Do we need an Independant Nuclear Deterrant?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
WEBF,
While I accept your argument is valid I am yet to be convinced that deterrence would be a factor.
Our rogue state may not be deterred sufficiently to not use WMD. I use that term as deterrence is not supposed to deter only a nuclear threat. Suppose our rogue state or terrorist sponsor state is deemed to have used WMD, how would be retaliate?
A perpetrator of a terrorist attack may be difficult to identify in the traditional 15 minute window. We cannot lash out at State A, if we do not know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that State A was the sponsor.
Supposing we did identify State A as such a rogue state, do we obliterate its population because of its rogue leadership? There are many states where the leadership is not representative of the populace.
In either case there is no call for a high-technology solution. One would expect that there would be an appeal to the UN Security Council, supposing such still exists after an attack on NY. The rogue state would be called to account etc etc. In the cold light of day it is decided that the rogue state is beyond redemption so we agree to lob in a couple of Trident missiles?
I think not.
In the 1960s it was clear cut. 'Every American' distrusted 'every Russian and Russian ally' and Armagedon would be wholly justified. Fifty years on . . . ?
Douglas Hurd came to that conclusion in his 70s and years after he left office. Dennis Healey has said he would NEVER have pressed the button and that was when he was SecDef.
Deterent forces are a nice to have and a wholly useless weapon in the 21st Century.
PN
ex-targetting officer etc etc
While I accept your argument is valid I am yet to be convinced that deterrence would be a factor.
Our rogue state may not be deterred sufficiently to not use WMD. I use that term as deterrence is not supposed to deter only a nuclear threat. Suppose our rogue state or terrorist sponsor state is deemed to have used WMD, how would be retaliate?
A perpetrator of a terrorist attack may be difficult to identify in the traditional 15 minute window. We cannot lash out at State A, if we do not know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that State A was the sponsor.
Supposing we did identify State A as such a rogue state, do we obliterate its population because of its rogue leadership? There are many states where the leadership is not representative of the populace.
In either case there is no call for a high-technology solution. One would expect that there would be an appeal to the UN Security Council, supposing such still exists after an attack on NY. The rogue state would be called to account etc etc. In the cold light of day it is decided that the rogue state is beyond redemption so we agree to lob in a couple of Trident missiles?
I think not.
In the 1960s it was clear cut. 'Every American' distrusted 'every Russian and Russian ally' and Armagedon would be wholly justified. Fifty years on . . . ?
Douglas Hurd came to that conclusion in his 70s and years after he left office. Dennis Healey has said he would NEVER have pressed the button and that was when he was SecDef.
Deterent forces are a nice to have and a wholly useless weapon in the 21st Century.
PN
ex-targetting officer etc etc
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boomers?
Very interesting and erudite discussion here - thanks everyone. I've almost changed my mind a couple of times already! It really is not a 'slam dunk' yes or no answer. 
However, earlier in the discussion, the slang term 'Boomer' was used for our SSBNs. Err ..... I could be wrong, but isn't that an American slang term? I always thought Royal Navy SSBNs were referred to as 'Bombers'?
Steps back from the drop zone .......
Roger.
However, earlier in the discussion, the slang term 'Boomer' was used for our SSBNs. Err ..... I could be wrong, but isn't that an American slang term? I always thought Royal Navy SSBNs were referred to as 'Bombers'?
Steps back from the drop zone .......
Roger.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Kitbag, quite. However there was one fairly clear indication of how the V-force was perceived. In 1968 2 sqns of Vulcans were deployed to Cyprus. This extended the range with targets 1500 miles and more to the east of Moscow coming in range and Moscow itself being vulnerable to attack from the south.
Now, instead of having to counter attacks from the north and west their threat sector had doubled. For a relatively inexpensive deployment of two obsolescent bomber squadrons the Soviets had to extend their peripheral defences by at least a further 1500 miles - that is a lot of SAM sites.
That the quick reaction deterrent (sic) was now the province of the Royal Navy is true, but the V-Force was a significant follow-up force with more warheads than the Polaris force.
Now, instead of having to counter attacks from the north and west their threat sector had doubled. For a relatively inexpensive deployment of two obsolescent bomber squadrons the Soviets had to extend their peripheral defences by at least a further 1500 miles - that is a lot of SAM sites.
That the quick reaction deterrent (sic) was now the province of the Royal Navy is true, but the V-Force was a significant follow-up force with more warheads than the Polaris force.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a supporter of the UK having an independent nuclear deterrent, though I can support the statements of those who think it is expensive.
One of my opinions is that it is not necessarily the enemy of today we need to worry about, but the enemy of tomorrow. I would ask you to consider that someone, somewhere in the world today, is having their life shaped by events going on around him/her. If that person rises to the highest office in their country, and that country has access to nuclear weapons, then they may feel inclined to deploy them. If that turned out to be the case, and that country wanted to launch an attack - for example on the UK - we would need to have a response.
The whole point is to deter a potential aggressor by all but guaranteeing that our counter attack would be so devastating, the aggressor could not possibly recover from such an attack. But therein lies the paradox, because if the UK did launch its Trident missiles then the deterrence would have failed. We have a deterrence to deter an attack not to encourage one.
I note the points by some posters regarding the replacement of Trident with land and sea based cruise missles. I would like to offer the following. Cruise missiles, in any form, are classified as tactical nuclear weapons. Trident D5 missiles and its predecessor, Polaris A3 are, or were, classified as strategic nuclear weapons. The distinction between the two is that tactical nuclear weapons have a lower yield than strategic weapons but more importantly a strategic weapon is designed to penetrate any defences, either by various counter measures as well as high Mach number speeds. And it is the latter that is quite critical, because we want our enemies to realize that we can hit back and be sure that we have the capability to do so. In addition, by having the deterrence embarked on submarines, the enemy will have little idea from which direction the attack will come from.
The Americans and Russians are cutting back on their nuclear arsenals, for no other reason other than the fact that what they already have, is good enough to penetrate enemy defences.
However, the decision on any Trident replacement will be taken by our lords and masters and not me.
One of my opinions is that it is not necessarily the enemy of today we need to worry about, but the enemy of tomorrow. I would ask you to consider that someone, somewhere in the world today, is having their life shaped by events going on around him/her. If that person rises to the highest office in their country, and that country has access to nuclear weapons, then they may feel inclined to deploy them. If that turned out to be the case, and that country wanted to launch an attack - for example on the UK - we would need to have a response.
The whole point is to deter a potential aggressor by all but guaranteeing that our counter attack would be so devastating, the aggressor could not possibly recover from such an attack. But therein lies the paradox, because if the UK did launch its Trident missiles then the deterrence would have failed. We have a deterrence to deter an attack not to encourage one.
I note the points by some posters regarding the replacement of Trident with land and sea based cruise missles. I would like to offer the following. Cruise missiles, in any form, are classified as tactical nuclear weapons. Trident D5 missiles and its predecessor, Polaris A3 are, or were, classified as strategic nuclear weapons. The distinction between the two is that tactical nuclear weapons have a lower yield than strategic weapons but more importantly a strategic weapon is designed to penetrate any defences, either by various counter measures as well as high Mach number speeds. And it is the latter that is quite critical, because we want our enemies to realize that we can hit back and be sure that we have the capability to do so. In addition, by having the deterrence embarked on submarines, the enemy will have little idea from which direction the attack will come from.
The Americans and Russians are cutting back on their nuclear arsenals, for no other reason other than the fact that what they already have, is good enough to penetrate enemy defences.
However, the decision on any Trident replacement will be taken by our lords and masters and not me.
Subs, well said 
It is often overlooked that the Deterrent is insurance against future threats and maybe not current threats. If you think you know who the enemy will be in 2025+ then please inform the Strategic Defence Review in 2015 or even 2020! Also, this isn't a capability that you can stand up inside 6-12 months - like a bunch of Infantry grunts.
