Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8410401.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 How many chinooks would that pay for, or carriers to give close air support? It's a dinosaur from another age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 December, 2009 How many chinooks would that pay for, or carriers to give close air support? It's a dinosaur from another age. dont know how many harriers wasting away in the RAF hangers would pay for the Chinooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Time to get rid of Trident. No doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Time to get rid of Trident. No doubt about it. nah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Time to get rid of Trident. No doubt about it. Total and utter waste of money and a genuine relic of a world long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Total and utter waste of money and a genuine relic of a world long gone. you could say that MORE nations have nuclear weapons or trying to...rather than just two sides Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Whilst you cant prove a negative, there have been no nuclear engagements since guaranteed mutual destruction courtesy of SSBNs, do you want to take the risk??? The real relic the armed forces are paying for are the RAFs Air Defence Fighters, to complex to expensive and to many of them, prediction on the Battle of Britain anyone!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 I think calling it a deterrent to try and justify its existence is a bit of a con. As if the fact that we have these weapons will discourage those hell bent on getting them from doing so. We are no longer the big player in the world we once were, so we need to stop playing with the big boys on foreign affair matters and start concentrating on the things that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 you could say that MORE nations have nuclear weapons or trying to...rather than just two sides And SSBNs deter that how? Oh, they don't. Battlefield nukes are one thing but spending billions on a system no longer needed is obscene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Whilst you cant prove a negative, there have been no nuclear engagements since guaranteed mutual destruction courtesy of SSBNs, do you want to take the risk??? The real relic the armed forces are paying for are the RAFs Air Defence Fighters, to complex to expensive and to many of them, prediction on the Battle of Britain anyone!!! LOL, yeah, right, it's SSBNs that have saved the world! The Typhoon is another example of a system designed for a world long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 December, 2009 And SSBNs deter that how? Oh, they don't. Battlefield nukes are one thing but spending billions on a system no longer needed is obscene. how are battle field nukes "one thing".... if you are going to have them have them hidden the world is changing..instead of two sides there will (in the not too distant future) be 4 or 5..ALL with MORE nuclear weapons.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 December, 2009 LOL, yeah, right, it's SSBNs that have saved the world! The Typhoon is another example of a system designed for a world long gone. you could argue that they did save the world...it was the threat of mutual destruction that probably STOPPED a world war 3....SSBNs played a part of that and now (as I have previously said) the shape of the world is changing...instead having us and them...it will us, those and the others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 how are battle field nukes "one thing".... No one is going to engage in an all out nuclear war therefore ICBMs are pointless, tactical nukes, less so. For example, low yield battlefield nuke, used in Tora Bora back in 2003 would mean no war in Afghanistan now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 December, 2009 No one is going to engage in an all out nuclear war therefore ICBMs are pointless, tactical nukes, less so. For example, low yield battlefield nuke, used in Tora Bora back in 2003 would mean no war in Afghanistan now. two completely different weapons.... with MORE nukes being built/put on station by more countries...yeah, lets get rid.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 A Vanguard Class SSBN and its associated Trident D5 Missiles is surely (whether you approve or not) a fearsome beast , just think of the responsibility resting on the shoulders of those charged with wielding this mighty weapon . With unstable countries (such as Iran) developing their own nuclear weapons I for one sleep a little easier at night knowing we have them . They won't stop terrorist attacks upon us or assist a infantryman in some Helmond ditch but any State tempted into a bout of nuclear blackmail with the UK/NATO has to deal with the knowledge that the we process the ability to inflict terrible (& unstoppable) destruction upon our enemies . If we are to remain a nuclear power (I suspect a future UK Government will conclude that we should) then in my view a much cheaper ground (ICBM) or air launched system should replace the 'Vanguards' when the time comes , time will tell of course . Let us all hope such power is never called into use . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 two completely different weapons.... with MORE nukes being built/put on station by more countries...yeah, lets get rid.. It's only tool is to give us a permanent seat at the UN and anyone who thinks it's for any other purpose is seriously deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 December, 2009 It's only tool is to give us a permanent seat at the UN and anyone who thinks it's for any other purpose is seriously deluded. yes..you are right, you are the the oracle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 yes..you are right, you are the the oracle Compared to you, my kids are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Compared to you, my kids are. lol...nice one I would hate to be one of your kids...yours probably do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Compared to you, my kids are. Interesting how once previous opponents of the detterent get responsibilty for our security they quickly understand its purpose and importance! As for ensuring a seat at the UN security council yes it certainly does and I for one am glad we have that seat, not for post imperilaist posturing