, you're basically Super-Germans.

Without the nukes, the rest of EU would have invaded Britain after the brexit vote.

>fast forward 20 years
>burgers elect someone 10 times worse than trump
>burgers dissolve NATO

thats why its better to have your own nukes

Why does Sup Forums always discuss out current political events? Doesn't your own country have anything exciting going on?

Well hopefully the UK learns how to maintain their own SLBMs by then since they are dependent on the US at the moment.

I like talking about submarines and nuclear weapons.

I'll answer that if you can tell me why British people are so obsessed with the second amendment.

Austrians are cynical but just as naive as regular Germans.

In the periodic poll in Austria over EU membership shows an average of 60% wanting to stay in the EU.

brexit gave you bonus +10 to relevance stat

The UK should produce a vast arsenal of ICBM missiles.

Fitted with 50 Ton Thermobaric Warheads.

Do you have any idea how large that explosion is? Ill give you a hint its like that picture.

Would cost alot less than a nuclear arsenal and guess what... they could actually USE it and hit any fucking place on the planet.

The point she is making is the money is better spent elsewhere. We don't need them because no one wants a nuclear war. Even if they did, NATO would respond in kind to whomever the attackers were. The biggest threat to the UK right now is terrorism. No terrorists have Nuclear weapons. We aren't exactly going to nuke our own streets to prevent it? As long as we have allies with it, we do not need trident. Im pretty sure no Nuclear armed country would want to start a war with nukes because it doesn't end well for anyone.

Nuclear deterence is well worth it but military spending in the UK as well as most other western countires is beyond retarded.
If is to be believed they will be spending a multiple of what they spent for the same thing the last time around.
Not to mention the original H-bomb project probably only cost a fraction despite there being more work to do.

Its 200 billion over its entire lifetime, which is a fucking bargin.

We have 4 operational subs that will be obsolete by the end of the decade. You don't even wanna know the cost to make new ones, plus it will take 17 years to develop.

>From a pragmatic perspective, Britain would probably be safer without nukes because they wouldn't be a target then.

Why the fuck wouldn't they be a target, you cucked retard?

Look at every shithole country trying/who has tried to desperately to get nukes. Your Iran, your North Korea, etc. They understand that at the end of the day, being capable of vast destruction is what puts you at the big boy table. It's what prevents you from being the bitch underneath the table sucking everyone off to avoid getting fucked in the ass.

On a very basic and primal level, respect is a function of one's capacity for violence.

>The point she is making is the money is better spent elsewhere
No it isn't. This is a cheap capability in terms of what it provides, and once you lose that capability it becomes very expensive to get it back.

>We don't need them because no one wants a nuclear war.
No one wants a nuclear war because the stable western states have nuclear weapons.

>Even if they did, NATO would respond in kind to whomever the attackers were
What is this supposed to mean?

>The biggest threat to the UK right now is terrorism.
You don't plan for what is currently happening, or what has just happened. You plan for what may happen in the future. This is the way we have done it for centuries, the way that anyone remotely serious does it.

>No terrorists have Nuclear weapons
Not through want of trying.

>As long as we have allies with it, we do not need trident. Im pretty sure no Nuclear armed country would want to start a war with nukes because it doesn't end well for anyone.
I'm pretty sure you had a serious head injury at birth.

how is it a fucking bargain, we don't use them lol? That's like buying a pizza your never going to eat because it was on sale?

>military spending in the UK as well as most other western countires is beyond retarded.

It is retarded. The US doesn't have to defend itself from an invasion and Germany doesn't want to.

North Korea recently joined the nuclear club. Syria and Iran tried to join it. Pakistan, India, and Israel are part of it. South Africa was secretly part of it. More countries will be nuclear powers, it is only a matter of time. Nuclear weapons are not that hard to build for an advanced country. Japan could have nuclear weapons in a few months if it wanted to. It is pure ignorance to think that nuclear war won't break out. It won't be between Russia and the US. In fact, they definitely won't be involved. Why? No one wants to be wiped off the face of the planet.

My point is the current technology is good enough.
But contractors are going all space age on you instead of providing a cost efficient option.

>We have 4 operational subs that will be obsolete by the end of the decade
They have been in service since the early 90s in some cases, and now they will be replaced.

>You don't even wanna know the cost to make new ones, plus it will take 17 years to develop.
It will cost tens of billions of pounds, which is a lot less than what it would cost if we scrapped Trident then in 20 years time decided that we would quite like nuclear weapons again.

As pointed out, the problem is that you have many more countries trying to join the nuclear club than you do nations trying to leave it.

I'll put it this way. You're a burglar. Whose house do you burgle, the one with the Mastiffs roaming around the garden and the BNP stickers on the window or the one without?

We've used them constantly since we built them, and they've worked perfectly.

The whole point is that you have them and don't have to use them, because no one is ever going to mess around with a nation that has SSBNs.

and my point is the money is better spent elsewhere because no one is going to use them anyway.

