Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Do we need an Independant Nuclear Deterrant?

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Do we need an Independant Nuclear Deterrant?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 30th Jul 2010, 08:43
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Yup, the spelling on this forum isn't grate.
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 08:48
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,819
Received 271 Likes on 110 Posts
It grates on me too....

Overseas aid should pay for military expeditionary activity, rather than it being funded from the defence budget.

If the Tornado fleet is retired, probably the only non-USAF aircraft in the UK capable of nuclear strike will be XH558 until the Nimrod Y2K is in service...
BEagle is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 08:56
  #103 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Well that was quick. Almost went ersa over elbow when BEagle bit.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 12:10
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Civvie (annoyingly logical) perspective....

For a 'deterrent' to be effective the threat of its use must deter the aggressor. Unfortunately it seems we still have a myopic/westernised perspective of live vs death and don't yet fully appreciate that some nations don't share this same philosophy - case in point security designed to prevent bombing on an aeroplane assumes that a bomber wouldn't carry a device onto an aeroplane that they're flying on...as they'd risk killing themselves. We're now aware that this paradigm no longer applies and that, for some, martyrdom appeals (and yet we still do matching of baggage to passengers).

If a nation isn't threatened by the idea of retaliation, then it's no longer a deterrent....
gpn01 is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 13:56
  #105 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
gpn, you are right to a point. The airline baggage issue is of course quite correct.

What you overlook though is that a willingness to die does not permeate the whole terrorist organisation. The leadership has not been noted for its willingness to say 'follow me.'
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 14:23
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
All I can add is my utterly unqualified civvy support to what I presume is the RAF position on this.

OK, the fact that we think it won't be used is not a good reason to lose a capability. That said, in a situation where people are seriously discussing dumping the entire Tornado GR fleet to save 7.5bn, it seems utterly insane to countenance spending 20bn on nukes. Sorry, Navy people, I am not in the RAF so I don't automatically hate you, but that is just not sanity.

Why wouldn't we ditch Trident, keep Tornado, and still have 12.5bn to give back to the MoD in savings? In whose brain is this not an obviously superior result?

P
Phil_R is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 14:31
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 77
Posts: 1,375
Received 21 Likes on 13 Posts
Why wouldn't we ditch Trident, keep Tornado, and still have 12.5bn to give back to the MoD in savings? In whose brain is this not an obviously superior result?
Because we then would no longer have a seat at the UN's top table - and no UK Government, of whatever shade would be willing to relinquish the status they seem addicted to.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 14:39
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, anwyay, is it? I understood the security council was drawn from the victors of WWII, and the fact that they happened to be the only pre-67 nuclear weapons states was largely coincidental.

Happy to be corrected though, or told to go away from the aircrew forum where I am at best a hangar on

P
Phil_R is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 15:09
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 291
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I do not think there is an explicit link between membership of the permanent 5 of the SC & the posession of N weapons.
andyy is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 15:30
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 71
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Once upon a time, the Queen`s Navee used to ensure that the seas were open to law abiding nations to carry out their legal trade. It had the capability to defend itself, and land light expeditionary forces in order to sort out The Natives, or Johnny Foreigner when neccessary. The Continentals were left to sort things out between themselves.

That system seems to have worked fairly well for a long time. Perhaps it is time to forget the top table and return to basics.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 16:14
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The UK is a permanent member of the UN security council. That means that it will permanently be a member...whether it has Trident, Tomahawk or a single M3M gun.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 16:33
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: AKT no more
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So the MOD has to fund the next nuclear deterrent from their own budget, cost 20£Bn.

To fund the purchase why not let the MOD sell the existing nuclear deterrent second hand; one careful owner, low milage, kept in garage etc?
FlapJackMuncher is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 17:14
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
We certainly used to work on Saturday mornings. The change to a 5 day week occured at some time in the period 1961-63 when I was at RAF Driffield. It never affected me as I worked in a 4 shift system which equated to a 42 hour week. What did annoy me was working shifts in the Middle East - day workers started at 0700 and packed up at 1300 (30 hour week), shift workers just carried on with the same 4 shift system (42 hour week) that they maintained in the UK.
ricardian is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2010, 17:33
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,578
Received 18 Likes on 10 Posts
I do not think there is an explicit link between membership of the permanent 5 of the SC & the posession of N weapons.
Neither do I. I believe it was consituted immediately after WWII. At this point only the US possessed them.

Fortunately possession of nuclear weapons doesn't automatically give you a seat at the table. Mind you, it would be fun if it did. Imagine, wee Kim Il Jong, ArmouredDinnerJacket, the Pakistani pres, Netanyahu etc all at the same table. Would be like the opening scene in The Naked Gun II.
dead_pan is online now  
Old 31st Jul 2010, 12:31
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What you overlook though is that a willingness to die does not permeate the whole terrorist organisation. The leadership has not been noted for its willingness to say 'follow me.'
True and not a new concept either. I watched a fascinating documentary about a kamikazi squadron some time back. Only two squadron members survived the war...

The boss and the planning officer.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2010, 16:35
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,792
Received 78 Likes on 35 Posts
Our removal from the P5 would require a resolution of the Security Council. Which we would veto. Why would we possibly vote for our own removal? Possession of nuclear weapons is a red herring.

As regards the rest of the Navy's role, they would do well to stop angling towards becoming a floating air force, and focus on their core 'control of the sea' stuff.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2010, 20:21
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,540
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 17 Posts
Call their bluff. If they want the instant sunshine to come out the defence budget, just say no, the money would be better spent on other defence related items. See then if the government would be willing to lose their penis extension.
Dan Gerous is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2010, 20:22
  #118 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
ES, while 2/3rds of the World is covered by water it is a fact that all of it is covered by air and from the air comes a threat that can only be met from the air, viz Bismark, Repulse and Prince of Wales etc etc.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2010, 09:36
  #119 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Widebody
Only Labour or Conservative leaders would actually know that binning Trident wouldn’t save the defense budget a bean. We just don’t have it to bin. It’s as simple as that.
It crossed my mind 40 years ago that we were carrying a load of scrap iron. Unfortunately to maintain the bluff costs money. Everyone, except the very few in the know, have to believe that it is real.

The 'few' in the know are, by now, several thousands as many of the early ones will have retired.

It may still be a bluff but an expensive one as every single nut and bolt has to be real.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2010, 11:10
  #120 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Captain, that did occur to me. As I said though, having been concerned with buckets of sunshine I know we did carry a few tons of scrap iron as well as the payload. All the better to irradiate you with.
Pontius Navigator is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.