tough. I happen to believe my country has a useful contribution to make, you cant alter history, neither should we be apologists for it. By your logic only the "super powers" would have a seat, sound like a plan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 It is probably a sound argument to say they are a deterrant but there is no need to buy new ones, a bunch of old nukes that might not work is still a deterrant, I today's world I would rather spent the cash on something else and take the risk, being part of NATO is enough of a deterrant IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 No one is going to engage in an all out nuclear war therefore ICBMs are pointless, tactical nukes, less so. For example, low yield battlefield nuke, used in Tora Bora back in 2003 would mean no war in Afghanistan now. Oops. Easy mistake to make, but unfortunately the time is not far away when a first strike may actually be needed. Could be against the Israelis to stop them sending the Iranians off on one. Could be to take out Pakistan's bunkers once the loonies are ready to take over. Hell, the way you lot let many of the nutters in, you'll probably need them to take out the Al Qaeda global Nuke factory in a hurry in some part of Cornwall before too long There are way too many nutters around these days, the Yanks discovered sitting at home hiding from the nutters doesn't work. One thing living down here has taught many many people. It ain't gonna get any better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 For Queen and the Country eh..? Sorry, I seem to have got into a mini habit of recognising song names. It'll pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Oops. Easy mistake to make, but unfortunately the time is not far away when a first strike may actually be needed. Could be against the Israelis to stop them sending the Iranians off on one. Could be to take out Pakistan's bunkers once the loonies are ready to take over. Hell, the way you lot let many of the nutters in, you'll probably need them to take out the Al Qaeda global Nuke factory in a hurry in some part of Cornwall before too long There are way too many nutters around these days, the Yanks discovered sitting at home hiding from the nutters doesn't work. One thing living down here has taught many many people. It ain't gonna get any better If a bunch of Suicidal Jihadists get hold of a nukes then our nukes are not exactly a deterrant are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 If a bunch of Suicidal Jihadists get hold of a nukes then our nukes are not exactly a deterrant are they? Which is when they stop being a deterrent and are used as a sex aid..... To send them off to meet their Virgins before they get around to pushing their own button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 December, 2009 Share Posted 22 December, 2009 It's only tool is to give us a permanent seat at the UN and anyone who thinks it's for any other purpose is seriously deluded. Spot on. We could have the same deterrent with a few cruise missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 December, 2009 Spot on. We could have the same deterrent with a few cruise missiles. not at all... the "threashold" of the use of (at the end of the day) nuclear weapons would be far far lower than it is today VFTT... are you really suggesting (somewhere above) that we should have lobbed in some nuclear weapons into afghan way back when..? at the end of the day, we are moving into very uncertain times, the world is re-aligning itself into NEW groups/sides/ideologies....not just two sides but four or maybe five..all will be very powerful (shockingly, those who opposed nuclear weapons want this change)... also, more and more "states" are getting hold of nuclear weapons or are close to...we simply cant take away our only lasting, full-on insurance policy against a rogue state or even a state that would possibly USE terrorists as its way of striking at us... why a submarine launched system..well it is obvious, simply cannot be detected...other methods, say air launch systems would be quite easy to a pre-emptive attack..their increase of readiness in potential hostilites could fuel the situation further than it may have gone Land base...well, the size of land required would be massive (of course would be a huge X on any pre-emptive strike targeting set up)..it is believed that land systems would costs TWICE as much than the 4 submarine launched system At the end of the day, Nukes may have to be used as a method of retaliation...it is better knowing that should that be the case, these people would not know where they are coming from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 23 December, 2009 Share Posted 23 December, 2009 Given a choice of nuke missile deterrent subs or two aircraft carriers, I'd take the subs each time as they can also fire conventional missiles. Though not as many as an aircraft carrier can from its planes of course. But then, a type 45 missile destroyer can also fire guided missiles over a battleground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 December, 2009 Given a choice of nuke missile deterrent subs or two aircraft carriers, I'd take the subs each time as they can also fire conventional missiles. Though not as many as an aircraft carrier can from its planes of course. But then, a type 45 missile destroyer can also fire guided missiles over a battleground. what conventional missiles can they fire then..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 December, 2009 No one is going to engage in an all out nuclear war therefore ICBMs are pointless, tactical nukes, less so. For example, low yield battlefield nuke, used in Tora Bora back in 2003 would mean no war in Afghanistan now. one day, you may realise comments like this are utterly laughable.. your IQ may catch up with your shoe size you idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 23 December, 2009 Share Posted 23 December, 2009 Brilliant ... another millitary related thread in which Delldays starts throwing insults because other posters won't agree with his 'experienced' view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 December, 2009 Brilliant ... another millitary related thread in which Delldays starts throwing insults because other posters won't agree with his 'experienced' view. just a response to what that turd keeps on saying to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now