Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion?
Riley,
Have it, take it, keep it.
Build the HAS to keep the aircraft in.
Build the new armouries and the technology to operate them from aircraft.
Train the operators, armourers, maintainers, medical staff etc. Deal with the public enquiries from the NIMBY brigade.
Deal with the Enquiry when one of your aircraft drops out of the sky.
Build an aircraft large enough and with enough range to take it all the way there and get back, because the V bombers are long gone.
Train and pay a huge force to guard those bunkers and airfields. Have all that expense.
Then there will be no money left for your tankers and transports, typhoon or bunkers for FCs to play in, or your pay rise.
Yes it will cost a lot of money but a damn sight less than the alternative.
Get real! stop living in the 1950s If we are going to have a Nuclear deterrant then there is only one place with the infrastructure, skills, security and expertees that it can go.
The only debate is, do we replace Trident or not?
Have it, take it, keep it.
Build the HAS to keep the aircraft in.
Build the new armouries and the technology to operate them from aircraft.
Train the operators, armourers, maintainers, medical staff etc. Deal with the public enquiries from the NIMBY brigade.
Deal with the Enquiry when one of your aircraft drops out of the sky.
Build an aircraft large enough and with enough range to take it all the way there and get back, because the V bombers are long gone.
Train and pay a huge force to guard those bunkers and airfields. Have all that expense.
Then there will be no money left for your tankers and transports, typhoon or bunkers for FCs to play in, or your pay rise.
Yes it will cost a lot of money but a damn sight less than the alternative.
Get real! stop living in the 1950s If we are going to have a Nuclear deterrant then there is only one place with the infrastructure, skills, security and expertees that it can go.
The only debate is, do we replace Trident or not?
Getting my threads mixed up I fear!
Just posted this passage on an entirely inappropriate thread, sorry!
As for the strategic nuclear deterrent, to get back on topic, whilst the present system has virtually NO relevance to any military activity we are currently engaged in and is of absolutely NO use whatsoever in this so called “war on terror,” I would feel extremely uncomfortable to be unilaterally disarming at a time in history when nuclear capability is rapidly being acquired by some rather unstable regimes and remains a key element of a major non democratic nation such as China.
Just posted this passage on an entirely inappropriate thread, sorry!
As for the strategic nuclear deterrent, to get back on topic, whilst the present system has virtually NO relevance to any military activity we are currently engaged in and is of absolutely NO use whatsoever in this so called “war on terror,” I would feel extremely uncomfortable to be unilaterally disarming at a time in history when nuclear capability is rapidly being acquired by some rather unstable regimes and remains a key element of a major non democratic nation such as China.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone,
"I would feel extremely uncomfortable to be unilaterally disarming at a time in history when nuclear capability is rapidly being acquired by some rather unstable regimes and remains a key element of a major non democratic nation such as China."
Why?
Cheers
BHR
"I would feel extremely uncomfortable to be unilaterally disarming at a time in history when nuclear capability is rapidly being acquired by some rather unstable regimes and remains a key element of a major non democratic nation such as China."
Why?
Cheers
BHR
Bhr,
Because we would be potentially and theoretically extremely vulnerable to coercion and persuasion if involved in any kind of stand off or disagreement with another power that had a nuclear capability, even a limited one.
Wasn’t it a British politician at the time of the decision to go thermonuclear who said he would not want to condemm his succesors to; “walk into the debating chamber naked and unarmed?
I also think not to have a nuclear capability would restrict us from becoming involved in or even influencing future multi laterral disarmament.
Because we would be potentially and theoretically extremely vulnerable to coercion and persuasion if involved in any kind of stand off or disagreement with another power that had a nuclear capability, even a limited one.
Wasn’t it a British politician at the time of the decision to go thermonuclear who said he would not want to condemm his succesors to; “walk into the debating chamber naked and unarmed?
I also think not to have a nuclear capability would restrict us from becoming involved in or even influencing future multi laterral disarmament.
From BHR
"Why?"
Political relevance has a cost of admission. Just a reflection of reality, not what I'd want. Right or wrong I'll leave for you to debate.
"Why?"
Political relevance has a cost of admission. Just a reflection of reality, not what I'd want. Right or wrong I'll leave for you to debate.
BHR
My statement reflects the reality of todays politics IMHO.
Can you name a country that truly is politically powerful that doesn't have a bomb? (the big one) There are ones that have sway in a region and there are ones that are respected but possess little ability to shape the political landscape. I listen with an open mind.
