Wise words indeed!

[BEagle]

From a columnist's article in today's Sunday Times concerning nuclear submarines etc:The trouble is, of course, that for these missile boats to be relevant, one of them has to be at sea constantly, ready to respond at a moment’s notice. And to do that, in shifts, with servicing to be factored in, the navy must have four boats. That means four crews. Four nuclear reactors to be serviced. Four lots of Trident missiles. The cost, including plans for replacements, over the coming years could be as much as £100 billion.

You may say that this is a complete waste of money because we don’t need nuclear submarines to fight an enemy that’s coming at us with a £3 AK-47 assault rifle and a pair of sandals. But you’re wrong. We must always prepare for the next war. Not the one we’re fighting now. And who knows what the next war might involve?

"We must always prepare for the next war. Not the one we’re fighting now."

How very true! Read the article at You do the ragoût, mon capitaine; I’ll do the nuking | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article7078637.ece) . Even Clarkophobes would surely agree that this is a sound statement - and a wake-up call to the sandaholics who are intent on throwing away any UK military capability that isn't directly concerned with the North-West frontier.

[Gainesy]

But it is almost traditional that we are equipped and trained to fight the last war...

[FFP]

And let's not forget that tomorrow's war is all well and good, but you have to win todays war first.....

[hanoijane]

Living as I do in the land of cheap-but-surprisingly-effective AK 47's and rather attractive black flip flops, and seeing the detritus left around from the last war they had (I wonder if they'd like all these F 4 bits back?) with the owners of expensive but basically pointless undersea scary-monsters, I think there's a lot to be said for a country where the inhabitants are prepared to fight hard for what they believe to be right.

Be honest, how many of you would be prepared fight and die in a ditch for today's Britain? The 'stand-off security' provided by a nuclear deterrent is simply a shield for a population lacking the commitment to fight and die for its land and beliefs. War should be horrid and bloody and personal; that's why we make - or should make - so much effort to avoid it.

I think I'd start to prepare for the next war by giving my population a country and society worth fighting for. Just a thought.

[Herod]

That last sentence should be engraved in marble in the cabinet room at Number Ten, and the office of the Minister of Defence.

[Talk Reaction]

hanoiJane, how wise you AREN'T

Whilst it would be nice to have a population with patriotism coming out of their ears, isn't it more preferable not to end up having to find out?? We can all feel justifiably proud of our veterans from the 30s and 40s, both servicemen and civilians alike who all did what needed to be done to defeat the Nazi war machine, no one can ever say Great Britain as a whole didn't have the spirit to fight to the end for what they and we believe. BUT, I'm sure the millions who died would rather have Grandchildren on their knees now because a strategic deterrent meant the war could never start.

How different the Cold War could have been.....

The fact remains that a strategic deterrent has most likely prevented conflict and thus saved lives, and can anyone be certain that it won't in the future? The enemies we fight today are only 'primitive' today, even if the 'war' remains the same do you really believe that the TB and AQ will still be fighting with just AK47s in 20 years?? In fact whilst we fight them today with conventional weapons (because we fear that if we don't terrorists will acquire WMD eventually) they are already fighting us with strategic weapons on a global scale when you consider the impact of tragic events like 9/11.

Although perhaps all of this is wasted words as we can barely afford to fight this war properly so there is little point planning for the next one because plans will do nothing without equipped soldiers (sailors - sorry can't resist a bit of banter) and airmen

[ArthurR]

I for one think, that if low yield nukes had been used after 9/11, in tora bora, the threat today from AQ and others would not have been so great

[dallas]

I think I'd start to prepare for the next war by giving my population a country and society worth fighting for. Just a thought.
Strictly speaking, this means spending the detente cash on other stuff. The problem is the vote-grabbing mercenary scum in charge will spend the saving on some headline grabbing nonsense that lacks longivity of substance in the hope that it will buy their re-election - a key failing with our democratic process.

I for one think, that if low yield nukes had been used after 9/11, in tora bora, the threat today from AQ and others would not have been so great Correct, it would be a lot worse, and every other nuclear capable government in the world would be handed a precedent to solve any regional conflict with a small nuke - great. Does your newspaper happen to have a red banner?

[ArthurR]

No Dallas I disagree, There was no threat to any government, Afghanistan then was a rogue state, Osama bin Hiding, always a terrorist, we had a long time with all the then major powers, having high yield nukes, no matter what happened, none where ever used by any side, diplomacy took over, you can not talk to terrorists.

