Do we need an Independant Nuclear Deterrant?
PN,
Modern naval units should be able to achieve at least air superiority, if not air supremacy, through mutual support and correct positioning. T45's Samson radar, ASTER SAMs and CIWS can see off anything short of a stealth attack.
In contrast, our reasons for buying the carriers are all about projecting force, not defending surface units. In the short term, GR9s aren't much use as DCA. In the long term, a carrier reliant on the majority of its (small!) JCA air wing for protection is a self-licking lollipop of the type we can't afford.
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.
In contrast, our reasons for buying the carriers are all about projecting force, not defending surface units. In the short term, GR9s aren't much use as DCA. In the long term, a carrier reliant on the majority of its (small!) JCA air wing for protection is a self-licking lollipop of the type we can't afford.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A Gaelic Country
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it is time for our current Politicians, the FCO and Senior Military Officers to finally complete "withdrawal from Empire" by accepting that:
1. Britain cannot afford a "world role".
2. Do we - the British Public - really want a "world role".
3. Do we, the British face a greater threat, conventional, Nuclear or assymetric than say Norway, Denmark, the Benelux, Germany, Spain or Portugal?
If yes, then is it because of our allegedly automatic support of US military intervention post 9/11 or because of past Empire and Foreign interests accrued due to Empire?
If "yes" to both of these then - stop and withdraw resepectively.
4. Lets go back to core basics - Defence of the Realm at Home, from Home. Not via interventionist policies abroad.
If this means redundancies then pay us all generously - esp. lower ranks - to re-enter civilian life and increase access and funding for retraining.
1. Britain cannot afford a "world role".
2. Do we - the British Public - really want a "world role".
3. Do we, the British face a greater threat, conventional, Nuclear or assymetric than say Norway, Denmark, the Benelux, Germany, Spain or Portugal?
If yes, then is it because of our allegedly automatic support of US military intervention post 9/11 or because of past Empire and Foreign interests accrued due to Empire?
If "yes" to both of these then - stop and withdraw resepectively.
4. Lets go back to core basics - Defence of the Realm at Home, from Home. Not via interventionist policies abroad.
If this means redundancies then pay us all generously - esp. lower ranks - to re-enter civilian life and increase access and funding for retraining.
ES
Modern naval units should be able to achieve at least air superiority, if not air supremacy, through mutual support and correct positioning. T45's Samson radar, ASTER SAMs and CIWS can see off anything short of a stealth attack.
Maybe and once only. Always shoot the archer, not the arrow.
As for self-licking lollipops - there are and always have been phases to campaigns, sometimes the CAG will be doing DCA, sometimes OCA, sometimes strike. Just like a land-based wing, only without a fixed set of GPS co-ordinates......
Modern naval units should be able to achieve at least air superiority, if not air supremacy, through mutual support and correct positioning. T45's Samson radar, ASTER SAMs and CIWS can see off anything short of a stealth attack.
Maybe and once only. Always shoot the archer, not the arrow.
As for self-licking lollipops - there are and always have been phases to campaigns, sometimes the CAG will be doing DCA, sometimes OCA, sometimes strike. Just like a land-based wing, only without a fixed set of GPS co-ordinates......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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.'
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.'
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Torygraph: Has Dave just saved Trident?
Take a break from the Child Benefit row to consider what David Cameron said on Today when he was asked about defence. I thought I heard him cut through the guff and confirm that we are getting a like-for-like Trident replacement. He agreed that the Trident upgrade was “untouchable”, and that even while searching for value for money savings from the programme, it will be replaced. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it sounded definitive somehow. This would lend weight to my colleague James Kirkup’s report this morning that Mr Cameron is swinging behind Liam Fox in the battle with the Treasury. This was the exchange:
JN: Is the Trident upgrade untouchable?
DC: We do need an independent nuclear deterrent…
JN: Is that a yes?
DC: Yes. Basically I was going to give you a longer and fuller answer but the short answer is yes… To me and the Coalition government, yes, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is being replaced.