The Trident doesn't need replacing until 2025-30, but we need to start thinking now. Anyone thinking they will be saving billions to pay for the idiots Brown and Blair's 13 year spending spree is sadly misguided. The money in years 1-4 (ie. 2010-2015) will probably be in the double digit millions. The savings to be made are in years 10+ (2020+), and I really hope that the country will have paid off its big debts by then (unless the great unwashed is tempted by Nu Labour again!!!).
Nuff said?
The B Word
It is often overlooked that the Deterrent is insurance against future threats and maybe not current threats. If you think you know who the enemy will be in 2025+ then please inform the Strategic Defence Review in 2015 or even 2020! Also, this isn't a capability that you can stand up inside 6-12 months - like a bunch of Infantry grunts.
The Trident doesn't need replacing until 2025-30, but we need to start thinking now. Anyone thinking they will be saving billions to pay for the idiots Brown and Blair's 13 year spending spree is sadly misguided. The money in years 1-4 (ie. 2010-2015) will probably be in the double digit millions. The savings to be made are in years 10+ (2020+), and I really hope that the country will have paid off its big debts by then (unless the great unwashed is tempted by Nu Labour again!!!).
Nuff said?
The B Word
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
not necessarily the enemy of today we need to worry about, but the enemy of tomorrow. I would ask you to consider that someone, somewhere in the world today, is having their life shaped by events going on around him/her. If that person rises to the highest office in their country, and that country has access to nuclear weapons, then they may feel inclined to deploy them. If that turned out to be the case, and that country wanted to launch an attack - for example on the UK - we would need to have a response.
The Iran of today is different as the country as a whole in not fully supportive of the regime. Can you attack such a country whose leadership has taken leave of its senses?
The whole point is to deter a potential aggressor by all but guaranteeing that our counter attack would be so devastating, the aggressor could not possibly recover from such an attack.
The distinction between the two is that tactical nuclear weapons have a lower yield than strategic weapons but more importantly a strategic weapon
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the main reason we obtained nuclear weapons was political. That is, we wanted to be at the world's top table. At the time, with American soldiers in Europe, I think we were comfortable under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
Militarily we got them for an existing situation, namely that the Soviet Union had them. Later China could also be considered a potential nuclear enemy.
The threat from these countries has hugely diminished although there's no reason why it won't increase again as both countries become richer.
I'm not convinced that a small country like ours needs such weapons unless you think that nuclear proliferation is unstoppable, which it may well be, and that the deterance factor will work in these cases, which has to be questionable.
The real question is not a military one but political. What does continuing with a nuclear deterant say about us to the rest of the world? What would scrapping it say? In particular, how will any decision on this affect the attitude of the U.S. towards us.
I agree that it is difficult to give up something we've learned to live with for fifty years but perhaps times have really changed. I hope the defence review can give us the correct answers.
Militarily we got them for an existing situation, namely that the Soviet Union had them. Later China could also be considered a potential nuclear enemy.
The threat from these countries has hugely diminished although there's no reason why it won't increase again as both countries become richer.
I'm not convinced that a small country like ours needs such weapons unless you think that nuclear proliferation is unstoppable, which it may well be, and that the deterance factor will work in these cases, which has to be questionable.
The real question is not a military one but political. What does continuing with a nuclear deterant say about us to the rest of the world? What would scrapping it say? In particular, how will any decision on this affect the attitude of the U.S. towards us.
I agree that it is difficult to give up something we've learned to live with for fifty years but perhaps times have really changed. I hope the defence review can give us the correct answers.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one here or in the government can know what future threats will be. A powerful dictatorship can grow remarkably swiftly. We need deterrence for the future. So my vote is definitely keep the deterrent.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP
All I will say is that who would have thought that Corporal Hitler, standing in the trenches during WW1 would, some 20 years later, rise to power and kick start WW2? This is the point I make regarding the enemy of tomorrow. Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what the world will be like in 10 years – 20 years hence, but naturally we hope for the best.I agree with you that the government of a country does not necessarily represent the population as a whole. We don’t need to look abroad for examples, we can say that about our own country, Coalition or not.The nuclear deterrent was created solely to deter a nuclear strike on our country. There is no other reason for its existence. Its sole intention is to annihilate another country. It is not designed to act as, what I call a fly swat. To this end, I personally do not care one single solitary jot, what the general population of an enemy country thinks of its leadership. If that country launched a nuclear attack on the UK, I for one, would expect to see a like for like retaliatory strike.As for the differences in yield between strategic and tactical weapons? No it is definitely not a mute point. On the contrary a tactical nuclear weapon could easily, and with a much reduced yield, send out a very clear political message to our enemies, and would minimize casualties and perhaps, just perhaps, make them think twice about escalating their actions.And that is what I would expect to see happen, because if the UK’s nuclear deterrent was deployed, then there would be no political message to send because it would be game over.
All I will say is that who would have thought that Corporal Hitler, standing in the trenches during WW1 would, some 20 years later, rise to power and kick start WW2? This is the point I make regarding the enemy of tomorrow. Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what the world will be like in 10 years – 20 years hence, but naturally we hope for the best.I agree with you that the government of a country does not necessarily represent the population as a whole. We don’t need to look abroad for examples, we can say that about our own country, Coalition or not.The nuclear deterrent was created solely to deter a nuclear strike on our country. There is no other reason for its existence. Its sole intention is to annihilate another country. It is not designed to act as, what I call a fly swat. To this end, I personally do not care one single solitary jot, what the general population of an enemy country thinks of its leadership. If that country launched a nuclear attack on the UK, I for one, would expect to see a like for like retaliatory strike.As for the differences in yield between strategic and tactical weapons? No it is definitely not a mute point. On the contrary a tactical nuclear weapon could easily, and with a much reduced yield, send out a very clear political message to our enemies, and would minimize casualties and perhaps, just perhaps, make them think twice about escalating their actions.And that is what I would expect to see happen, because if the UK’s nuclear deterrent was deployed, then there would be no political message to send because it would be game over.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I believe the main reason we obtained nuclear weapons was political. That is, we wanted to be at the world's top table. At the time, with American soldiers in Europe, I think we were comfortable under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Militarily we got them for an existing situation, namely that the Soviet Union had them. Later China could also be considered a potential nuclear enemy.
All justification since then for other reasons is just casuistry.
Wikipedia: The United Kingdom started independently developing nuclear weapons again shortly after the war. Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee set up a cabinet sub-committee, the Gen 75 Committee (GEN.75) (known informally as the "Atomic Bomb Committee"), to examine the feasibility as early as 29 August 1945. It was US refusal to continue nuclear cooperation with the UK after World War II (due to the McMahon Act of 1946 restricting foreign access to US nuclear technology) which eventually prompted the building of a bomb:
“ In October 1946, Attlee called a small cabinet sub-committee meeting to discuss building a gaseous diffusion plant to enrich uranium. The meeting was about to decide against it on grounds of cost, when [Ernest] Bevin arrived late and said "We've got to have this thing. I don't mind it for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked at or to by the Secretary of State of the US as I have just been... We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs ... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
And we did not get them because the USSR had them; they didn't. They got the technology from us.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My view is simplistic - and having attended the RAAF Staff College, you might well agree!!
To echo a fair number of others here, Trident is an insurance policy in which, some day, my descendants might be thankful I had invested; might being the knub word, but I wouldn't want to commit them to that risk. Hopefully Trident would not be needed, but whilst others of dubious nature have that truly appalling potential, in whatever guise, I would much prefer to have a higher stack of cards. As Poose said - better to have and not need than vice verca.
I well acknowledge most of the differing views expressed, but my instinct runs counter; and I'm mindful that an alternative nuclear option to Trident will almost certainly be more expensive to implement and sustain. A future generation will hopefully be able to dipense with a robust nuclear deterrent in its entirety, but I don't think we're yet close to that point.
To echo a fair number of others here, Trident is an insurance policy in which, some day, my descendants might be thankful I had invested; might being the knub word, but I wouldn't want to commit them to that risk. Hopefully Trident would not be needed, but whilst others of dubious nature have that truly appalling potential, in whatever guise, I would much prefer to have a higher stack of cards. As Poose said - better to have and not need than vice verca.
I well acknowledge most of the differing views expressed, but my instinct runs counter; and I'm mindful that an alternative nuclear option to Trident will almost certainly be more expensive to implement and sustain. A future generation will hopefully be able to dipense with a robust nuclear deterrent in its entirety, but I don't think we're yet close to that point.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“ In October 1946, Attlee called a small cabinet sub-committee meeting to discuss building a gaseous diffusion plant to enrich uranium. The meeting was about to decide against it on grounds of cost, when [Ernest] Bevin arrived late and said "We've got to have this thing. I don't mind it for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked at or to by the Secretary of State of the US as I have just been... We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs ... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."
You hit the nail on the head with this one. It may not be admitted openly, but the fact is that countries with nuclear weapons are taken seriously internationally, and those that don't ... aren't. We have allies in certain parts of the world precisely because we are a nuclear power. We are the ultimate partner to support them against a rogue neighbour.Secondly, this system will still be working in 50 years time. Lets take a step back exactly 100 years to 1910. Would the 1910 armchair expert have been able to predict the 2 world wars and numerous other conflicts which would occur in the following 50 years?
Third, whole life costs might sound expensive, but as a yearly insurance policy against the obliteration of the UK it is a pitance.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
1910?
Remember the Russo-Japanese war of 1905? The Naval arms from 1906?
Then looking for 1910 I found this:
georgiandaily.com - Paris S?excuse: French Officials Rationalize Naval Rearmament of Russia - Part One
Of course in 1910 France was the banker of Europe and bank rolled Russia.
Remember the Russo-Japanese war of 1905? The Naval arms from 1906?
Then looking for 1910 I found this:
georgiandaily.com - Paris S?excuse: French Officials Rationalize Naval Rearmament of Russia - Part One
Of course in 1910 France was the banker of Europe and bank rolled Russia.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The suicide bomber and the international fanatical terrorist certainly seems to have thrown some spanners into our political and military thinking. One interesting (in the Chinese sense) thought thread is that many of us now think that such terrs are the Threat and that we should no longer concern ourselves with any posed by nation states. Those nation states that may be a threat are now labelled fanatics who, equally, would be happy to commit suicide for their cause. So, they won't fear our deterrent
In reality, it is not simply "either, or" but, very inconveniently, both. The "fanatic" threat is an addition, not a replacement. I wonder how relaxed we'll be when that nice Mr Putin becomes Russian President again? Do we care that China isn't its insular former self and has cornered the World market on various mineral sources, essential to our modern day technological living? Do we believe that any harm to us will harm the US as well and that we can rely on them to resolve such difficulties for us?
In reality, it is not simply "either, or" but, very inconveniently, both. The "fanatic" threat is an addition, not a replacement. I wonder how relaxed we'll be when that nice Mr Putin becomes Russian President again? Do we care that China isn't its insular former self and has cornered the World market on various mineral sources, essential to our modern day technological living? Do we believe that any harm to us will harm the US as well and that we can rely on them to resolve such difficulties for us?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article by Michael Portillo on Gordon Brown’s nuclear deterrent policy for The Sunday Times, 25 June 2006.
Extract:
Always regarded our Trident subs as effectively USN boats under a white ensign.
The logic of the US/UK arrangement being that with Polaris/Trident, the UK gets to sit at the top table, yet again punching above its weight, while the US gets a vocal ally at that top table who will support its foreign policy objectives; fair trade, no robbery.
But for the UK to use these weapons without US approval? Unthinkable. There is no way the US would have the UK start throwing these things about, for fear of being dragged in itself. If the US is already involved in the fight however, then that presents no such difficulties.
"Independent" deterrant? Not a chance! If we wanted such then we should have looked to Advanced Cruise Missiles of our own; sea, sub and air launched varieties. But I gues with the current treaties in place, thats one boat which has already sailed.
Extract:
But two decades later we live in a different world and the arguments ought to have changed. We now face no threat from the Soviet Union. The nuclear weapons states that we might fear such as North Korea, China and in the future Iran, have much less developed systems than the Russians did. Unlike the Soviet Union they do not have tank divisions in Germany and Czechoslovakia ready to race towards Frankfurt and Vienna. It is not easy for them to blackmail us, still less attack us.
