Do you - or we - really think that greatness is about these national penis extensions?

We need nuclear submarines like a fish needs a bicycle.

We should also bin aircraft carriers, and the entire generation of baroque aircraft technology and redeploy resources on the real requirements and challenges.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

The question is not if Great Britain needs a replacement for Trident, but if the nation can resign itself not to be Great Britain anymore, instead declining to just plain Britain.

While writing this comment I made a funny typo: Great Poser.

Anyway, I found this at prospect magazine

There is a lot of confusion about the question of independence. British Trident subs are operationally independent--we do not have to ask American permission to use the missiles it has sold us. What is not independent is the satellite guidance system, which was designed to take out Soviet missile silos. If the US switched it off, this pinpoint accuracy would be lost. But Trident's basic guidance system--which is not dependent on the US--is already accurate to within a few hundred yards. Britain has no need to hit silos; we just need to convince enemies that we can destroy them if they attack us.

So, what about independence of operation? Could Britain fire Trident if the US objected? In 1962 the then US defence secretary, Robert McNamara, said that the British nuclear bomber force did not operate independently. Writing in 1980, Air Vice-Marshal Stewart Menaul said it definitely could not be used without US authorisation. Today former naval officers say it would be extremely difficult. The many computer software programs, the fuse, the trigger, the guidance system as well as the missiles are all made in America.

The change from Trident to a cruise based platform, would enhance the UKs independence, in a lot of ways freeing the UK from US targeting systems. while we're shackled to those we are in effect providing the USA with four SSBNs for free, and abasing ourselve in foreign policy matters, not always to our advantage for the right to continue to do so.  As we are paying, why shouldn't we take up the call of "No taxation without representation" and declare our full independence?

I have argued here before that the British Deterent exists soleley to keep the seat on the security council, I dont see that you particularly disagree with me, but dont see that much of an argument as to why the UK actually needs to do this?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

This is fun!

First, let's portray realists as a vanguard who are brave enough to face the hard choices that ordinary people just don't have the guts for.

Second, let's make a list of assertions, with our conclusion as the fifth assertion as if it followed from the other four. For extra credit, let's call our conclusion a fact in advance of demonstrating it.

Three, profit!
</post>

Now, questions.

0. Which meaning of "realist" are you using?

1. What level of military strength is required for "seriousness"? Enough to make it too expensive to conquer you? Enough to fight wars on three fronts at a time? Enough to destroy the planet? Why is it not possible to be taken seriously if you're not militarily strong?

2. People with assault rifles need to worry about people with spears when they engage them on their own territory.

3. Since when was "Great Britain" a "Great Power"?

Like most military matters, and especially those considering nuclear warfare and deterrence, the public debate is often needlessly overcomplicated, possible because of the unsavory nature of the weapons and implications involved. People in general often feel uncomfortable with anything approaching the "realist" school of international relations.

frivoulous global village idiot:

often needlessly overcomplicated?  You are writing about the very symbol of the clinical insanity which dwarfs the "achievements" of western civilization.  The fragile topsoil which provides the nutrients which nourish all, including nuclear submarine designers, is at perilous risk.  the oceans are dying, which feed more than half the world.

realist? realism sunk us to the depths we now find ourselves. What's real is the lack of vision, the lack of courage as a people, a nation to stand up and say enough.

In conclusion, any nation with aspirations to Great Power status requires nuclear missile submarines.

that's the best you can do, return us to an insane past?  Great Power is one who leads civilization back on a course of living in harmony with what we've been given, period.

These perhaps visionary views i possess, perhaps necessary, do not come from my own hippie idealism, valuable as that remains.  They are informed from a lifetime of dialogue with my chief mentor in windpower and more, who also happened to be the Chief Designer of the Nautilus class of nuclear submarines, the very first. I wish he was still with us, so he could take you behind the woodshed for some extra-curricular education.

Vision.  This civilization doesn't make it without that as realism.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

At least these do not need any US greenlighting whatsoever, even when they collide with the afore mentioned Tridents on the occasion.

Also, this discussion on NATO the other day, with a debate about French nukes vs US "nuclear umbrella".

And a last note: how many nuclear powers are fighting in Afghanistan/Pakistan?

If the goal is to kill lots of people, silly things like poisoned water or interrupted food supply chain or disrupted energy delivery are much cheaper--although admittedly not as dramatic.

Britain should take the money budgeted for Vanguard submarine replacement and spend it on sustainable energy, the lack of which is much more likely to be a problem in the 21st century than an invasion by France.

Though indeed, this diary doesn't clearly argue that Britain actually should replace Trident, just that it needs to do so to maaintain Great Power status. I do not really discuss if this is worth the cost, a subject which is worthy of a diary of its own. I do after all not argue that Sweden should try to become a Great Power and aquire nuclear missile submarines.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

What is power about? Power is the ability to get other people to do things they don't wan't to do.

I can't put my finger on exactly why this entire discussion set my nerves on fire, though this casual comment sums it up.

Both western and eastern civilizations are a catastrophe, and we are all paying the price. There is nothing more to be learned from previous editions of civilization to help draft real solutions to the insanity which passes for realism in today's geopolitics.

What' s needed can only come from outside the box.  What's needed are solutions which derive their "power" from higher intelligence, based upon a far deeper understanding of how humans relate to the surface of this world ship. Anything less is more garbage.

From the perspective of higher intelligence, if one power wishes to begin nuclear arbitrage, this race deserves to be wiped out. I want my tax Geld spent on something healthy, and i want idiots to stop determining what reality is.

But if one wishes to discuss potent weaponry, then i posit that LSD in the water supply has no equal.  As far as my credentials to posit such (if you missed it above)...

They are informed from a lifetime of dialogue with my chief mentor in windpower and more, who also happened to be the Chief Designer of the Nautilus class of nuclear submarines, the very first. I wish he was still with us, so he could take you behind the woodshed for some extra-curricular education.

You studied some books on political power theory?  and that endows you with what?

Without "clear and present" VISION, this race is doomed.  Capish?

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin