Tories call for new nuclear subs

#1
About time a politico had the balls to state the obvious! :D


Britain must replace its nuclear deterrent, the Conservative Party says.

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said the UK must maintain its four Trident missile submarines "for as long as possible" before replacing them.


Dr Fox told the BBC a new deterrent was needed because it was the best way to ensure no other country launches a nuclear strike.

His comments came days after MPs began an inquiry into Trident, which is expected to be obsolete by 2020.

"We have to replace [Trident] because there are states in the world still trying to get nuclear weapons," said Dr Fox.

"The best guarantee of them not being used is for Britain to have an independent deterrent."

The House of Commons defence committee is taking evidence from a range of experts about the type of threat the UK might face in 20 years' time.

The cost of replacing the UK's four submarines armed with Trident missiles could reach £20bn, according to some estimates.
Beeb
 
#3
No, it's just that the tories are looking to force the hard decisions that labour are too pussy-whipped to make by themselves.

Labour need to learn from Dr Fox's example! Making a strong argument over a policy that is unlikely to gain them any political points or voters. Can't say i've seen much evidence of that in government for the last 8yrs!
 
#5
Agent_Smith said:
No, it's just that the tories are looking to force the hard decisions that labour are too pussy-whipped to make by themselves.

Labour need to learn from Dr Fox's example! Making a strong argument over a policy that is unlikely to gain them any political points or voters. Can't say i've seen much evidence of that in government for the last 8yrs!
What evidence do you have to support your post or is it just a Tories opinion?
 

Geoff_Wessex

Lantern Swinger
#8
As a Polaris man 1971-74, I felt that I was doing one of the few worthwhile jobs in the RN. Things change, though, and now I'm going to say that the 'Nuclear Deterrent', in the shape of the ICBM, has become a white elephant. An incredibly expensive one, too, which ties up too much of the National Defence Budget, let alone the Navy's.

The Astute SSN class, along with the S and T boats, can carry an effective 'in-theatre' deterrent right to the doorstep of any potential threat, but even then that's only doing something that could be carried out by a skimmer. Either way, with support from a Carrier Group, that's as much as the UK can do to 'punch its weight' and we'd still be contributing to allied power more effectively than we do today. Perhaps it's time to think again about the RAF dealing with any deeper inland targets.

There, I've said it!
 
#9
Geoff_Wessex said:
As a Polaris man 1971-74, I felt that I was doing one of the few worthwhile jobs in the RN. Things change, though, and now I'm going to say that the 'Nuclear Deterrent', in the shape of the ICBM, has become a white elephant. An incredibly expensive one, too, which ties up too much of the National Defence Budget, let alone the Navy's.

The Astute SSN class, along with the S and T boats, can carry an effective 'in-theatre' deterrent right to the doorstep of any potential threat, but even then that's only doing something that could be carried out by a skimmer. Either way, with support from a Carrier Group, that's as much as the UK can do to 'punch its weight' and we'd still be contributing to allied power more effectively than we do today. Perhaps it's time to think again about the RAF dealing with any deeper inland targets.

There, I've said it!
Bravo G_W. Couldn't have put it better myself. 8)
 
#10
hi all

Wierd question, i know, but does anyone know which actual sub was used as a set to film the movie k-19 widowmaker? Need to find out!

Thanks
 
#11
Geoff_Wessex said:
As a Polaris man 1971-74, I felt that I was doing one of the few worthwhile jobs in the RN. Things change, though, and now I'm going to say that the 'Nuclear Deterrent', in the shape of the ICBM, has become a white elephant. An incredibly expensive one, too, which ties up too much of the National Defence Budget, let alone the Navy's.

The Astute SSN class, along with the S and T boats, can carry an effective 'in-theatre' deterrent right to the doorstep of any potential threat, but even then that's only doing something that could be carried out by a skimmer. Either way, with support from a Carrier Group, that's as much as the UK can do to 'punch its weight' and we'd still be contributing to allied power more effectively than we do today. Perhaps it's time to think again about the RAF dealing with any deeper inland targets.

There, I've said it!
I know im preaching to the choir here, but isn't the whole point of a sub based nuke detterent that it can't be wiped off the map in one fell swoop, whereas the RAF's nuke potential could be??? :?
 
#12
The nice thing about the bomber / D5 combo is that not only is it a bit difficult to find and therefore survivable, but more importantly, there is next to no chance of stopping it once it's on the way. CrabAir or TLAM for that matter can both be seen (RF, IR and visual) and therefore shot at and are not that challenging as targets.

