Devon Candidates Clash Over Trident Boats

Clearly the Gilroy girl has a total grasp of deterrence by ballistic missile;

We can perhaps go further in reducing the number of warheads
Financially, it would save almost bugger all and wouldn’t allow for in-flight/in-fall interference. We know the Russians and Chinese have the capability to.
notafourknotfudgepacker said:
"There are many other ways we can provide a meaningful nuclear deterrent short of four dedicated submarines solely for that purpose."

Like what exactly?
The scary thing is Nick Harvey, who said that, is their defence spokesman. I remind you of the oh so informed words of Nick Clegg on the subject of an alternative:

Nick Clegg said:
.... a number of other alternatives, for example, military experts will now tell you that it is a perfectly realistic option to use the existing Astute Class submarines and equip them with nuclear tipped missiles. On the other extreme you could use the urrrr, you could pursue the urrr, Japanese option where you retain the ability to urrr, urrr, have a nuclear deterrent in a very short space of time, in about 6 months, in other words you maintain a capacity to mobilise a nuclear deterrent but don't actually have one fully ready to go on day one. Or you could quite simply accept that the premise of the Trident system, that you have an 'at-sea' deterrent every single minute, of every single day, of every single week, of every single month, throughout the year is no longer necesarry. In other words you have a deterrent which is not deployed at sea all the time. There are a range of different alternatives, which we've set out in detail.


Lantern Swinger
notafourknotfudgepacker said:
"There are many other ways we can provide a meaningful nuclear deterrent short of four dedicated submarines solely for that purpose."

Like what exactly?
Agreed, submarines are currently the best method available. Every argument I've read is either untenable or is along the lines of having enough allies that we could rely on one of them to kick off the whole assured mutual destruction deal.

Given that we can't trust the US enough to back us up against Argentina, I don't think that theory holds.

I have read of the idea of using stealth bombers, but those are more detectable and more easily destroyed than submarines and currently don't have the range to cover the world, without assistance from other countries.
All that the anti Trident politicians can see is the estimated cost which admittedly is eye watering until you try to cost out any alternative.We have seen in the past what happens when any land based nuclear defence system is set up.It becomes home to all the tree huggers,make love not war hippies and all the attendant unrest.I know they have a camp at Faslane but it seldom makes any headlines like the ones elsewhere.
fishhead said:
... admittedly is eye watering ...
To quote Liam Fox, compare the cost of Trident replacement against the London Olympics. Same money, but one lasts for 30 years, the other for 2 weeks. No contest.
Scouse_Castaway said:
And the Olympics are more likely to be a national embarrassment ;)
Whatever could you mean... our finest 'efnic yoof dance crew' strutting their stuff while a specially commissioned display of fireworks and music symbolising our 'multicultural society' crackles in the background, followed by Wayne Rooney or some other such dribbler flicking a match into a petrol doused Ford Mondeo stolen by his cousin only hours before to light the Olympic flame.
you're forgetting the new events lonestar

1) synchronised "shanking"

2) Pointless Petition Production

3) Street racing with sub 1 litre cars (must have expired MOT and no tax)

4) Buckfast brawling (A Special Scottish culture exhibition event)

Any one have any other "best of British" suggestions
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Sierra_Hotel The Fleet Air Arm 5
J The Quarterdeck 20
A Current Affairs 1

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts