Wise words indeed!
Thread Starter
Wise words indeed!
From a columnist's article in today's Sunday Times concerning nuclear submarines etc:
"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 . 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.
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?
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?
How very true! Read the article at You do the ragoût, mon capitaine; I’ll do the nuking | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online . 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hanoijane
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.
Originally Posted by 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
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by ArthurR; 28th Mar 2010 at 16:57. Reason: Additions
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: somewhere...everywhere
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
*precedence, moral high ground etc
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously!?
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.
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.
Last edited by Prop-Ed; 28th Mar 2010 at 20:00.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk Reaction
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.
The fact remains that a strategic deterrent has most likely prevented conflict
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: somewhere...everywhere
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
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 !