Take a break from the Child Benefit row to consider what David Cameron said on Today when he was asked about defence. I thought I heard him cut through the guff and confirm that we are getting a like-for-like Trident replacement. He agreed that the Trident upgrade was “untouchable”, and that even while searching for value for money savings from the programme, it will be replaced. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it sounded definitive somehow. This would lend weight to my colleague James Kirkup’s report this morning that Mr Cameron is swinging behind Liam Fox in the battle with the Treasury. This was the exchange:
JN: Is the Trident upgrade untouchable?
DC: We do need an independent nuclear deterrent…
JN: Is that a yes?
DC: Yes. Basically I was going to give you a longer and fuller answer but the short answer is yes… To me and the Coalition government, yes, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is being replaced.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trident...The Emperors New Clothes
As I have mentioned before within the walls of this forum...if the politicians wish to replace Trident, let them make the case in plain and simple terms to the general public the reason for doing so in these "times of austerity"
The 'deterent' is a weapon of last resort...against whom and when would dave use it...?
Would he leave his conventional forces with poorly funded equipment scales to maintain his seat at the Security Council...?
As the recent upgrade to the alert state has proved, the 'deterent' has no teeth in this scenario...
By slowly reducing the effective power of land , sea and air forces he reduces us to becoming a one trick pony...the red button and nothing else...
5d2d
The 'deterent' is a weapon of last resort...against whom and when would dave use it...?
Would he leave his conventional forces with poorly funded equipment scales to maintain his seat at the Security Council...?
As the recent upgrade to the alert state has proved, the 'deterent' has no teeth in this scenario...
By slowly reducing the effective power of land , sea and air forces he reduces us to becoming a one trick pony...the red button and nothing else...
5d2d
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torygraph: Has Dave just saved Trident?
JN: Is the Trident upgrade untouchable?
DC: We do need an independent nuclear deterrent…
JN: Is that a yes?
DC: Yes. Basically I was going to give you a longer and fuller answer but the short answer is yes… To me and the Coalition government, yes, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is being replaced.
JN: Is the Trident upgrade untouchable?
DC: We do need an independent nuclear deterrent…
JN: Is that a yes?
DC: Yes. Basically I was going to give you a longer and fuller answer but the short answer is yes… To me and the Coalition government, yes, Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is being replaced.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the old Lister Gambit. I believe it was the Emohawk episode with the immortal line of "why don't we go down to the armoury, get a nuclear warhead. Strap it to me forehead and I'll nut the ****er into oblivion"
Can we find a volunteer?
Can we find a volunteer?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Would he leave his conventional forces with poorly funded equipment scales to maintain his seat at the Security Council...?
- The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
- In order to lose their place as a permanent member of the UNSC all the permanent members of the UNSC must vote for it.
- All permanent members of the UNSC have the power to veto any substantive resolution.
So in conclusion, not only do the permanent members of the UNSC have to vote to remove themselves from the UNSC but they have the veto to avoid being voted off the UNSC (which they can't because they'd have to vote for it in the first place) as well.
The possession of nuclear weapons is not a nessessity for status as permanent member of the UNSC, its just a concidence that the five victorious powers after WW2 who formed the first UNSC were also the only five nations recognised as nuclear weapon states (NWS) by the original Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple problem with the British nuclear deterrent is that nobody honestly believes that we would use it. If we wouldn't use it, it won't deter.
The solution is similarly simple: nuke somebody.
The solution is similarly simple: nuke somebody.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
incubus,
I can not comment on your suggestion as it is not Government policy to . . .
if you get my drift
but who exactly would we contemplate dropping a nuke on?
It is all very well to talk about State sponsored terrorism and failed States, but suppose a terrorist group prospers undetected in a western state - and they do don't they - which then launches a sucessful nuke on, say, New York. Would the US nuke the western state on the grounds that their failure to stop the terrorists was tantamount sponsoring them?
We might be better deploying our own ABM system.
PS
AMB is balls, a bit like a Deterrant
I can not comment on your suggestion as it is not Government policy to . . .
if you get my drift
but who exactly would we contemplate dropping a nuke on?
It is all very well to talk about State sponsored terrorism and failed States, but suppose a terrorist group prospers undetected in a western state - and they do don't they - which then launches a sucessful nuke on, say, New York. Would the US nuke the western state on the grounds that their failure to stop the terrorists was tantamount sponsoring them?
We might be better deploying our own ABM system.
PS
AMB is balls, a bit like a Deterrant
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 6th Oct 2010 at 09:44.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chilling out on the water if it's warm enough
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is all very well to talk about State sponsored terrorism and failed States, but suppose a terrorist group prospers undetected in a western state - and they do don't they - which then launches a sucessful nuke on, say, New York. Would the US nuke the western state on the grounds that their failure to stop the terrorists was tantamount sponsoring them?
We might be better deploying our own AMB system
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
RP, and that is progress?
I thought the issue was not trident but trident replacement. Continuing with Trident was like continuing with Polaris.
I thought the issue was not trident but trident replacement. Continuing with Trident was like continuing with Polaris.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Here's an idea on how to save on the cost of operating the Trident fleet, and how to help fund a replacement...
16 tubes is far more than we are ever going to need. So why don't we lease our "spare" nuclear capability to generate funds. Perhaps to another NATO member that doesn't have its own nuclear weapons? Now, who could that be...
Spain (ooops - what about the Gibraltar question?)
Germany - have they forgotten about 1966 yet?
Iceland - they probably haven't forgiven us for making their banks give our investors their money back. Also, we better not have another Cod War!
Maybe it's not such a good idea....
P.S In case you haven't realized yet, all of the above was very much tongue in cheek...
16 tubes is far more than we are ever going to need. So why don't we lease our "spare" nuclear capability to generate funds. Perhaps to another NATO member that doesn't have its own nuclear weapons? Now, who could that be...
Spain (ooops - what about the Gibraltar question?)
Germany - have they forgotten about 1966 yet?
Iceland - they probably haven't forgiven us for making their banks give our investors their money back. Also, we better not have another Cod War!
Maybe it's not such a good idea....
P.S In case you haven't realized yet, all of the above was very much tongue in cheek...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an idea on how to save on the cost of operating the Trident fleet, and how to help fund a replacement...
16 tubes is far more than we are ever going to need. So why don't we lease our "spare" nuclear capability to generate funds. Perhaps to another NATO member that doesn't have its own nuclear weapons? Now, who could that be...
Spain (ooops - what about the Gibraltar question?)
Germany - have they forgotten about 1966 yet?
Iceland - they probably haven't forgiven us for making their banks give our investors their money back. Also, we better not have another Cod War!
Maybe it's not such a good idea....
P.S In case you haven't realized yet, all of the above was very much tongue in cheek...
16 tubes is far more than we are ever going to need. So why don't we lease our "spare" nuclear capability to generate funds. Perhaps to another NATO member that doesn't have its own nuclear weapons? Now, who could that be...
Spain (ooops - what about the Gibraltar question?)
Germany - have they forgotten about 1966 yet?
Iceland - they probably haven't forgiven us for making their banks give our investors their money back. Also, we better not have another Cod War!
Maybe it's not such a good idea....
P.S In case you haven't realized yet, all of the above was very much tongue in cheek...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Golf Bravo Zulu.
So we'd have fewer warheads on target. How many do you actually need on target? 1?
Pontius.
Yes, you're correct about the invulnerability of ICBMs, but the enemy, assuming a suitable one appears, would never stop all the cruise missiles.
And until they could be 100% sure of getting them all they'd still function as a deterrent.
Having SLBMs is willy waving on an inappropriate scale.
So we'd have fewer warheads on target. How many do you actually need on target? 1?
Pontius.
Yes, you're correct about the invulnerability of ICBMs, but the enemy, assuming a suitable one appears, would never stop all the cruise missiles.
And until they could be 100% sure of getting them all they'd still function as a deterrent.
Having SLBMs is willy waving on an inappropriate scale.