![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteIt's about time that the powers of the world led by example and got rid.
Maybe then Bliar and Bush could demand that Korea and Iran stop developing them without looking like complete hypocrites!
So the plan is out
Three new nuclear subs to carry the current Trident ballistic missile we have which are loaded with 4 Nuclear warheads in each. This will be up to a total of about 144 (not quite sure on that figure) warheads.
So to keep the old Nuclear Deterrent it will cost three new submarines and a bit of a refurb on the missile system. In total the numbers of warheads is decreased I imagine by a quarter because the number of subs employed as a nuclear deterrent will be reduced from 4 to 3.
Personally in an uncertain world as we currently have I feel this is probably the most elegant solution Bliar (NO I SPELT IT CORRECTLY) could have come up with.
I would hate to think of a world where the thought of using these awful things was a likelihood but worse than that I fear a world where we were put at threat by a n other state flexing it's ego and muscles. In the short term there are too many such states/countries where violence is commonplace and the 'old Chicago way' of 'they get a stick, you get a gun’ is the rule of the day. Someone has to hold the self destruct button and I think we've held it safely these last few years and hope that it will continue to be held safely in the future. But I feel safer thinking there is a British finger on the big red button that says
Do Not TOUCH on it!
It's about time that the powers of the world led by example and got rid.
Maybe then Bliar and Bush could demand that Korea and Iran stop developing them without looking like complete hypocrites!
Problem is, they have been invented an therefore they will remain.
As nice as it would be to see the end of Nukes, It just isn't going to happen. No nation would ever get shot of their warheads whilst there are other countries holding them.
There are peaceful uses for Nukes such as the Anit-astoriod system that is currently being developed (ok thats the only one I can think of)
Just hope they never get used.
Speaking on behalf of the proposal to refurbish the current submarine fleet, it likely is the cheaper option. If Britain wants to keep a nuclear deterrant then it will need to upgrade the systems used to transport it. Eventually a newer system may be developed, but the shorter time frame that takes the more expensive the development procedure will be - and the more likely it will over-run. Refurbishing the current fleet gives the UK government the breathing space it needs to order a new generation of nuclear deterrant (Trident 2, if you like) whilst maintaining our current system.
Unfortunately, Britain is not viewed well in the world due to its association with the US. It is hypocritical for the UK and US to try and curtail nuclear expansion and still keep a nuclear arsenal ourselves, but if we were to abandon ours I very much doubt that the states the Western world worries about would do the same! Hopefully it will never come to it that they are used.
Actually, nuclear weapons as they exist would be next to useless. The missile would lack the power to reach escape velocity and even if it did, the odds of a nuclear blast destroying the asteroid are virtually non-existent. Additionally, if a nuke was to go off too close to the atmosphere, then radiation would spiral back down the gravity well and contaminate a rather large swathe of the Earth. The most likely method of diverting an asteroid is a transfer of kinetic energy in an attempt to alter its trajectory - basically, ram it with something going very, very fast. This type of system would have to be space-based to begin with.There are peaceful uses for Nukes such as the Anit-astoriod system that is currently being developed (ok thats the only one I can think of)
Look up Project Orion - peaceful use of nuclear technology may be used in this context, although it would be too dangerous close to the planet for the same reason as above. Unfortunately, this research was cancelled due to the nuclear test-ban treaty in the Sixties.
On one hand I think these weapons are evil, and should be disposed of...
On the other, we don't know what the world will be like in 20 years, and, really, there's no going back...
There are also social and economic factors to consider...
It also concerns me greatly that these submarines are based less than 30 miles from where I'm sitting.
I think they should half the fleet of submarines and the number of warheads. While there will be one-off cost for the decommissioning, the long-term savings could pay for an upgrade in 10 years time.
(Though if in 10-20 years time Scotland is independent, then I hope the rest of the UK will be looking for a new home for its weapons, as I don't think Scotland needs a "nuclear deterrent".)
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Originally Posted by ducasi
I don't know. Im tempted to come up to Scotland and dance one day.
The problem with that is, you need a minimum of 4 subs to ensure one is at sea all the time - 3 probably won't do it, and 2 certainly wouldn't.
At the moment, it's pretty much impossible to avoid receiving some sort of retaliation if required - no-one knows where the sub at sea is, no one can find it, no one can hit it, and it can almost certainly hit you. So there's a 100% guaranteed deterrence capability, in theory.
Whereas if you only had a 50% deterrent, say, some nutty (OK, nuttier) Iranian Ayatollah or North Korean dictator might decide that a 50-50 chance is worth taking, because they're protected by Allah, Providence or whatever.
So, that's why there are four subs.
Note: this is not a "pro" or "anti" argument, just a discussion on the effectiveness of a deterrent.
I suspect it'll still need a nuclear umbrella though, unless you reckon the fallout will stop at the border...
Actually, I do wonder what the foreign policy of an independent Scottish state would be - it's an interesting discussion. But that's a separate topic, of course.
P.S. There are some great quotes in "Yes Prime Minister" about this very issue from 20+ years ago, which are still relevant today. I'll see if I can dredge them up.
Funnily enough, I was talking to my dad about said programme a couple of days ago - he's a big fan of the "Yes, (Prime) Minister" series and he reckons the satire is all very relevant twenty years on - plus ca change and all that.
On a vaguely related note, I just saw this depressing looking page...
Great, yes, thanks for that.
Anyway, here's the first one:
Ahh, they were giants in them days...Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent."
Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
Jim Hacker: "They probably do."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."
And another:
Sir Humphrey: Bernard, what is the purpose of our defence policy?
Bernard Woolley: To defend Britain.
Sir Humphrey: No, Bernard. It is to make people believe Britain is defended.
Bernard Woolley: The Russians?
Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it is not.
Last edited by David Bailey; 5th-December-2006 at 02:48 PM.
Is that the one on 'salami' tactics? Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister were both amazingly funny. It's just a shame that so few were made
*Fires a hypothetical nuke into the thread from a submarine in the middle of a hypothetical ocean*
See? Try finding out where THAT came from!
So is that why they want to reduce the number of subs to three?
I can't see why they can't manage with just two – one in, and one out.
As they are a deterrent and we're never going to use them, does it really matter where they are? Can't we just pretend to have 4, but really only have one and 3 cardboard cut-outs?
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
This is good and relivent to the thread.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php
Consider Ireland.I suspect it'll still need a nuclear umbrella though, unless you reckon the fallout will stop at the border...
Actually, I do wonder what the foreign policy of an independent Scottish state would be - it's an interesting discussion. But that's a separate topic, of course.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Well, seeing as you ask... nah, I think I'll hold off on that one for now. Although I'm tempted to root out the "Yes Minister" quote where Humphrey persuades Hacker that the nuclear deterrent is there to deter the French...
The best series always leave you begging for more - and the best ones refuse to give it to you. That was the problem with Only Fools And Horses, it just kept on and on and on...Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister were both amazingly funny. It's just a shame that so few were made
You could have 2 along the same lines as the RN carriers. 3 crews, 2 vessels and the crews are cycled.
When it comes to maintenance, things probably get a bit wooly, but I guess there's a White Paper that illustrates the need for how many military assets are required at one time.
Why not just have 4 cardboard cut-outs then?
They would get wet.
I wouldn't trust submarining in a cornflake box.
Well the quote button tells me it came from post #12, which is you! (and you designed defense equipment for a living - sheesh!)*Fires a hypothetical nuke into the thread from a submarine in the middle of a hypothetical ocean*
See? Try finding out where THAT came from!
Generally I don't have a problem with subs. I'd love to be able to say that in the future we will need no defensive arsenal in the slightest. Chances are that that's not blooming likely (which is handy cause it keeps me in employment).
The way I look at it, I'd want the people who are looking after my homeland to have the best equipment possible. If that means we spend a shedload on defense equipment, then I'm happy for the shedload to get spent (better that than people having to try and defend us with faulty equipment - remember the pubilc outrage when soldiers in Iraq were fighting with defective guns?).
OK it may not be ideal living in a place that is mere mile away from a base. But its going to happen - most of Scotland's population is based around the Clyde which also is the most sensible place to have naval bases/yards.
Basically I'm happier knowing that if push came to shove, we are not the ones at teh bottom of the defense food chain. If we sit there with the bad PR that Ducasi already mentioned from being close allies with the US, and have no nuclear capability, we would be asking for a figurative smack upside the head. If we didn't have that, I'd be very nervous...
So in summary:
'Subs sink things, thus are cool'
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks