Replacing deterrent nonsensical says.......

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by wave_dodger, Mar 5, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Labour think tank BBC News - Replacing Trident makes no sense, Centreforum argues

    Apparently the £25bn costs should be saved to revitalize the surface fleet because there Is no short/medium term threat, but the UK should retain the capacity to design and build a deterrent just in case. They also suggest converting the current boats to be cruise missile capable, I guess to be used more widely.

    If short is 1-5 years and medium is 5-15, then this blows their assertion apart. We started project work last year for a first boat in the water by 2028.That's a 16 year lead time, no way does that help a short/medium term threat!

    As for converting existing boats, have they not considered the huge costs to add cats & traps on CVS? These are not simple steel tubes, I known the US have converted boats to SSGNs bet that wasn't cheap and would take a hefty chunk out of their budget.
  2. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    If the monies saved in not replacing Trident was spent on SSN's or dare I say SSK's I would have no argument, but, we know that there would be another reduction in defence spending which would more than take up the Trident "savings".
  3. "Liberal policy think tank Centreforum" is all the credential we need to know. Give them a few years and they would knit any defence capability we could possibly wish for.

  4. ...... bunch of f8cking hippies.
  5. Who do we need a deterent against these days anyway? Trident was designed for total nuclear war and nuclear armagedon, it is a legacy of the cold war and is now not needed. We live in a world where we now have good relationships with China and Russia so therefore trident is no longer needed.

    Having a nuclear submarine laden with enough firepower to send Russia or China back to the stone age doesn't make the UK a safer place as all it does is cause China or Russia to respond to your deterent with their own deterent.
  6. your argument implies that China and Russia are the only states posing a nuclear threat. If there are others, it renders that invalid. Also, how do you know that a new threat won't emerge, or these so-called good relations don't sour?
  7. Are you drunk?
    • Like Like x 1
  8. There are other states that could pose a nuclear threat such as Iran, but is Trident to correct response to that. If Iran did develop a nuclear weapon and did fire that weapon would responding in kind with our own nuclear weapons be the correct response, no it wouldn't. Iran is a dictatorship that is not ruling with the consent of the population, so firing a nuclear weapon would just kill people who like us don't like the regime. The correct response for Iran is to detect that they have fired a nuclear missile and then shoot that missile down before it detonates. Our new type 45 destroyers are capable of detecting a nuclear missile and firing it down before it detonates.
  9. @Ballistic. When I say we have a good relationship with them I mean we sit down at the table and discuss our problems. We need each other for trade, and yes while we do have disagreements with them we are no where near the days of the cold war. NATO, China and Russia are all working together to move away from the days of the cold war and have been doing for some time. If we don't develop a nuclear deterrent then China and Russia are not going to develop one in return.
  10. And Russia & China arn't?

  11. Rubbish - Strategic fleet - SLBMs - Bulava - Russian strategic nuclear forces And thats in the public domain - say no more!
  12. Russia and China are also relics of the cold war and communism, those countries wont change over night but their governments are making moves in the right direction and they are also not posing a threat to our national security.
  13. Yeah we test our weapons systems as well to make sure they are safe, and they still work, it doesn't mean we are looking for someone to fire them at does it.
  14. Of course they won't.

    They're all lovely, fluffy bunnies.

    You really are drunk aren't you?
  15. King Kenny, are you smoking something that the RN would take a very dim view of!
  16. Exactly Ballistic, my above link refers.
  17. Is this a bite? If so, good show!
    • Like Like x 1
  18. No more or less fluffy that NATO!
  19. I am not smoking a thing but judging by the paranoia of some of the people on this thread I do believe that the armed forces must be handing out wacky backy amongst the ranks.
  20. Never confuse capability with intention. Both Russia and China maintain extensive strategic nuclear forces and other countries (India, Pakistan, Iran) are busy building them. Currently, the Russ, Chinese and Indians are behaving in a generally friendly manner. However, intentions can change in a matter of weeks, whereas it takes years to build / rebuild capabilities.I'd not believe everything you read about Type 45 either.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page