My statement reflects the reality of todays politics IMHO.
Can you name a country that truly is politically powerful that doesn't have a bomb? (the big one) There are ones that have sway in a region and there are ones that are respected but possess little ability to shape the political landscape. I listen with an open mind.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, and as a result nobody on the world stage gives a sh1t what they think. A bit like Canada.
A tactical deterrent may have even more relevance in the current 'asymmetric' climate that a strategic one. It shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. And the infratructure for an air-launched deterrent is already in place - Waddington. It hasn't changed much in terms of infrastructure since the V-force days.
16B
A tactical deterrent may have even more relevance in the current 'asymmetric' climate that a strategic one. It shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. And the infratructure for an air-launched deterrent is already in place - Waddington. It hasn't changed much in terms of infrastructure since the V-force days.
16B
Not correct, 16B:
An estimated 150 atomic weapons are stationed on German soil out of a total of about 480 in Europe. In a case of self-defense after a nuclear attack, they would be carried by German Tornado jets under current pacts.
The weapons are US-owned.
The German Air Force currently only has one type of aircraft certified to deliver nuclear weapons, the PA-200 Tornado, which will be replaced over the next 10 years by the Eurofighter. The German Defense Ministry, in a statement to the Bundestag on July 12, noted that “it is currently not planned and no preparations are being made to enable the weapons system Eurofighter for a nuclear-weapon deployment.” If the government sticks to this line, Germany will have no nuclear-capable aircraft by 2015 at the latest.
An estimated 150 atomic weapons are stationed on German soil out of a total of about 480 in Europe. In a case of self-defense after a nuclear attack, they would be carried by German Tornado jets under current pacts.
The weapons are US-owned.
The German Air Force currently only has one type of aircraft certified to deliver nuclear weapons, the PA-200 Tornado, which will be replaced over the next 10 years by the Eurofighter. The German Defense Ministry, in a statement to the Bundestag on July 12, noted that “it is currently not planned and no preparations are being made to enable the weapons system Eurofighter for a nuclear-weapon deployment.” If the government sticks to this line, Germany will have no nuclear-capable aircraft by 2015 at the latest.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,132
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
BEagle - '16 blades' is essentially correct though.
Although the weapons are based on German soil as you state they are US-owned (and controlled). If the Soviet hoards had come steaming across the Inner German Border the weapons would have possibly been released to the GAF to stem the tide but they are not owned by Germany and hence on the world stage they don't own the toys to play with the big boys.
Defence pacts are bits of paper of intent not deeds of ownership.
Although the weapons are based on German soil as you state they are US-owned (and controlled). If the Soviet hoards had come steaming across the Inner German Border the weapons would have possibly been released to the GAF to stem the tide but they are not owned by Germany and hence on the world stage they don't own the toys to play with the big boys.
Defence pacts are bits of paper of intent not deeds of ownership.
16 B,
Whilst I do not have current knowledge of Waddington, the HAS etc might still be there but, so are all the ISTAR assets. There would be immense disruption if you were to put "nukes" back in there. Mind you...it would mean you could keep St Mawgan open!
The point is, the RAF does not have CURRENT experience of looking after and operating nuclear weapons. The RN has a sucure facility (+ protesters) both to store and operate the weapons. With over 30 years of experience, the RN has the ability to exclude/sterilise others from the area and the ability to hide the weapons virtually anywhere in the world. How are you going to sterilise Lincolnshire? You have enough trouble dealing with noise complaints from people who have brought houses right next to your airfield.
As I said before. Get real! it is not going to happen. The only debate is: Do we wish to remain a nuclear power once Trident reaches the end of it's life? I suspect the answer will be yes.
Thi debate about Sea based or Shore based was conducted many, many years ago by people more highly paid and far cleverer than you or I? Concentrate your efforts on what really matters, Transport, Tankers, Air Defence and Tactical Strike.
Whilst I do not have current knowledge of Waddington, the HAS etc might still be there but, so are all the ISTAR assets. There would be immense disruption if you were to put "nukes" back in there. Mind you...it would mean you could keep St Mawgan open!
The point is, the RAF does not have CURRENT experience of looking after and operating nuclear weapons. The RN has a sucure facility (+ protesters) both to store and operate the weapons. With over 30 years of experience, the RN has the ability to exclude/sterilise others from the area and the ability to hide the weapons virtually anywhere in the world. How are you going to sterilise Lincolnshire? You have enough trouble dealing with noise complaints from people who have brought houses right next to your airfield.
