What has changed?

StixJimboRM said:
Can you really see the Lib Dems getting to power by 2024?

Both the Conservatives and Liarbour are backing the Trident program and have pledged to renew.
I can't see them getting in before 3024. 8O :D
StixJimboRM said:
Can you really see the Lib Dems getting to power by 2024?

Both the Conservatives and Liarbour are backing the Trident program and have pledged to renew.
I cant see them ever getting power :D :D
Harry1 said:
It will all change after the next election. No carriers and cancel the nuke deterant.
I also believe that the buiding of the carriers will be suspended at least if not scrapped .Remember components are being built now :( :(
As long as any cheaper option maintains our nuclear deterrent to the same standard as Trident then I will quite happily wave goodbye to our current system. The major thing that concerns me though is that the defence budget has been absolutely hammered already meaning that we would struggle to defend ourselves against a capable and determined force, and now Nick Clegg wants to take away the final major capability we have that keeps us out of the shit. Just because we haven't faced a war against another state for a while doesn't mean it won't happen in the future; removing the nuclear deterrent makes it more likley than ever that someone will decide to have a pop at either mainland UK or one of our overseas territories and we will be in no position to do anything about it!
The probability of another State “having a pop†at the UK mainland is quite remote, at the moment. It/they would probably p**s off Uncle Sam and the mainland Europeans as well. “Having a pop†at an Overseas Territory, though, is conceivable and may not trigger assistance from our allies/neighbours. The chances of using the N option for that would be as low as it was in ’82; unless of course our armed response provokes direct aggression against us. Given the state all our Forces have been reduced to, of course, even that likelihood is debatable. I expect if Cleggie had his way, there would be no Overseas Territories.

If foreign aggression against or extreme interference with our interests directly affects the US, their “nuclear umbrella†would provide all the deterrence we need but is dependant upon where the US decides to set the trigger point. If it’s after we’ve been sacrificed, it’s not much help. If it’s an all European show, then it’s just us and the French holding the brolly. Importantly there is a brolly but we then have to consider where the French trigger point is.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with options to declare the possibility of nuclear response to a range of possible events. Importantly, it provides options. If we give it up, we don’t have the options. If we give it up, we would never get it back.
I appreciate the risk of attack on the UK Mainland is currently extremely remote, but surely that is in some part due to the fact that we have Trident. Also the fact that very few countries around the globe can afford a war, or could be arsed to attack us because there isn't really much point has something to do with it too. Having said that, the constant raids on our defence budget are getting beyond a joke - just because the possibility of attack is remote at the moment does not mean that we should sacrifice a capable and well trained force ready to react to hostility whenever it may occur in the future. Constant reductions in the budget doesnt just harm current military potency but completely jeapordises our ability to exert force in the future.

As for relying on America or, God forbid, the French for nuclear support, I have to say I will be ashamed of this country if we are relying whole-heartedly on other nations to look after us. We need our own deterrent because it gives us global influence that we would otherwise not have, and a level of protection that nothing else can provide.
Do the LibDems really want to drastically cut their other spending commitments in order to afford the cost of substantially increasing the size of our conventional armed forces to counter the loss of the nuclear deterrent? I suspect not. What wins applause at the LibDem annual conference does not mean being elected into office.
Pete_N said:
We need our own deterrent because it gives us global influence that we would otherwise not have, and a level of protection that nothing else can provide.
I think you will find that we agree. I think you will also find that people like Clegg don't want "global influence". They aspire to being a bigish cog in a wheel but abhor the concept of actually being the wheel. They are corrosive and constantly chip away and exploit the self interest of ordinary people to achieve their aims. They are dangerous, albeit "nice" people. On the other Thread, Not_a_boffin makes some good points in his 1st paragraph.
As is the sinister undertone of http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6222685.ece

Who is the enemy, who are we protecting and what is the price we are prepared to pay? If we are to afford the pensions of the Civil Service, the bill for the ballooning NHS and the rising cost of benefits for the unemployed, the MoD must manage a rapid retreat. The alternative is for the Government to turn its political guns towards home and wage war with the welfare state. It's a battle that Gordon Brown is likely to leave to his successor.
OK, it was early May but still relevant.

Incidentally, Admiral Lord Boyce's brilliant piece of logic should concentrate a few minds;
“Once such a decision is made not to replace Trident, it will undermine the raison d’être of the Trident crews, and the boats should be brought home and scrapped,†Lord Boyce said.
I wonder if Adml Band will take this up?


War Hero
Book Reviewer
Proof that you have to be silly, stupid, and uninformed in order to be a Liberal or to be a senior Pongo). The current arrangement is the minimum actually to constitute a deterrent - an undetectable platform constantly available. Incidentally by this standard Cameron is also a Liberal but then I have never regarded him as a Tory.
Its actually good to see the opinions of the general public via the comments section on the Times website. Obviously most of the debate on RR is biased towards the RN and most people on here would want us to keep Trident (feel free to prove me wrong), so getting some of the other perspective is always worthwhile. Having said that, from the comments posted thus far I can only derive that the general public are a short-sighted mob of naive penny pinchers, who assume that because the major threat is currently terrorism, Trident is rendered completely useless and should be scrapped.

"What's that Mr. Ahmedinejad, you promise not to nuke anybody? Marvellous, you've saved us a fortune..."
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C The Quarterdeck 12
The_Jimmy The Quarterdeck 0
chieftiff Current Affairs 11

Similar threads