That's £31 billion over a couple of decades m8

No one is going to use them because people have them. This is why the Cold War didn't descend into WW3, because the outcome of any sort of direct conflict was absolutely obvious to everyone. If they had, somehow, magically got rid of all of their nuclear weapons it would have been a lot less of a risk for the Soviet 3rd Shock Army to march all the way to Calais.

I know you're Scottish but try and keep up.

But them not getting used is their purpose. Go read about MAD.

This, any real nuclear war will be between emerging nations like India and pakistan

Nuclear Weapons are obsolete

Made so by precision weapons and Thermobaric Explosives.

If you wanna make a big boom you use Thermobaric, its heavier but its massively cheaper.

If you got a deep bunker you want to eliminate you can use precision or thermobaric.

Now put both on an ICBM with a 6000 mile range

The UK is like europe's ensurance. They are there to make shure germany never fucks up ever again.

Ofc they should have nukes.

You are kidding right? We could shut down all sea trade on chinas only coast... but they are only to give autists a hardon?

What does the art of war have to say about shutting down trade?

>inb4 this is a missle boat
It still has anti ship capabilities

Cheeky

You can't put a useful amount of conventional explosive on a missile and retain a 6000nm range.

If you're on a budget and want to keep out of the nuclear club, you need to look at what Gerald Bull researched before his death.

sauce?
eerie looking art

You do realize a nuclear going of in a key city in saudi arabia could eradicate islam just like it did the japanese emperor cult.

Can you even put a price on having the ability to say fuck you and kill any leader you know the location of? Or to have the ability to destroy Israel and Mecca with a push of a button?

Countries needs nukes to be truly relevant, to be able to say the ultimate fuck you to anyone that doesn't play nice. You are about to overrun me, fine and nuke their nuclear powerplants, and make a last call to say "have fun being an irradiated shithole for 50000 years". I wish my country have nukes too, not having them makes me sad.

nukes make the world safer. without them there would be constant war

>the emporer cult was already going to fall, since the military had failed which the cult said was unstoppable. Nuking was just to speed up the invasion, and prevent Russia from gaining a foothold in Japan.
Nothing in Islam says Mecca is indestructible afaik, so blowing it up wouldn't prove anything to them, it'd just ruin SA's tourism industry and further piss off the billion ideologues who now think we're after their religion and not just their radicals

Is car or house or health insurance worth it? You might never have an accident.

>A law abiding country
>a criminal country
What does this mean?

the adults are talking son

Not him, but if I were to guess by law abiding he means rational in the IR sense.

Of course I argue that nukes 100% make the world a safer place due to even the least rational international actors have the base desire to not have their shit blown up.

Yes, It's a nuke deterrent vs other nations with nukes, the Trident subs are always at sea and can destroy most of the worlds major cities pretty much from a single spot.

On top of being a deterrent against rational civilizations with their own nukes, they're a great tool to deploy against mudslimes if they start any regular military action en masse.

We need the US to launch a middle from Trident? How's that?

To understand the importance of subs you need to understand the nuclear triangle. the points of the triangle being bombers, Missles, and Subs.
Bombers and Missles can be shot down, however subs are undetectable so in the event that nuclear annihilation happens they will be able to fire off the last shot at whatever turd first fires.

But remember in the US there are multiple classes of subs, not all carry nuclear payloads. The vast majority are fast attack subs used to sit off the coast of targets and blow them sky high or insert operators so they can operate.

In regards to the UK, even their god damn officers are trained in our program.
Easiest way to spot the fucks besides their bad teeth is the fact those fucks were allowed to have facial hair.

This is the crux of the problem. When you have to actually launch a nuclear missile, there's a good chance that it has failed to serve it's primary purpose.

>But contractors are going all space age on you instead of providing a cost efficient option.

This is a separate problem - you want the most current tech, but you also want the reasonably-priced stuff.

In the U.S. Defense Sector, we call it 'Gold Plating' - the tendency of contractors to add lots of 'features' to a system that drive up the cost while providing very little return befit. In particular, they may even become detrimental to performance as well as cost by grossly inflating maintenance requirements and tanking reliability.

>and unlikely to be used in any actual conflict worth it?

Yeah lets just get rid of the army too, it's not like we go to war anymore right? You're an idiot.

>Mhairi "Maths is shit" Black

Is it just me or does she sound like a bloke?

You can't match the Teller-Ulam Souffle when it comes to destructive efficiency or sheer power. A FAE might be several times more powerful than a conventional explosive, but a fission-jacketed thermonuclear weapon is about six orders of magnitude more powerful by weight than conventional explosives.

It's not even a comparison.

>wouldn't be a target then
You are wrong.

Britain would still be a target because her conventional military infrastructure represents a tremendous threat to would-be aggressors.

The subs are far harder to target than missile sites or bomber fields, especially if you consider land based sites in the UK are much closer to potential enemies.

Those subs are a guarantee that Britain will be capable of striking back should the need arise.

Yes. The West is bankrupt anyway. Our power comes from our bluffs.