As I said before. Get real! it is not going to happen. The only debate is: Do we wish to remain a nuclear power once Trident reaches the end of it's life? I suspect the answer will be yes.
Thi debate about Sea based or Shore based was conducted many, many years ago by people more highly paid and far cleverer than you or I? Concentrate your efforts on what really matters, Transport, Tankers, Air Defence and Tactical Strike.
There is infrastructure for nuclear weapons (in varying states of repair) at Waddinton, Wittering, and Cottesmore.
There is more recent, more modern infrastructure at Honington, and I suspect at Lossiemouth.
Marham has the full WS3 vaults under certain HASs and would be the obvious home for any future air launched deterrent. I cannot believe that a basic tactical nuclear option for Storm Shadow would not be possible for a tiny percentage of the cost of aa new sub-launched system, with subs.
There is more recent, more modern infrastructure at Honington, and I suspect at Lossiemouth.
Marham has the full WS3 vaults under certain HASs and would be the obvious home for any future air launched deterrent. I cannot believe that a basic tactical nuclear option for Storm Shadow would not be possible for a tiny percentage of the cost of aa new sub-launched system, with subs.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WC,
I have racked my brains to come up with a country without the bomb to fit your criteria and had all but given up and then......
Here is one for you perhaps, Saudi Arabia?
Has political clout out with the region and has influence beyond its size and as far as I know has no bomb.
Cheers
BHR
I have racked my brains to come up with a country without the bomb to fit your criteria and had all but given up and then......
Here is one for you perhaps, Saudi Arabia?
Has political clout out with the region and has influence beyond its size and as far as I know has no bomb.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,028
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A slightly different tack
This is not with reference to theatre weapons which in my view include potential terrorist nukes. Just the big buggers.
I cannot see an alternative to having nukes. We live with too many "friends" and not such friends who own them to give them up. Would, quite apart from anyone else, the US take us so seriously if we weren't a nuclear power? Would they take us more seriously if we had an independent nuclear deterrent?
In the end, nuclear weapons aren't just a deterrent. They are also a membership badge for a "big boys'" club. It is school playground politics but who the hell would talk to us on the big issues if we got rid of them?
In addition, I perfectly understand Iran's perspective, why should they be surrounded by nukes but not have any themselves. In a way perhaps the more of them that there are the more convesation would go on and the less sabre rattling.
I am not saying that it is right, just that I can see the sense in it.
This is not with reference to theatre weapons which in my view include potential terrorist nukes. Just the big buggers.
I cannot see an alternative to having nukes. We live with too many "friends" and not such friends who own them to give them up. Would, quite apart from anyone else, the US take us so seriously if we weren't a nuclear power? Would they take us more seriously if we had an independent nuclear deterrent?
In the end, nuclear weapons aren't just a deterrent. They are also a membership badge for a "big boys'" club. It is school playground politics but who the hell would talk to us on the big issues if we got rid of them?
In addition, I perfectly understand Iran's perspective, why should they be surrounded by nukes but not have any themselves. In a way perhaps the more of them that there are the more convesation would go on and the less sabre rattling.
I am not saying that it is right, just that I can see the sense in it.
BHR
I'm inclined to agree with you with the example of SA. I would change my statement about relevance by adding "a few notable exceptions"
That said, wait a while and my original statement becomes true after the natural resources are gone.
I'm inclined to agree with you with the example of SA. I would change my statement about relevance by adding "a few notable exceptions"
That said, wait a while and my original statement becomes true after the natural resources are gone.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The point is, the RAF does not have CURRENT experience of looking after and operating nuclear weapons."
Widger
I think that you will find that there a still more than a few engineers and technicans knocking around who have been UCOs, WLSOs and load team members from WE177 days.
regards
reatrd
Widger
I think that you will find that there a still more than a few engineers and technicans knocking around who have been UCOs, WLSOs and load team members from WE177 days.
regards
reatrd
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many respondents seem to agree that submarine launched ACBMs are a second strike asset, but are they a credible deterrent against a country that knows you could never reasonably respond to their 10 Kiloton first strike on a military target (your own or an ally's) with a 2 megaton second strike on their capital city? Perhaps the ability to vapourise their entire military force in a storm of tactical nuclear strikes by submarine launched cruise missiles would be more credible threat. The non-nuclear variety of SLCMs did a fair job in Iraq, after all.