Discussion in 'Submariners' started by soleil, Jun 19, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Page 2 drew some comment at http://www.navy-net.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=20263/start=15.html
Good old Boyce.
Thanks P-O-L - must have missed that .......
Non-starter IMO, pretty much on par with the carriers will be binned. Any labour/tory PM knows the importance of these 2 projects and the effects. This country will have a carrier(s) force in some shape or form. The only threat to V boats is if a different & better (cheaper????) delivery vehicle is found. Maybe explains why the RAF are dancing around like peaCOCKS, but we'll still have nuclear weapons for a long time.
Leader in tomorrow's paper:
In the end the justification for both Trident and the carriers is political - should the UK still try to be a world power with global reach, or should we just be just another region of Europe like Belgium or Denmark, and let Brussels decide our fate? Surely we can rely on our utterly trustworthy major allies like France and Germany? Should we leave the whole business of running the world to the United States? Does the public care about anything beyond beer, Big Brother and football? .. until the lights go out.
When it comes to 'affordable' the ONLY thing that needs to be ring-fenced and protected is Defence. Not cross-subsidising Indian nuclear and space programes!
There has never been world power that without sea power.
Not really up to the whys and wherefores but I would have thought we needed the carriers and not so many of the Eurofighters.
there will be no more dogfights,most aircraft will be ground attack and unmanned drones.
We need Trident,we need carriers,we need modern bomb proof vehicles,we don't need ID cards/or so much Aid to line the pockets of Despots,or quangos etc.
We can afford a lot if we can stop wasting a lot.
Column in Monday's paper:
Thatâ€™s quite a good assessment, from a weekend brown job. Not full marks, though;
The separation loss between our boat and the French one has been easily forgotten.
A nice retort, some common sense and logic thrown in to the bargain.
Every procurement programme we have ever had, it seems to me, has run over time. Therefore any decision to delay starting work on V-boat replacement needs to factor this in on a REALISTIC, professional basis and to calculate just how long into the future the V's can actually be kept running. It seemed from my armchair that the Rs were pretty much off the end of their life by the time the Vs came along (but of course I defer to more knowledgeable RRs on that). The same, I should think, goes for the missiles themselves, particularly if the US decides to create a replacement for Trident which results in loading all the cost of keeping Trident going onto the UK.
Agreed...this poll backs up your thinking that the public just don't care.
The third highest priority for immediate cuts in public spending as far as the public themselves are concerned is defence - straight after overseas aid (which is negligible compared to some of the other options) and benefits payments (not negligible by any means, though if there's to be thousands more in dole queues, not sure how feasible these cuts would be).
So in short, of the British public's desire for cuts which are feasible and would make an impact, defence rates pretty high.
So much for 'our boys', eh.
EDIT: Quickly re-scanning that, that's a figure plucked from a sample of those who think 'some services should be protected'. So amongst those who thought no services should be protected defence naturally would do even worse.
On the broader subject of defence spending, I found the following quote; "We want to get resources to the front line, to the police, hospitals and schools," given by Gordon Brown when pressed to make his position clear on expenditure cuts in an interview with Nick Robinson, to be indicative not of contempt for the Armed Forces so much as a total lack of awareness of them.
I am horrified that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can speak of any 'front line,' without recognising the audacity of failing to include in that category those individuals who are on the material front line of the wars that his government started. I genuinely fail to understand how anyone can be so ignorant and am appalled by the implicit threat to the resources upon which those individuals' lives depend that such ignorance presents.
Evidently three hundred and fifty is a more abstract number for some than others.
Once a Government has seriously debated removing or reducing the Deterrent Force as a savings measure, offering it as an altruistic negotiating gesture becomes totally hollow. The aspiring Nuclear Powers know that they just have to wait long enough and weâ€™ll reduce ours for nothing in return anyway.
Public debate inside a free democracy is priceless.
More like falling out with reading pish like this when the author can't be bothered putting a picture of a V-boat. :roll:
Any boat spotters, is that a sceptic?
Planes on the sail certainly aren't British.
Separate names with a comma.