My thinking is: Low yield, no major fallout, land useless for a lot of years (no change there), EMP kills all electronics, hiding in a cave, no way out.
Job done

[Flying Serpent]

Well if the next war is one where large numbers of extremely powerful nuclear weapons are needed and used then I can't wait for it. I'm sure the few survivors will be extremely proud of their nation for winning the war!

The stealthy launch platform is a pointlessly expensive system in my opinion I'm afraid. I technological materpiece of a weapon and delivery system for sure. But given the cost of developing, deploying and maintaining the stealthy platform wouldn't it simply be better to build small embassies and consulates in many regions around the world and smuggle in a suitcase device in a diplomatic box. No need for the missile based system which will surely be a target for missile defence systems and shields.

Just a thought..

[dallas]

No Dallas I disagree, There was no threat to any government, Afghanistan then was a rogue state, Osama bin Hiding, always a terrorist, we had a long time with all the then major powers, having high yield nukes, no matter what happened, none where ever used by any side, diplomacy took over, you can not talk to terrorists.

My thinking is: Low yield, no major fallout, land useless for a lot of years (no change there), EMP kills all electronics, hiding in a cave, no way out.
Job doneHad the USSR thought the same when they were in Afghanistan the repercussions would still be being felt. It's a nice idea in a computer game, or as the opinion of someone who will never have to make the tough choices of office, but in lots of other ways* its a fantasy tactic.

*precedence, moral high ground etc

[Roger D'Erassoff]

So here's an idea to save cash...just have the one sub, but 4 different nameplates. Vanguard, for example, sits in docks for a while being 'seen' then sets sail with much fanfare and crying wives :{

Once out in the Clyde, Mr Navy Diver pops outside and swaps the nameplates over, thus Vanguard becomes Vigilant, the sub turns round and 'arrives' again to much fanfare and wet wives' knickers :}

Sub then moves into covered servicing shed for maintenance, only to re-appear as Vengeance etc etc you get the picture.

And the best thing...no ASW nation (one less in the world as of 31 Mar) ever gets to track our subs, so they really do become the 'silent deterrent'!

Simples! :ok:

[Prop-Ed]

100 Billion on Nukes for the UK!!!!?

The government have been honking on their crack pipes for way too long. Who on earth do they think they are? The leaders of a world class socio-economic powerhouse that can project its power and act unilaterally as a hegemonic state? Good grief.

What a joke. I have no doubt that a large proportion of TRIDENT cash would likely be wasted but if nothing else it would take one hell of a chunk out of the national debt.

As for the "preparing for the next war" nonsense, if it is going to be fought with nukes then we're hosed either way. As long as we continue as the 51st state, our colonial cousins have our back if deterrence is indeed a tangible force in "THE NEXT WAR (to be said in a 1950s B movie voice over tone)".

Guys, get off the crack and look out your windows....this is 2010 and we're broken in almost every sense of the word. A few nukes in our back pocket aint going to change that.

[TyroPicard]

Talk Reaction
The fact remains that a strategic deterrent has most likely prevented conflict
er.. remind me again which conflict a deterrent prevented?
Korea?
Vietnam?
Russians into Afghanistan?
Falklands?
Iraq into Kuwait?

It could be argued that the presence of a nuclear deterrent actually prevents effective peacekeeping by the rest of the world's nations and therefore shields an aggressor.

[Charlie Time]

Genius Roger D.

[Flying Serpent]

Guys, get off the crack and look out your windows....this is 2010 and we're broken in almost every sense of the word. A few nukes in our back pocket aint going to change that.

That, for me sums it all up rather nicely.

[ArthurR]

dallas, lets not forget that at the time you mention, the west was backing the Afghanies, supplying OBL with materials to fight the russians, this was how the cold war was fought, in some ways anyway

[Willard Whyte]

If no Trident, and we intend to retain some form of deterrent, then should it be cruise missile based, perhaps launched from the torpedo tube of a submarine, based on the current Astute class, or from the wing of a Nimrod? Might need a few more mighty hunters though, can't see 9 being enough.

[Talk Reaction]

Roger

That is quite simply an inspired plan, however, now you've told everyone, bugger.

Tyro, it prevented the conflict that didn't happen obviously ;) Seriously though I guess it's like flt safety, we only see where it fails.

Now, away from seriously, I'm still chuckling about the Roger's submarine plan - oh crap I've just drawn attention to it again :\

[RileyDove]

Arthur - a few slight problems with your 'nuclear' idea!

