Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Davy51

You couldn't make it up....

Recommended Posts

After recent remarks by Lefty Corbynski  about how,if he ever got to be PM , he would only tolerate a castrated version of  our nuclear submarine deterrent ,our armed forces being reduced to accommodate many part time posts & reservists & now we have destroyers that,due to possible engine failure, could be no more than sitting ducks in a combat situation , it seems to me that the defence of this realm is entering choppy waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After recent remarks by Lefty Corbynski  about how,if he ever got to be PM , he would only tolerate a castrated version of  our nuclear submarine deterrent ,our armed forces being reduced to accommodate many part time posts & reservists & now we have destroyers that,due to possible engine failure, could be no more than sitting ducks in a combat situation , it seems to me that the defence of this realm is entering choppy waters.

Type%2045%20destroyer_zps0qymdqnx.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting scenario on BBC2 last night, called War Room. Using the kind of people likely to be involved in this decision making; it came down to a likely nuclear strike on London killing millions of Brits. The response option was either to launch our Trident nukes when the Russians launched, or not. The majority view was not to launch, on the basis that a tit for tat revenge strike, killing millions of Russian civilians, was rather pointless. In which case, why bother having Trident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason we got Trident in the first place - deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It worked all through the cold war. MAD without nuclear weapons, however, is no longer a deterrent. The deterrent is in the threat of use. Even Ronald Reagan admitted (in private) that he wouldn't push the button, but that didn't stop his beligerency towards the USSR which they believed was sincere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has certainly kept the peace with "right thinking" nations for the last 70 years & ensured that more conventional warfare is the limit of combat operations. The only problem is some renegade state or a gang of terrorists getting a nuclear capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, pls describe the "peace" that's existed over the past 70 years?  Korea, Suez, Yom Kippur, Viet Nam, Yemen, Bornio, Falklands, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan etc;  just to mention a few?   :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obs you're just being your usual "argument for arguments sake" self. Davy was at pains to point out that any warfare since 1945 has been "conventional". Do you imagine that, had the western powers abandoned nuclear weapons,  the USSR wouldn't have used the fact that they had them to claim victory? Pointless argument, give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think , in the greater scheme of things, the wars you mentioned Obs were minor skirmishes compared to what would be a major conflagration if East had ever met West in the great game of Risk. Nuking is great to wipe out a country if you don't wish to go there for a few hundred years but otherwise conventional weapons must be favourite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the major wars of the Cold War, were basically proxy wars between the US and Russia, giving both the opportunity to try out their latest weaponry. Ultimately, the Soviet economy couldn't sustain the required level of investment. The prog I quoted from, suggested that when those in command were presented with the option of retaliating to a Nuclear ICBM strike on London, by launching our Trident ICBMs; they chose not to do so. There's a degree of logic in that response, in saying why kill millions of Russian civilians in response to them killing millions of Londoners. But it presents the question, if were not going to use Trident, why go to the expense of having it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the major wars of the Cold War, were basically proxy wars between the US and Russia, giving both the opportunity to try out their latest weaponry. Ultimately, the Soviet economy couldn't sustain the required level of investment. The prog I quoted from, suggested that when those in command were presented with the option of retaliating to a Nuclear ICBM strike on London, by launching our Trident ICBMs; they chose not to do so. There's a degree of logic in that response, in saying why kill millions of Russian civilians in response to them killing millions of Londoners. But it presents the question, if were not going to use Trident, why go to the expense of having it?

 

Good job the lefty lot weren't in charge during WW2 then.... our bombers would have been parked on the runway while Germany blitzed London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Bomber Command did start off by dropping leaflets, instead of bombs !

 

and that worked well as I recall from the history books....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that one of the most ridiculous actions the government of the day took was to disband vertical take off planes & commit the navy to the massive traditional aircraft carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carriers allow you to project force around the globe (EG Falklands), and as with Trident, are merely an expensive pretension to being an independent super-power.  Harriers were a good aircraft, made even better in the Falklands by the skill of our pilots, but sadly, in the arms race, last year's model. Think the starting point prior to arms procurement, is to answer the question, what exactly do we want in terms of capability, rather than prestige ?   :unsure:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...