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
LBP PC DC, shhush, people don't want to know about the Elephant in the room.
Who would have predicted the current unrest in Jamaica even at the start of this Thread a few days ago - certainly a year ago?
Is the answer of "the world is an uncertain place" now QED???
(And I'm not suggesting nukes should be used in Jamaica, but it shows the argument on the uncertainty of future conflicts)
LJ
Is the answer of "the world is an uncertain place" now QED???
(And I'm not suggesting nukes should be used in Jamaica, but it shows the argument on the uncertainty of future conflicts)
LJ
As omeone who in 2000 speak is a 'customer' orf the UK armed forces , ie a citizen the questionI have a few questions to pose, in an amiable way i hope
1 Can we afford an indepenedent deterent today
2 Do we need one since effectively nuking london would massively contaminate France who tend to strike back more than we do anyway
3 If we had nukes dont the Americans have all the launch data anyway and can prevent us from going it alone
It seems to me a serious time to asses this, I think a politician recently said without nuclear weapons we would just be Belgium, but he overlooked that fact the the average Belge in the Rue/Straat is better off than his /her Brit opposite number and has better healthcare, pensions, transport , less social chaos etc etc etc. So Nukes are fine for a really unlikely event but for most probablyscenarios theyare a huge waste of money
?
1 Can we afford an indepenedent deterent today
2 Do we need one since effectively nuking london would massively contaminate France who tend to strike back more than we do anyway
3 If we had nukes dont the Americans have all the launch data anyway and can prevent us from going it alone
It seems to me a serious time to asses this, I think a politician recently said without nuclear weapons we would just be Belgium, but he overlooked that fact the the average Belge in the Rue/Straat is better off than his /her Brit opposite number and has better healthcare, pensions, transport , less social chaos etc etc etc. So Nukes are fine for a really unlikely event but for most probablyscenarios theyare a huge waste of money
?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right at the moment, serious government analysts are questioning the future of the EU. The German reluctance to fund the failures of other Europeans has cast a grave doubt over the future of the EU. Continental Europe boasts just one truly powerful economy: Germany. Germany now wants to control how other Europeans spend their money and the other Europeans are never going to give that power to Germany.
This could in the future lead to a slow, gradual loosening of the ties of the EU. Germany however will continue strong. Her economy while superficially workable with France, is nationalistically never going to work together with the French. Germany will need a partner. The most obvious is Russia. Germany needs workers - but not immigrants - Russia needs industrial investment not emigrants. Russia has much of the raw materials that Germany needs. The compatibility of their economies is obvious - to them. Such a partnership would be exceedingly dangerous for us and the USA, but mostly for us. We would effectively be without the EU. France is a competitor and always has been, she has little that we want and vice versa. We would need to start very quickly looking well beyond Europe. The EU would devolve into being no more than the original Treaty of Rome - something that we felt was of little interest to us.
More to the point however is the possible growth of a German-Russian axis both economically and potentially militarily. This would be a very powerful coalition, something that would do well to worry about. It would be fully nuclear. So the retention of our nuclear deterrent would be vital. The Americans can and may well be totally distracted by some other danger to their interests - maybe from China or South America, so our deterrent will be truly independent. They don't actually have a "key" we can if necessary, fire at will. The Soviets back in the Cold War, we have since discovered, were quite afraid of the RN nuclear subs since they were truly independent - even of a nuked London, they could fire. It is real, and our seat at the top table ensures that we are completely aware of the situation - as even Germany is not at the moment.
This could in the future lead to a slow, gradual loosening of the ties of the EU. Germany however will continue strong. Her economy while superficially workable with France, is nationalistically never going to work together with the French. Germany will need a partner. The most obvious is Russia. Germany needs workers - but not immigrants - Russia needs industrial investment not emigrants. Russia has much of the raw materials that Germany needs. The compatibility of their economies is obvious - to them. Such a partnership would be exceedingly dangerous for us and the USA, but mostly for us. We would effectively be without the EU. France is a competitor and always has been, she has little that we want and vice versa. We would need to start very quickly looking well beyond Europe. The EU would devolve into being no more than the original Treaty of Rome - something that we felt was of little interest to us.
More to the point however is the possible growth of a German-Russian axis both economically and potentially militarily. This would be a very powerful coalition, something that would do well to worry about. It would be fully nuclear. So the retention of our nuclear deterrent would be vital. The Americans can and may well be totally distracted by some other danger to their interests - maybe from China or South America, so our deterrent will be truly independent. They don't actually have a "key" we can if necessary, fire at will. The Soviets back in the Cold War, we have since discovered, were quite afraid of the RN nuclear subs since they were truly independent - even of a nuked London, they could fire. It is real, and our seat at the top table ensures that we are completely aware of the situation - as even Germany is not at the moment.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax Brittania,
Q1: There is indeed some very deserving causes that could easily use the £billions that would be needed to replace Trident. My take on this is that it is a question of do we need it not can we afford it. Some posts on here question whether we can afford not to have a deterrence.
Q2: Not sure what is meant by your question/statement
Q3: No. The Americans do not have “launch data” targeting data or any means of physically delaying, prohibiting, or preventing the release of these weapons, should the U.K. decide to launch. It is a unilateral decision, though undoubtedly our allies would be consulted or, depending on how much attitude our government has, perhaps simply informed.
Q1: There is indeed some very deserving causes that could easily use the £billions that would be needed to replace Trident. My take on this is that it is a question of do we need it not can we afford it. Some posts on here question whether we can afford not to have a deterrence.
Q2: Not sure what is meant by your question/statement
Q3: No. The Americans do not have “launch data” targeting data or any means of physically delaying, prohibiting, or preventing the release of these weapons, should the U.K. decide to launch. It is a unilateral decision, though undoubtedly our allies would be consulted or, depending on how much attitude our government has, perhaps simply informed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who voiced the question - the correct term is bomber, not boomer. Boomer's are for septics and Jar Jar Binks.
Thank you for the mostly concise, and well presented arguments. I will confess to have been leaning towards a cheaper and less threatening deterrant (ala Cruise etc). but the argument has swung back in favour of the big boat full of sunshine.
Good work Wafu's (provided they don't hit Le Triomphant again)
Thank you for the mostly concise, and well presented arguments. I will confess to have been leaning towards a cheaper and less threatening deterrant (ala Cruise etc). but the argument has swung back in favour of the big boat full of sunshine.
Good work Wafu's (provided they don't hit Le Triomphant again)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will confess to have been leaning towards a cheaper and less threatening deterrant (ala Cruise etc). but the argument has swung back in favour of the big boat full of sunshine.
GR.
Royalist, nice reading.
Being german myself I cannot see any other Rapallo down the line for Germany. Trade with Russia? Certainly! Political cooperation beyound the usual? Not.
If I'd be Brit I'd certainly keep my nukes anyway. Not too long anymore and non governments might threaten "us" to use their own nukes anywhere. Funny dictators already do so.
Being german myself I cannot see any other Rapallo down the line for Germany. Trade with Russia? Certainly! Political cooperation beyound the usual? Not.
If I'd be Brit I'd certainly keep my nukes anyway. Not too long anymore and non governments might threaten "us" to use their own nukes anywhere. Funny dictators already do so.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Independence for real
While the UK realised it needed at least a finger on the nuclear trigger, and used US equipment as the post-V Force vehicle, a gentleman across the Channel decided that he needed a truly independent equivalent, at least in part to guarantee his own seat at the "Top Table".
Without help (AFAIK) from the US, France created a well-sized airborne deterrent, with those very sharp Mirage 4s, and followed those with both land- and submarine-based missiles. They have been very silent about the number of warheads, but reportedly they have about the same number as the UK. A cynic might say that until France "gives up" its Independent Nuclear Deterrent , the UK won't either: deeper cynicism says that the Foreign Office's traditional enemy is still France ...
Innocent me wonders why France could afford to develop its nuke forces from its own resources, why on earth didn't Britain do so? Getting things "cheap" from Uncle Sam has never been string-free - he keeps his poodles on a tight leash.
Without help (AFAIK) from the US, France created a well-sized airborne deterrent, with those very sharp Mirage 4s, and followed those with both land- and submarine-based missiles. They have been very silent about the number of warheads, but reportedly they have about the same number as the UK. A cynic might say that until France "gives up" its Independent Nuclear Deterrent , the UK won't either: deeper cynicism says that the Foreign Office's traditional enemy is still France ...
Innocent me wonders why France could afford to develop its nuke forces from its own resources, why on earth didn't Britain do so? Getting things "cheap" from Uncle Sam has never been string-free - he keeps his poodles on a tight leash.
Well, the British have a special relation to the US. Why not make use of it and procure US equipment cheaper? The punch is what matters.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Less Hair
The relationship may (rpt may) still be "special", but for how long?
Also, see my last sentence - is that really independence? My huskies wouldn't think so ...
BTW - I admire France for doing the nuclear thing independently, specially as the decision was taken when their country (at least, the northern bit) and economy was still in such a bad state after WW2, and have long felt that our politicos have gone for the "easy option" for too long - with disastrous consequences for Britain's aircraft industry as well.
Also, see my last sentence - is that really independence? My huskies wouldn't think so ...
BTW - I admire France for doing the nuclear thing independently, specially as the decision was taken when their country (at least, the northern bit) and economy was still in such a bad state after WW2, and have long felt that our politicos have gone for the "easy option" for too long - with disastrous consequences for Britain's aircraft industry as well.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As omeone who in 2000 speak is a 'customer' orf the UK armed forces , ie a citizen the questionI have a few questions to pose, in an amiable way i hope
1 Can we afford an indepenedent deterent today
2 Do we need one since effectively nuking london would massively contaminate France who tend to strike back more than we do anyway
3 If we had nukes dont the Americans have all the launch data anyway and can prevent us from going it alone
It seems to me a serious time to asses this, I think a politician recently said without nuclear weapons we would just be Belgium, but he overlooked that fact the the average Belge in the Rue/Straat is better off than his /her Brit opposite number and has better healthcare, pensions, transport , less social chaos etc etc etc. So Nukes are fine for a really unlikely event but for most probablyscenarios theyare a huge waste of money
?
1 Can we afford an indepenedent deterent today
2 Do we need one since effectively nuking london would massively contaminate France who tend to strike back more than we do anyway
3 If we had nukes dont the Americans have all the launch data anyway and can prevent us from going it alone
It seems to me a serious time to asses this, I think a politician recently said without nuclear weapons we would just be Belgium, but he overlooked that fact the the average Belge in the Rue/Straat is better off than his /her Brit opposite number and has better healthcare, pensions, transport , less social chaos etc etc etc. So Nukes are fine for a really unlikely event but for most probablyscenarios theyare a huge waste of money
?
They'd be doing us a favour imho, the place stinks of rat piss.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry I do not remember the nuclear destruction of the world in 1956
Sorry for the late reply.
In 1956 there was no nuclear destruction.
What didn't work was 'calling on the Yanks' Look up 'Suez' in a history book or two.
Barnsyormer1968
As for 'knocking of on Friday' the RAF worked Saturdays at that time!! The '5 day week' was introduced as a fuel saving measure after 'the Suez Crises'.
Prior to Suez a weekend '48' was a once a month afair.
Last edited by ian16th; 27th May 2010 at 18:40.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD to Pay for Trident Replacement
Beeb reporting that the MOD will have to pay the £20Bn or so for the Trident replacement and not HMT. If that has to be funded from a reduced Defence Vote then the cat is truly among the financial pigeons!
As reported:
So we're not particularly unique - my English teacher would have rapped me over the knuckles for that: one is either unique or one is not; uniqueness is not something that can be qualified in such a way boy! 
As reported:
Speaking from New Delhi, where he was accompanying Prime Minister David Cameron on his visit to India, Mr Osborne said he had made it "absolutely clear" the Trident costs were part of the defence budget.
"All budgets have pressure. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence
"All budgets have pressure. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence
Last edited by Impiger; 30th Jul 2010 at 08:15.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been on the cards for a month or so now - and in one sense it's great news, as it forces Trident to sing for it supper against other more useful systems and programmes. Don't think for a second that if Trident had a specific budget line it would result in net additional resources for MoD at this point - it wouldn't.
Hopefully this means that we can get rid of Trident and spend the money on something more useful.
S41
Hopefully this means that we can get rid of Trident and spend the money on something more useful.
S41
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I don't want to be a pedent but there are too many As and not enough Es in the title and it greats every time I see it.