Firstly as you state 'you cannot talk to terrorists' ! -that obviously excludes the former terrorist groups we have been talking to for years in Northern Ireland!

Secondly whilst a cave in the Tora Bora mountains might not seem fabulous! -faced with a low yield nuclear weapon it would be my first choice for a bit of cover!

Lastly whilst Afghanistan was decidedly a rogue state in the early 2000's - looking at the passports of the 9/11 terrorists reveals a few uncomfortable truths of their origins !

[VinRouge]

A war vs the war...

Despite the unbelievable sacrifice going on in foreign fields, it could potentially be said that the outcome of the current fight will not determine the long term future of the UK (other than putting politicians off getting involved in scuffles we cannot afford and are best to avoid on the far side of the world in future).

The same cant be said about a nuclear armed Iran, or a potential fight with the BRIC nations over resources. Harsh? Maybe. But thats the way I see it. We cannot allow the short term nature of current conflict (asymmetric warfare) dull our more expensive traditional warfighting experience.

Perhaps we should consider axe-ing the welfare state before defence of the realm?

[Double Zero]

Hanoijane,

I am not in the military, but have worked in trying to provide them with the best kit ( in this case aircraft / weapons systems ) possible.

In answer to your point, yes I WOULD fight off any invading types with a rifle or whatever I could muster.

We Brits' are mature and unafraid to discuss failings, imagined or otherwise, but I doubt anyone posting here would seriously turn their back - Britain is still Great, we're just frustrated by hindrances which would largely disappear overnight in that sort of wartime ( unfortunately that's the services shooting themselves in the foot, they have a habit of winning despite being treated abominably by politicians ) - nothing new there.

I didn't like the sound of the budget ' front line forces will be protected ' going on to mention the NHS etc...

I am a great fan of the people who actually work at the sharp end of the NHS, the idea is a great credit to the country - even the Americans are only just getting used to the idea that saving people's lives without retiring to the Bahamas on the proceeds is a Good Thing; however, myself and friends having experienced our 'local' ( many miles away ) A & E hospital, I intend to instruct my doctors I would rather face a longer trip & chance it than go there.

For defence cuts, well in my crystal ball of enormous power I see one or two new aircraft carriers, with versatility for other navies already built in, being sold off pronto - remember it was the Tories who wanted to sell HMS Invincible before the Argentinians saved her !

As for the Trident replacement, well we all cringe at the cost but as cruise missiles can be shot down by various means, it still seems necessary.

I don't see any need at all though for 4 sets of missiles, don't think that's the idea.

[hanoijane]

The OP was suggesting that a submarine-based nuclear deterrent still has relevance. I don't believe it does. As noted by Flying Serpent, there are more innovative means of delivering nuclear weapons to the doorstep of your enemy.

You must learn to think outside the box as your adversaries, both current and potential, are wont to to. Chuckling to yourselves over how the Americans never learned their lesson from their visit to this country (Viet Nam) is of little use when you go making the very same mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If people have a belief in a political system, a religion or a culture and they're prepared to retain that belief to the point of death, all you can do is kill them or struggle to subjugate them. So if they're not interfering in your world, let them be.

The most effective argument against a political system, a religion or a culture is a better, kinder, more compassionate or successful version of the aforementioned. Spend your billions developing that, and you may find you offer a better argument for following your philosophy than the possibility of a personal meeting with something from a stinky* submarine.

* Why do RN boats always smell so bad?

[Jabba_TG12]

Interesting point, HJ.

"If people have a belief in a political system, a religion or a culture and they're prepared to retain that belief to the point of death, all you can do is kill them or struggle to subjugate them. So if they're not interfering in your world, let them be."

I think it was you as well who asked the question of (basically) who among us, in this nation would be prepared to put their money where their mouth is, if the s**t really hit the fan... and, I'm afraid, I'd have to agree with you, beyond those who are either currently serving or have served in the last 10-20 years, given the paucity of the current leadership, I dont think that many of the UK population would be prepared to make that kind of sacrifice and that the kind of spirit we saw in WW2 has largely all but disappeared.

However, lets not get alarmist; theres a difference between protecting your national interests, being able to defend your territory and world power projection and as we all know, our traditional role has been based on state-on-state warfare, which is changing dramatically. It can never be said though (as someone else has pointed out, referring to the dwindling of natural resources over time), that just because the current - and maybe forseeable near-mid future conflicts - may be more asymmetrical that it is always going to be that way.

