Tories call for new nuclear subs

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
 
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!
 
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
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!
 

ORACLE

Badgeman
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)
 

fanois

Newbie
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
 
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??? :?
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
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.
 
Top