It's under construction. Apparantly it needs to be moved.

a. You're already shrinking your army
b. You use the actual army in current conflicts
c. You don't use your nuclear submarines in any conflict you're currently involved in

Faggot.

DO NOT DISCUSS THE SB-3 GHOUL IN THIS THREAD.

DO NOT DISCUSS THE SB-3 GHOUL IN THIS THREAD.

>kek
BTW the kek thing isn't just fags that got bored with lel, it's fag satanists and their ignorant tools who want pain and suffering because they're pathetic shitbags. Don't buy in, watch youtu.be/XXRC4TfmHEs?t=15m and youtube.com/watch?v=215uknUDJLs and make up your own mind. Also look into Albert Pike's freemason plan for 3 world wars, with the 3rd being to instigate war between islam and christianity.

Britbongs who don't support the UK deterrent should not be allowed to vote, simple as that.

PM May was right for calling the greens and labour traitors.

There hasn't been a single argument made against the deterrent that isn't retarded emotional pseudo-baby-logic.

Realistically, Britain does not need a nuclear deterrent.
Realistically, Britain would be better served by scrapping Trident, and diverting the funds to it's conventional military.
Realistically, if Britain did scrap Trident the funds would not be diverted to expand the conventional military but instead be spent expanding benefits for dole scum.

Logically then Britain should continue to fund Trident as it's better to have nukes and an under-funded conventional military, than no nukes and an under-funded conventional military.

ITT: nip butthurt about nukes

I love both submarines and nuclear weapons.

Or we could scrap the evil NHS, fund both conventional and strategic defence, design and build our own new nuclear power stations, finish infrastructural upgrades to the north, and end the housing crisis. All in a few decades.

Yes, the NHS budget is literally that large.

We both know that's not going to happen though.
I'm still rooting for you guys though.

This. The threat of nuclear Armageddon has been the single most power instrument of peace in our time. It should be no surprise the India-Pakistan conflict has become so quiet and intelops based ever since practical delivery systems were developed by both countries. In fact, I believe if everyone had nukes, conflict would cease as an overt, long term action.

>Practically speaking, do you think the UK spending money on something that is realistically just a nuclear deterrent and unlikely to be used in any actual conflict worth it?

Missile submarines share technology and maintenance infrastructure with attack submarines. So it will at least have synergy benefits to actual war fighting capability. Nuclear deterrence reduces at least conventional threats, so it also reduces risk getting into certain kinds of conflicts.

>And even then, do you think that deterrent is necessary? If you got rid of the subs, can you think of a realistic threat they would face that would have otherwise been deterred?

Foreign countries might invade.

>Do you think they just maintain this program to be a better ally for the US and not force them to deal with the costs of deterrence alone?

They are already sharing costs with US. UK has used US supplied missiles since Polaris. They pay their share in R&D costs and have developed countermeasures that even US use.

>On a very basic and primal level, respect is a function of one's capacity for violence.

Well said.

Okay merchant! We're discussing bombs that turn your grandmother into a stained glass window and all you care about is the capacitors in your iPod.

R&D and procurement alone is in that ballpark. Annual operation costs would be betweem 1.5 and 2.5 billion.

>Nuclear Weapons are obsolete

You aren't very bright.

Tactical nuclear weapons are becoming obsolete. Strategic nuclear weapons will remain relevant until we have eternal world peace.

>If you wanna make a big boom you use Thermobaric, its heavier but its massively cheaper.
>If you got a deep bunker you want to eliminate you can use precision or thermobaric.
>Now put both on an ICBM with a 6000 mile range

ICBM with almost tactical nuke firepower thermobaric warhead would be massive as fuck and very expensive.

Also conventional warheads on ICBM's are very dangerous. Someone else doesn't know what that ICBM is carrying. It might provoke nuclear retaliation. When it comes to ICBM and conventional weapons, explosives aren't even necessary. 500kg or so re-entry vehicle does pretty much same damage with just kinetic energy as it would do with a similar mass bomb.

Your comment about bunkers is too stupid to even bother to adress.

Nuclear deterrents are unfortunately still what keeps large scale conflicts from breaking out.

Hopefully if an actual conflict breaks out regardless the nukes won't be used anyway.

There's plenty of other uses for a submarine other than nuclear deterrent that would be of pretty big importance to a nation.

>intel gathering
>forward presence for counter attack
>insertion vehicle for special operators
>anti piracy

>There's plenty of other uses for a submarine other than nuclear deterrent that would be of pretty big importance to a nation.

For submarine that isn't boomer, deterrence role makes boomers too specialized for pretty much anything other than shooting missiles. US modified bunch of older boomers into SSN's when Ohios started entering services. It wasn't huge surprise that those were worse than their contemporary attack boats in every other way than room for accommodation.

>intel gathering

SSBN's are usually far from places where stuff happens. In this role diesel with AIP could be far better suited.

>forward presence for counter attack

SSN's or SSK's job.

>insertion vehicle for special operators

Another place SSN or SSK.

>anti piracy

Quite limited. Showing your force is probably best way deal with pirates, that is kinda contrary to what submarines of any kind are used for.