We have to decide what we're going to be and stick to it. NATO still remains relevant as a concept, despite its failings. Our perceived position as one of the global plastic plods to America's world policeman though is one that we have to seriously reconsider as to whether it is affordable, whether it is practical and whether it is really necessary.

On the subject of the strategic deterrent, I have to say, that dependant on which way the dice falls on whether we should remain punching above our weight and whether such an interventionist stance is in our true national interests, that for the first time in my life finding it somewhat difficult to justify 100Bn on Son Of Trident and conceptually, I find myself falling in behind those who are suggesting TLAM equipped Astute, or possibly even a TLAM/stand-off equipped stealth UAV.

Now, some may say that the range of current TLAM systems doesnt give you the flexibility and that CM systems are vulnerable to SAM/ABM systems and may possibly be negated by multi-layered AD systems. I accept that point. It doesnt mean though that future generation TLAM systems are going to be that way. Regarding the inherent problems with range, yes it would mean your delivery system has to get closer to the target area in order to deliver the weapon and then as soon as it is fired, the delivery platform's position is comprimised, but lets be serious here, beside the "Alamo" type scenario of defending your home territory with everything you've got in a last ditch attempt to prevent being over-run/invaded/wiped out, what kind of circumstances would it truly be necessary to use these systems many many miles from home?

I have to agree that I dont think that post-9/11 would have been the time to do it and would have exacerbated the current situation many many times over. It could be argued that Shock & Awe was what forced Ghadaffi to the negotiating table and got rid of the Libyan W.M.D. programme - having seen what happened to Saddam, Ghadaffi was in no mood for his regime to go the same way. So, there has been at least one positive pay-off from it, it could be said.

Radical Islam is not necessarily something that is going to be "defeated", if it ever possibly can be military, at the end of a gun. We have to think of other ways and a lot of it falls upon the regimes where the threat grows and comes from to marginalise it and negate its need (same with violent Irish republicanism, as we have seen over the last 10-12 years) as much as anything else... A state on state war machine is not necessarily the best way to achieve this objective, although elements of it, such as use of special forces, assassination teams, a la Mossad, targetted at senior elements of insurgents/those who pose a direct threat, use of UAV's against targets of opportunity and yes, as Clinton did, following the attacks on the US Embassies in the late 1990's use of TLAM's against known training sites etc, in my very very humble opinion is riposte enough without changing your entire military ethos and way of doing things.

The way things are going now, to the shame of not only the government and defence ministers who have dictated it and presided over it, but also to the greater disgrace of those of star rank in uniform who have allowed them to do it, is that going forward, all we are going to be able to carry out in the near to middle future is estuary cocktail parties and port visits and more Afghan campaigns or similar.

Were it to kick off again down south, we would be screwed and would have to let the FI go and comprimise our interests in Antarctica . Now, maybe in a post-colonial world, this is a wake up call we should have had years ago and maybe should have been better prepared for than what we are. But far better for us to decide thats the kind of society we want to be and move to that kind of position voluntarily, rather than having it foisted on us by a military defeat in a conflict the country didnt want and wasnt prepared to fight when the balloon went up.

[Gainesy]

Low Yield Nukes?:uhoh:
Typical lentil-weaving huggyfluff solution from the Guardian's knittin page. Tch. Like de-caff, why bother?:)

[Ray Dahvectac]

this is 2010 and we're broken in almost every sense of the word. A few nukes in our back pocket aint going to change that.

True, but it does guarantee us veto-wielding permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Which politician is going to sign away that ability to punch above our weight on the global stage?

I believe that is the main (if not the only) reason we still have ballistic missiles.

[dallas]

Jabba

An intelligent reply, if I may say so. You were doing well until you mentioned our future capability being reduced to estuary cocktail parties; you're a little behind the times, as funding has been withdrawn and we're already incapable of doing so.

[Jig Peter]

A cynical student of history once said that, as far as the Foreign Office is concerned, the "traditional enemy" has always been "The French". Thus, if "They" have got something, "We" must have it too ... (seems to work 'tother way round too).
"They" got missles, "We" gotta have missles or subs, or sooper-dooper supersonic fighters - flying off ships too.

Others call it "the waving of the willie". (L'agitation du Guillaume ???).

However, now that Marcel Dassault's no longer holding the reins and the French government is (almost?) as skint as HMG, perhaps some cooperation will get going at last, at least in the fixed-wing world ... (Cross-postings of diplomats might help too ... Now that's really outrageous).:rolleyes::rolleyes: