El-bent – Member

” Our nuclear deterrent is essentially US operated; they repair them, service them, own them, and certainly we’d need US permission (although it’d be called “agreement”) to fire the damned things.”

What a load of nonsense. The missiles are indeed American, but the Warheads are ours. As for the agreement, it doesn’t exist, we have full control over whether we choose to fire them or not.

tis you el bent who is being Naive here.

UK nukes are all about willy waving and nowt about military need.

Well, if you truly believe that its all about willy waving then its a case of pot calling kettle black.

Even given the likely threat profile over the next couple of decades, I’m inclined to think that a new SLBM project is an exuberance that we can ill afford – a far better “bang for our buck” would come from a reinvestment into TLAM-N cruise missiles. If we cannot do the job with a submarine full of 150KT warheads parked off the coast, then we’re probably screwed anyway

How many tanks and rifles can we buy for the cost of the Nukes?

Even the senior but retired military agree that there is no role at all for nukes.

The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued that the huge sums being spent on replacing the delapidated submarines that carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used to buy conventional weapons which are badly needed by the armed forces.

Even given the likely threat profile over the next couple of decades,

Which you couldn’t possibly predict Labrat.

The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued that the huge sums being spent on replacing the delapidated submarines that carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used to buy conventional weapons which are badly needed by the armed forces.

Generals in spend the money on Armies shocka. It does make you think whether they understand strategic thinking at all. Again I reiterate that its another bunch of “experts” who are committing the classic historical mistake of “preparing for the last war”, even if that one is still on-going.

I’m finding this support for nuclear weapons a bit odd as I’m generally quite left wing, but I do realise the absolute importance of having these weapons and the role they will have in the future.

Can you explain their importance? I can see none whatsoever. Iteresting that you calim some expertise but deny it to peoplewho are in a position to have that expertise?

Did nukes deter the Argentinians? Saddam? 9/11?

I will be reading later but not posting as I have to go to work

Which you couldn’t possibly predict Labrat.

Well, on the current horizon, its unlikely that any nation is likely to develop overnight a full armoury of ballistic long range multiple warhead nuclear missiles – as such we’re left with the guys who’ve already got them, and much as I dislike China the worse case scenario of a full scale ballistic strike on the UK alone is pretty slim. That leaves us with rogue states and foreign powers with fairly limited nuclear armouries and comparatively basic delivery systems – against which a retaliation strike with a hundred or so variable yield cruise missiles at a couple of million quid each from a fleet of hunter killer subs is more than enough of a reply.