Trident Replacement

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by PussersMuddle, Nov 22, 2006.

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. Those hippie, leftie, bleading hearts have started a petition against a Bomber replacement.
    From MSN Money News..."Anti-nuclear campaigners are currently lobbying hard against any replacement, including via an online petition on the prime minister's own website".

    Do we want to start a contra-petition in support of new boats for the boys? I bet we'd win...
     
  2. I think that I have mentioned before, why new ones? the ones we have can do just as much damage and it would cost far less to keep the ones we`ve got, why spend billions when we can spend millions?
     
  3. It'd keep a lot of my oppos at Barrow in a job for a start!
     
  4. Nothing like a debate about nukes to bring our the peace loving, tree hugging, long haired, smell fanny farting liberals who think that nuclear disarmament is an instant ticket to make sure Auntie Mable gets her hip replacement next week...!!

    Get a fecking life you naive twats..!!

    It was your peace loving/passifist crap that dropped us in the shit pre
    1939.

    Defence spending including nukes is still one of the smallest drains on GDP, and the government without nukes still wouldnt have enough money to manage a decent budget/services..!!

    With knobs in North Korea, Syria, Iran etc etc all hankering for the exploding atom now is not the time to be ditching what is and has been a great deterrent.

    If the liberals want us to try tightening our belts lets stop inviting every f**ker in to take advantage of our services free of charge!!
     
  5. For once I'm on the the Government's side, the side that will probably win! :) I can't see that any government of this country would seriously consider disarming our nuclear capabilities.

    As one historian once said, the ability for Western Europe to be wiped off the map many times over (since the advent of nuclear weapons) has kept the region in the longest period of peace it has known.
     
  6. You can't just extend the boats. Their hulls have a finite life. That's why we need new boats. The US are re-lifing the D5, so piggy back on that, stick a new missile compartment in an Astute front & back end and away you go. By far the most cost-effective way.
     
  7. To maintain what we have means refurbishment of the Bus, REBs and the bang bits at very regular intervals, so the Berks and Oxon sites always have work.

    As already posted, the A2D5s have lots of life left and are still in the maintenance Pool. Again, as said already, the boats don't last forever and least of all the reactors. Nothing worse than brittle trouser legs!
     
  8. No government could survive politically if they decided to scrap our Independent Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, so I am quite confident that we will keep it...

    ...HOWEVER: what worries me is the decision (and apparently it has already been made) to upgrade rather than replace it. If it were to be entirely replaced with a new system this would have to come out of a central fund, however with the upgrade a great deal of the bill will be footed by the Royal Navy - and you know that both the Army and the RAF will be pushing hard for this to be the case as well.

    If so, it could very well get to the stage that we need to sell-off surface platforms in order to afford the new V-boat replacements for the upgraded missile system. One has to question the logic behind the possible Government decision of sacrificing our conventional naval deterrent in order to maintain our strategic nuclear deterrent.
     
  9. It's more than just having the bombers in the water. The INDEPENDENT bit is equally important, we wouldn't want to find ourselves in a position where we had to rely on anyone else (the French!). Many a politician fought hard and fast for this way back in the 50s & 60s (ah, bless 'em).

    Its also about the technology and skills we have in the UK. The old adage 'once its gone, its gone' comes to mind. Similar current situation exists within aircraft industry in the UK and it'll probably come to pass in the next 10/15 years. If the UK decided to delay ordering new bombers, it would be just long enough for the current skills to retire/die/move on and as I said 'once its gone, its gone'. Yeah, refitting/updating the V boats would probably meet the immediate need but politically and for UK PLC wouldn't do very much.
     
  10. I suppose that I must then fall into this camp. "peace loving, tree hugging, long haired, smell fanny farting liberals who think that nuclear disarmament is an instant ticket to make sure Auntie Mable gets her hip replacement next week...!!"

    Not that I think it would help my Aunty Mable get a new hip. That will have to wait a Minister who is prepared to take on the Medical Establishment and stop the financial abuse, corruption, mismanagement and view the NHS is supplied for their own self gratification and career path than to treat sick people.

    I would like to see the nuke boats scrapped and replaced by a dozen modern D/E boats on the Swedish design. Why does the UK, which is becoming more Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands, OMan plus the disenfranchised rest of us in England a Federal State need a Nuclear Bomb. If one was ever dropped in anger the rest would all join in on the retaliate while we are still here and the World let alone UK will cease to exist as we know it. We would have to form a committee of "Stakeholders" to decide to use the bomb anyway.


    "No government could survive politically if they decided to scrap our Independent Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, so I am quite confident that we will keep it..."

    As only 30 odd % actually vote do you think the great unwashed non military public give a shit. That is unless you think the military will stage a coup if we give their toys away.

    "It's more than just having the bombers in the water. The INDEPENDENT bit is equally important, we wouldn't want to find ourselves in a position where we had to rely on anyone else (the French!). Many a politician fought hard and fast for this way back in the 50s & 60s (ah, bless 'em)."

    Why do we now, or ever, needed a Independent Deterrent when, unlike the frogs, we have never been independent. if the USA do we will if they don't neither will we. So what is the point.

    Cut our losses now and return to RN vessels that have relevance in the 21st century.

    Nutty
     
  11. I am not completely sold on the idea of doing away with the deterent, but I would be delighted to see it completely disociated from the RN budget as I am convinced the RN has never been fully compensated for providing the deterent cover in place of Crabair
     
  12. I'm from Barrow so I think they should build news ones. 10 of 'em. :wink:
     
  13. Unless they've got a 100% accurate crystal ball somewhere, we need to keep the Bomb. Who knows what the future holds? :|
     
  14. Maxi_77

    Skybolt development and Blue Steel support were taken out of the MoD (Air) LTC Budget and MoD (Navy) LTC was increased accordingly for Polaris. Are you saying that the two sums didn't match or that the Naval N Deterrent was more expensive than the Air Force one?
     
  15. Dare I say it, but if I have read that correctly, that is the exact reason that we need a nuclear deterrent (emphasis on the word deterrent - designed for the purpose of never being used, its existence should prevent its use).
     
  16. PoL - I think Maxi's saying that the Trident programme came exclusively from the RN budget, as opposed to being funded "centrally".
     
  17. As I wrote it it, means it is the exact reason we do not need a deterrent as in the UK's case it is no deterrent to anybody. If its an open war and a bomb is dropped on the UK its off at all meetings anyway and the end of civilization as we know it. If a covert weapon is placed in the UK and detonated by "Terrorist" who are we going to launch out Tridents at. The current UK weapon system deters nothing and nobody

    Nutty
     
  18. Why do these threads die when the hang-em, flog-em slightly to the right Genghis Khan brigade are ask questions that they find to difficult to answer.

    Nutty
     
  19. Not being of the slightly to the right of GK brigade, I don't find it difficult to answer. Contrary to popular opinion, the original reason for the deterrent hasn't actually gone away. That nice Mr Putin is saying one thing and doing another. As said better by someone else earlier, once it's gone, it's gone.......
     
  20. Europe has never enjoyed such long period of sustained peace as it has since the second world war.

    Now I'm not in the GK brigade by any means. but I doubt if that peaceful period would have occured if it hadn't been in part for the deterent.

    Ok things might have changed since the collapse of the 'evil empire' but 'change' doesn't necessarily mean 'better' and it certainly doesn't mean the deterent is obsolete. It's ultimate aim is still the same. In fact I propose that it may be the rest of the armed forces that have to change to suit the latest threats against our way of life from militant extremists, but then there is China, N Korea, Syria...need I go on.

    If a nuke went off in the UK, I'd like to think we'd have a pretty good idea who it was. Because of the deterent though, I don't think it'll happen. IMHO QED.
     

Share This Page