The other bit in the background is that it (allows UK plc to retain design and build skills. Half the problems with the Astute boats can be directly attributed to most of the old n bold from Vickers (& MOD) having retired between the design of Vanguard (~1988) and the start of Astute design (~1998). Virtually no-one senior left from the design of Traf back in the late 70s either. The same thing has happended on the surface front as well.
 

Skunkmiester

Lantern Swinger
#13
With Iran tooling up as we speak, I think i'll take the SSN option thanks.
Or perhaps Labour and all of the other limp wristers could take a leaf out of Peter Cook's book and hand out Anti Nuclear Umbrella's.

Of course, an other option would be to not provoke these people in the first place and then rely on Bush to hide behind.

It's about time the tories got back in power to get this country back on track, so the Red tie wearing idiots can get back in power in 15 years time and mess it up again. It's a cycle, build up, break down, build up, break doen...etc etc etc.
 
#14
I think it'll take a bit more than 15 years to fix the mess this lot have got us into and Mr CameronBlair doesn't look like being able to make difficult decisions.

Still, just think of all the luvvies we could mislead with job adverts like :

Wanted : Design artist skilled in glass sculptures and able to work on a grand scale (affinity for circular designs an advantage). Do you like a challenge? Do you like to travel to foreign lands and see your art evolve before your eyes? Have we got a job for you. An opportunity for large-scale redevelopment of an ancient cultural land has arisen, using the latest landscaping techniques. The piece will be created between approximately Tabriz and Chah Bahar. Adjust your work real-time using our state of the art surveillance satellites. Attention to detail is required, as mistakes will be difficult to rectify! Apply GWB, 1660 Pennsylvania Ave. Closing date 30/06/06.
 

Geoff_Wessex

Lantern Swinger
#16
Agent_Smith said:
I know im preaching to the choir here, but isn't the whole point of a sub based nuke detterent that it can't be wiped off the map in one fell swoop, whereas the RAF's nuke potential could be??? :?
Fair point, and a point half way across India is within range of a Trident operating in the Irish Sea/East Atlantic. I just think it's an option that's far too expensive and, as a deterrent, it doesn't worry an aggressor any more than taking a small battery of TLAMs to their doorstep. And would WE be the first to fire an ICBM? Cos if we did, it's Close of Play for everybody.

The whole point of the 'deterrent' was/is to make sure the enemy knew/knows that, should it strike the first blow, even though they might annihilate us, it would spoil their whole day too. Does anybody see us - the UK - firing an ICBM first? If not, then it's a retaliation weapon.

So which countries/organisations could mount such an attack on us that it would cause us to retaliate with ICBMs? I'm not saying they want to, but it leaves India, Pakistan, North Korea, China and Russia, plus possibly Iran. If we want a deterrent against them, we'll have to build ourselves a new submarine base in SE Asia or the Indian Ocean, as Trident has a range of 4,600 miles. Singapore, anyone? It won't happen.

All hypothetical, of course, but it's a Forum, right?
 

sidon55

Lantern Swinger
#18
I thought that the whole idea of nuclear deterrent was the MAD theory. Wasn't that why it was always made known that our side had a bigger bang than they did. And wouldn't Princess Toady, like our PM, have to get Dubya's permission first
 
#19
Geoff_Wessex said:
Agent_Smith said:
I know im preaching to the choir here, but isn't the whole point of a sub based nuke detterent that it can't be wiped off the map in one fell swoop, whereas the RAF's nuke potential could be??? :?
Fair point, and a point half way across India is within range of a Trident operating in the Irish Sea/East Atlantic. I just think it's an option that's far too expensive and, as a deterrent, it doesn't worry an aggressor any more than taking a small battery of TLAMs to their doorstep. And would WE be the first to fire an ICBM? Cos if we did, it's Close of Play for everybody.

The whole point of the 'deterrent' was/is to make sure the enemy knew/knows that, should it strike the first blow, even though they might annihilate us, it would spoil their whole day too. Does anybody see us - the UK - firing an ICBM first? If not, then it's a retaliation weapon.

So which countries/organisations could mount such an attack on us that it would cause us to retaliate with ICBMs? I'm not saying they want to, but it leaves India, Pakistan, North Korea, China and Russia, plus possibly Iran. If we want a deterrent against them, we'll have to build ourselves a new submarine base in SE Asia or the Indian Ocean, as Trident has a range of 4,600 miles. Singapore, anyone? It won't happen.

All hypothetical, of course, but it's a Forum, right?
Geoff

We have a base very suitable in the right area which we currently lease to the US of A after we chucked all the locals out.

Diago Garcia that will place near most all but north west Russia

Nutty
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S History 5
finknottle Diamond Lil's 9
UncleAlbert Diamond Lil's 3

Similar threads