Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 117 total)
  • 30 years of Nuclear disarmament about to be undone…
  • Premier Icon willard
    Full Member

    Israeli produced radio controlled model aircraft. Yeah, ok, fair point

    Premier Icon white101
    Full Member

    We need something to deflect from the new police powers bill, what have we got?

    Nuclear weapons?

    Excellent idea, release the press hounds

    Premier Icon intheborders
    Free Member

    I view it very much as a deterrent

    To who, Tory voters who might consider voting for someone else?

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    I don’t really see it as a bad thing per se.

    There are 1000s of warheads in the world, so adding a few 10s more in the UK makes no real difference.

    On the plus side, expanding Trident and the UK Nuclear fleet means billions spent in UK ship yards and UK engineers building / maintaining it all, which is good for the economy and British engineering, which could really use some good news. (NB The warheads themselves come from the US).

    Premier Icon nedrapier
    Full Member

    reminds me of this. sub warheads for computers.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    In fairness the article talks about stronger co-operation with India, Australia, etc and its the first deployment of the carrier to that region, so it is kinda flying the flag

    **** sakes, Empire 2.0. Our neighbors are literally 20 miles away, and this bunch of boneheads have a semi-on for wading about the Asia Pacific region with a carrier and some nuclear equipped subs. It’s really really pathetic. The sooner sections of this country get over the fact that weren’t not 1. a major power, or 2 that the empire has gone, the better.

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    Gammon friendly economic stimulus/trying to pretend we are still relevant in an international dick-waving contest. Will go down a treat, sadly.

    Premier Icon Flaperon
    Free Member

    I don’t really see it as a bad thing per se.

    There are 1000s of warheads in the world, so adding a few 10s more in the UK makes no real difference.

    On the plus side, expanding Trident and the UK Nuclear fleet means billions spent in UK ship yards and UK engineers building / maintaining it all, which is good for the economy and British engineering, which could really use some good news. (NB The warheads themselves come from the US).

    You could spend billions on education / infrastructure / global aid / transport / research / healthcare / defeating climate change / etc etc without spunking it up the wall on something that will never get used and will quietly rot away in a submarine somewhere.

    Oh, and Trident warheads are supplied by the USA and I imagine that as far as we’re concerned they’re a black box that gets stuck on the top of a missile. I’d also be willing to bet that they wouldn’t actually detonate in the infinitesimal chance that they were used, because what moron sells a *working* nuclear weapon to another country?

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    You could spend billions on education / infrastructure / global aid / transport / research / healthcare / defeating climate change / etc etc without spunking it up the wall on something that will never get used and will quietly rot away in a submarine somewhere.

    There are probably nicer ways to spend a few billion, but investing in British Engineering isn’t a bad way, it feeds into education, jobs, local infrastructure, local communities etc.

    Eg if you invest in wind farms most of the techy bits are bought in and we just make the shells, whereas with Nuclear Subs, we have Rolls Royce desiging and making the reactors in the UK.

    I think it’s really positive for the UK (given we’ll never actually fire the nukes).

    Premier Icon oakleymuppet
    Free Member

    **** sakes, Empire 2.0. Our neighbors are literally 20 miles away, and this bunch of boneheads have a semi-on for wading about the Asia Pacific region with a carrier and some nuclear equipped subs. It’s really really pathetic. The sooner sections of this country get over the fact that weren’t not 1. a major power, or 2 that the empire has gone, the better.

    Even the Guardian agrees that keeping trade free in the South China sea is important – and it’s important to the many democratic and semi-democratic countries on the periphery of China. South East Asia is going to account for a huge amount of world trade over the next 50 years.

    That means aligning with smaller democratic/semi-democratic countries who have shared interests with us.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/15/why-britain-is-tilting-to-the-indo-pacific-region

    But the economic and political forces pulling Whitehall back to the region are real, and not all built on an imperial nostalgia.

    Premier Icon Rich_s
    Full Member

    As Tails said way above, the UK don’t have the means to deploy them anyway. Vanguard class is reaching the end of its life but there is no replacement.

    So we go buy some shiny nukes and can’t use them; unless the plan is to load them on the knackered subs tied up in Faslane/wherever and pop them off at the Belgians.

