Originally Posted by WH904
Basically, what I'm saying is that we've come a long, long way from WWII therefore it's a bit questionable to have a unit devoted to commemorating one event, when there are others that are just as important.
Well, if you repeat yourself, so will I! I disagree with your premise in bold above, and consider the RAF's role in WWII
as a whole to be more important than its role in any conflict before or since (including the Cold War).
Those of a naval bent will argue all day about whether the Battle of Britain was actually 100% critical to our national survival. I don't think there is a need to get into those arguments now, save to opine that it was bloody important and marked the "beginning of the end of the beginning" to the British public and the onlooking world, to adapt and mis-apply a great Churchillism. There is absolutely no doubt that the Battle of the Atlantic
was critical to our national survival, and the RAF had a major role in it (despite the best efforts of the bomber-focussed leadership). Finally, while the effectiveness of the bomber campaign has justifiably been questioned, it undoubtedly served a twin purpose both in helping the nation to keep its head held high and convincing the US that we meant business.
The V-Force
did play an important role in the Cold War, albeit diminished after the advent of Polaris. We can't know for sure whether the V-Force would have reached Moscow, because they were never called upon to do so. Less clear is whether the V-Force reaching Moscow would actually have ensured our national survival. Even less clear is whether the absence of a British nuclear bomber force would have tempted the Soviets into marching westwards (especially bearing in mind that we were members of NATO). Against this level of uncertainty, I can't possibly conclude that the V-Force's contribution to the Cold War was of equal importance to the RAF's major contributions to WWII.