If somehow they could threaten us, it is hard to see how Britain’s own weapons could successfully deter them. As Harold Wilson observed after he had left Downing Street: “I never believed that we had a really independent deterrent.” Britain relies for its technology on the United States, and it is inconceivable that we could use our weapons without American permission. That being so, Britain’s “independent” deterrent becomes ineffective.
Our enemies know too that democracies could only use nuclear weapons if they have come under nuclear attack. Even when Britain has felt that its vital national interests were threatened it could not even contemplate a nuclear response. So Colonel Nasser of Egypt did not hesitate to nationalize the Suez Canal, nor did Argentina’s General Galtieri think twice about invading the Falkland Islands.
Twenty years ago the Soviets might have doubted whether the Americans would really risk the destruction of their country just to save Europe. But the calculation for others today would be quite different. America has spent those two decades working on systems that intercept hostile missiles. If the US needs to destroy an enemy (perhaps in response to an attack on an ally) it can probably do so at no risk to its homeland. So whilst Britain’s independent deterrent now appears ineffective, the American deterrent works even better than before. Blair’s key insight – which probably led him into the Iraq war – is that we rely on America for our security now as much as ever, if not more so.
It is true that the world will have changed again by the time that the Trident system needs to be replaced or upgraded in almost twenty years’ time. Who knows what the global situation may be by then? But no matter how much the scene alters, the US will still hold the key to the British system, because the missile design is theirs.
If somehow they could threaten us, it is hard to see how Britain’s own weapons could successfully deter them. As Harold Wilson observed after he had left Downing Street: “I never believed that we had a really independent deterrent.” Britain relies for its technology on the United States, and it is inconceivable that we could use our weapons without American permission. That being so, Britain’s “independent” deterrent becomes ineffective.
Our enemies know too that democracies could only use nuclear weapons if they have come under nuclear attack. Even when Britain has felt that its vital national interests were threatened it could not even contemplate a nuclear response. So Colonel Nasser of Egypt did not hesitate to nationalize the Suez Canal, nor did Argentina’s General Galtieri think twice about invading the Falkland Islands.
Twenty years ago the Soviets might have doubted whether the Americans would really risk the destruction of their country just to save Europe. But the calculation for others today would be quite different. America has spent those two decades working on systems that intercept hostile missiles. If the US needs to destroy an enemy (perhaps in response to an attack on an ally) it can probably do so at no risk to its homeland. So whilst Britain’s independent deterrent now appears ineffective, the American deterrent works even better than before. Blair’s key insight – which probably led him into the Iraq war – is that we rely on America for our security now as much as ever, if not more so.
It is true that the world will have changed again by the time that the Trident system needs to be replaced or upgraded in almost twenty years’ time. Who knows what the global situation may be by then? But no matter how much the scene alters, the US will still hold the key to the British system, because the missile design is theirs.
The logic of the US/UK arrangement being that with Polaris/Trident, the UK gets to sit at the top table, yet again punching above its weight, while the US gets a vocal ally at that top table who will support its foreign policy objectives; fair trade, no robbery.
But for the UK to use these weapons without US approval? Unthinkable. There is no way the US would have the UK start throwing these things about, for fear of being dragged in itself. If the US is already involved in the fight however, then that presents no such difficulties.
"Independent" deterrant? Not a chance! If we wanted such then we should have looked to Advanced Cruise Missiles of our own; sea, sub and air launched varieties. But I gues with the current treaties in place, thats one boat which has already sailed.
Last edited by rab-k; 25th May 2010 at 11:03.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Where the wild things are
Age: 52
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very probationary PPruner asking a possibly naive question...Why do we as a nation feel the need to "sit at the top table"? We are a small island nation with a huge fiscal deficit - should we not be more worried about our own problems in the here and now rather than worrying about a bogeyman that may or may not exist? Would the money not be better spent securing our borders and keeping our population safe rather than trying to keep up with the much larger and richer Joneses by buying their kit from them?
Please don't flame me, I ask only in an effort to learn more.
Please don't flame me, I ask only in an effort to learn more.