    Oh and Boris will be dead pleased to be extending the global reach into the Pacific with the carriers, but we have no fleet to accompany them. So we have to borrow some frigates and destroyers off the French/Danish/Canadians/whomever. China probably has some spare.

    30 years ago when the UK armed forces were much larger than they are now I remember reading about Challenger tanks in Germany being de-gunned to supply the ones in Saudi for Gulf War 1 as we had no spares. We have much less capability now than then – so this is Boris’ way of appeasing the masses. Unless it’s somehow connected with Vanguard replacement? Some help with the reactors?

    Premier Icon oakleymuppet
    Free Member

    Oh and Boris will be dead pleased to be extending the global reach into the Pacific with the carriers, but we have no fleet to accompany them. So we have to borrow some frigates and destroyers off the French/Danish/Canadians/whomever.

    There’s enough to put together a strike force if we had to, the fact that we operate alongside other nations destroyers and submarines is all about building interoperability with players who have the same interests as us.

    Premier Icon Rich_s
    Full Member

    Global reach is not really the same as assembling a strike force though. If we patch together whatever we’ve got and hope the destroyers survive the perilously warm waters of the Red Sea on the way without their engines going kerblam, then who is looking after the home waters? The South Atlantic? The Cod War with those dastardly Icelanders?

    Premier Icon white101
    Full Member

    It may be nothing but in the mid 90’s the first place I ran into a company called Serco was at Coulport.

    Premier Icon oakleymuppet
    Free Member

    Global reach is not really the same as assembling a strike force though. If we patch together whatever we’ve got and hope the destroyers survive the perilously warm waters of the Red Sea on the way without their engines going kerblam, then who is looking after the home waters? The South Atlantic? The Cod War with those dastardly Icelanders?

    I can see your point.

    But that’s what NATO is for. We can’t have an American full spectrum capability without spending double what we do on defense. Instead the idea is that we bring specialist capability to whatever party our allies get involved with. We’re an island a long way from any enemies, sending a strike force to the South Pacific doesn’t leave us without any capability around our waters.

    Remember, it’s probably a good thing that we aren’t building too many large destroyers and submarines right now, in 10-20 years it’s going to be about saturating large areas with unmanned vessels – to protect a few large motherships such as aging carriers.

    Premier Icon Flaperon
    Free Member

    but investing in British Engineering isn’t a bad way

    So that’s a bit to Rolls Royce and BAe, and the rest to the USA. Which bit of British engineering are we investing in here?

    Premier Icon intheborders
    Free Member

    On the plus side, expanding Trident and the UK Nuclear fleet means billions spent in UK ship yards and UK engineers building / maintaining it all, which is good for the economy and British engineering, which could really use some good news.

    You’re the very voter they’re after…, just don’t be complaining when you’re laid in A&E on a trolley for 3 days ‘cos there’s no beds.

    Premier Icon jimdubleyou
    Full Member

    Oh, and Trident warheads are supplied by the USA and I imagine that as far as we’re concerned they’re a black box that gets stuck on the top of a missile.

    Nah, the go-bang bits are built here. The delivery bits are bought from the Americans. So it will go bang, just not necessarily exactly where you want it to go bang.

    Premier Icon white101
    Full Member

    When a boat (Vanguard class at least) goes into service following extensive sea trials it heads off to the US to pick up the delivery bits as Jimdubleyou points out, from Kings Bay in Georgia. It then fires a couple for trials of the coastline and heads back to the UK for warhead loading in Coulport.

    Premier Icon Rich_s
    Full Member

    It’ll be on Jeremy Vine this lunchtime – that’ll be a fun listen.

    Premier Icon Daffy
    Full Member

    I thought the missiles currently each carried fewer than the maximum number of warheads?

    The D5 Trident can carry anywhere from 1-14 warheads and each of the 4 V-Class boats can carry 16 missiles. The new Dreadnaughts are to carry only 12 D5 Missiles, but may well carry a higher number of smaller, more tactical warheads rather than a lower number of higher yield strategic warheads. The likelihood is that the increased number is due to a transition between old and new and will make little difference except as a headline. I’d imagine that most people, even in the military wouldn’t chose to spend this money if they didn’t have to, but if you’re going to build a deterrent system, you might as well arm it suitably for the climate.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    There’s enough to put together a strike force if we had to

    honestly I doubt that very much. and TBH why would we need to. Who are we going to attack this time?

     Instead the idea is that we bring specialist capability to whatever party our allies get involved with

    I read this alot, and TBH  (using Johnson’s own phrase) it doesn’t pass the piffle test. Do you honestly think that the US, or Chinese lack capacity or capability to overcome whatever special sauce we think we have. The idea of doing “more with less” in military terms at least is an absolute non starter.

    Premier Icon Flaperon
    Free Member

    Nah, the go-bang bits are built here. The delivery bits are bought from the Americans. So it will go bang, just not necessarily exactly where you want it to go bang.

    Apologies, I stand corrected.

    Premier Icon mrmo
    Free Member

    I see two sides,

    one) trying to buy favour with the US, it really isn’t an “independent” arsenal, it’s US.

    two) trying to get votes in Scotland by guaranteeing jobs, whether they are wanted…. These are Tories after all.

    Premier Icon oakleymuppet
    Free Member

    I read this alot, and TBH (using Johnson’s own phrase) it doesn’t pass the piffle test. Do you honestly think that the US, or Chinese lack capacity or capability to overcome whatever special sauce we think we have. The idea of doing “more with less” in military terms at least is an absolute non starter.

    If you have been keeping your finger on the pulse, lots of DoD analysts consider that in the long term the US cannot keep parity with China. Therefore it will need to rely on a strong network of allies such as the UK, India, Australia, Korea, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia to contain China. Increasingly other countries such as Thailand and the Philippines will play a greater part as their economies expand. The combined strength of these partners will be able to act as a military buffer in the region.

    It’s NATO in the pacific.

    Premier Icon Rich_s
    Full Member

    When Indy Ref happened, plans were apparently in place to remove the nuclear arsenal south if the result was “out”. That would have been immediate withdrawal. Like next day sort of stuff, of the whole thing. This isn’t about Scottish votes, it’s about BJoris’s playing to his core.

    Premier Icon freeagent
    Free Member

    Vanguard class is reaching the end of its life but there is no replacement.

    The V-Boats are currently going through a Life Extension program – first one is nearly finished – we’re expecting a contract for the bits we supply for the second boat later this year.

    This work is required as the V-boats are only fuelled for approx. 15 years – they’ve all been refuelled once, and now the first one has just been refuelled for a second time.

    The First Dreadnought is probably 8 years away from entering service, and the last one probably 15 years away – hence why the V-Boats are being extended.

    Premier Icon freeagent
    Free Member

    When Indy Ref happened, plans were apparently in place to remove the nuclear arsenal south if the result was “out”. That would have been immediate withdrawal. Like next day sort of stuff, of the whole thing. This isn’t about Scottish votes, it’s about BJoris’s playing to his core.

    This is more complicated than it sounds – apparently there are very few viable locations for this.
    The favourite is a liquid gas port facility near Swansea – which i believe is currently owned/used by BP.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

     lots of DoD analysts consider that in the long term the US cannot keep parity with China.

    Yeah I used to read that bollocks when the “threat” was Russia. While it’s true that lots of analysts will say that, many of them say so because they’re paid to do so by the defence industry. It’s past time on both “The Reds are coming” and the “Yellow Peril” But at least Johnson gets to play in the bath with toy boats eh?

    I’ll tell you what, have a look at the comparison between wars of aggression started by NATO countries, vs those started by Non NATO countries since 1945, and we can use that as a starting point for any discussion about the need for South China Sea gun-boat diplomacy

    Premier Icon joefm
    Free Member

    Is this BoJo’s attempt to keep the UK united? Was only last week there were headlines wrt to the Union.
    Nuke’s seem like a strange thing to want more of, economics aside. More flag waving nonsense

    Premier Icon dangeourbrain
    Full Member

    Alternative: can they simply not afford to decommission the oldest ones?

    I think this is actually the crux of it, a lot of the current trident system will be due for decommissioning in the not to distant.
    The most alarming thing about this is its likely to actually be a bit of joined up thinking so we’re placing the lease order to renew stocks before all the old ones are gone and we have missile submarines pootling round with no missiles, or aircraft carriers with planes etc.

    Premier Icon oakleymuppet
    Free Member

    I’ll tell you what, have a look at the comparison between wars of aggression started by NATO countries, vs those started by Non NATO countries since 1945, and we can use that as a starting point for any need for South China Sea gun boat diplomacy

    I agree with that sentiment.

    But I disagree with the rest, mostly because lots of my friends through my wife are South East Asian so they understand just what’s at stake.

    You either make a stand in the South China Sea or keep your mouth shut when the rules and human rights based order that the UN/the EU built post world war 2 comes crumbling down.

    Democracies need to stick together.

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    Yeah I used to read that bollocks when the “threat” was Russia.

    It was useful for both Russia and the west to hype up the threat. There was lots of ‘maskirovska’ going on, the Russian economy was never anywhere near at the level of the US.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    lots of my friends through my wife are South East Asian so they understand just what’s at stake

    Here’s a thing. When the UK started negotiating with the Chinese about handing over Hong Kong, the UK made all sorts of noises about “honoring the need to keep democracy alive and well in Hong Kong” which came as something as a surprise to both China and (to be fair) the people of Hong Kong…who had long recognised that it was in fact as far as it could be from actually being democratic under British rule, and every time they’d asked the British Govt for a bit of self goverment, the British had basically told them them not to worry their pretty little heads about it.

    Again, I’ll ask; show me the wars of aggression started by China aimed at it’s near neighbours since 1945…In fact, I’ll tell you what, Kabul is about 4500 miles away from London. Has China started, looked it’s about to start, threatened with sanctions, tried to topple the govt of, started a proxy war with, started an actual war with, or otherwise imperiled it’s neighbours within a 4500 mile radius…on a scale that even comes close to that of the US and the UK

    Premier Icon oakleymuppet
    Free Member

    Has China started, looked it’s about to start, threatened with sanctions, tried to topple the govt of, started a proxy war with, started an actual war with, or otherwise imperiled it’s neighbours within a 4500 mile radius

    Korea

    India

    Vietnam

    Taiwan

    Tibet

    Burma

    Sino-Soviet border conflict

    So they most definitely have imperiled their neighbors, you really know your history don’t you?

    And the shit about Hong Kong, that can’t be undone. But what matters now are that there are democracies around the world that are being undermined by both Russia and China, after Trump and Brexit now is not the time to retreat from those allies.

    Premier Icon Rich_s
    Full Member

    Also, “South China Sea”.

    Premier Icon oakleymuppet
    Free Member

    This is a snapshot of foreign boats in Palawan waters

    A huge amount of those are armed Chinese trawlers – essentially a militia at sea.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Full Member

    But what matters now are that there are democracies around the world that are being undermined by both Russia and China

    And also by the US and by extension the UK…perhaps it’s high time we stopped creating bogeymen? The last significant excursion made by the PLA in any great numbers into foreign territory was 1979 into Vietnam, compare and contrast that to our record. The Chinese govt have long realised that money/trade was the real power, and they won that game a while back.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Full Member

    It also doesn’t matter in the slightest what they’ve done or haven’t done, it’s what they might do that is the issue.

    Currently, China is set on a path towards being the number 1 super power and no one knows quite how far it is prepared to go to get there.

    Premier Icon oakleymuppet
    Free Member

    The last significant excursion made by the PLA in any great numbers into foreign territory was 1979 into Vietnam, compare and contrast that to our record. The Chinese govt have long realised that money/trade was the real power, and they won that game a while back.

    That’s not how wars are fought now.

    They’re fought like the heat map above, using deniable assets. Everything is now war, the clearly defined boundaries between a state of war have now been eroded. As Rosa Brooks points out in her book “How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything” – it was two Chinese generals back in 1991 who recognized that and wrote a paper on how future postmodern conflict would play out.

    And also by the US and by extension the UK…perhaps it’s high time we stopped creating bogeymen?

    You can do this, whilst still sticking by your allies. That’s a very bien pensant lefty isolationist view.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 117 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.