Jump to content

9 TO 5


Davy51
 Share

Recommended Posts

It seems arguments are now raging among the defence powers that be regarding the future replacements for the Trident fleet.Some still want 24/7/365 protection while the wets are suggesting a part time deterrent to whatever the nasty world outside can throw at us.

 

I know it might cost more but i would like to sleep easy in my bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not neccisarily "nowadays" it is in the days to come when the crazy muslim terrorists get their hands on one at some point in the future; and that is a real possibility.... Now I realise that a nuke going off in Iran or Afghanistan could cause up to £45.00 worth of damage; but one going off over here would be a real problem :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least in the days of the cold war , the nuclear stand off  was managed perfectly by the 2  super powers  who knew in no uncertain terms what the consequences would be of pressing the button. Rogue states in the present day or even worse  international terrorists are  ,in my view, a bigger threat to state & world security  & an excellent  reminder that Britain needs to keep its defences at the maximum strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least in the days of the cold war , the nuclear stand off  was managed perfectly by the 2  super powers  who knew in no uncertain terms what the consequences would be of pressing the button. Rogue states in the present day or even worse  international terrorists are  ,in my view, a bigger threat to state & world security  & an excellent  reminder that Britain needs to keep its defences at the maximum strength.

 

I agree Davy, and would go further, we should be expanding our armed services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought you and your luvvie mates were against foreign interventions like Iraq and Afghanistan, or do you still retain a thin streak of that neo-colonialism you tend to criticise. IF we're talking "terrorists", large conventional forces are a waste of time, as proved in Afghanistan; what's required is a good intelligence network, with international co-operation, backed by the surgical application of special forces or drones. For domestic security, it might also help if the authorities knew who was entering the country too !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, for what its worth, a nuclear deterrent is not what is required in the modern world. we have passed that stage of "MAD" and into the new age of international guerilla warfare which no amount of nuclear firepower is going to win unless you are prepared to wipe out vast areas of innocent population (and don't think, for one minute, that there aren't governments willing to do just that). Intelligence and vigilance along with a well trained armed force is the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how many years did they look for Bin Laden< and if drones were that good they would have used them instead of troops. The UK needs to keep and enlarge its army, The UKs armed services are about 80,000 not big enough, they would all fit into Wembley.

 

I also agree with Asps last post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view  is that for all  its cost  , in the case of  Britain we need a capability  that will protect our shores 24/7 /365 whether that is fully nuclear or air /sea & ground forces ,but it seems the government are sacrificing too many of our defences in order to save money.

Throughout the cold war ,nuclear deterrent on all sides saved  a major catastrophe but  many of the conflicts in the intervening years have involved rogue states or  local dictators where a nuclear intervention would not be an option.But we do still need conventional forces to remove any threat to our shores & we need them to be able to operate anywhere that provides a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said Kije, a successful anti-terrorism strategy, requires good intelligence based on international co-operation; co-operation which was lacking in the Bin Laden case, as he was living under the noses of our Pakistani "allies", who failed to give him up. The reason special forces were used, was to ensure his ID and elimination was without any doubt. Dave, could you explain just how ICBMs protect "our shores" and who the enemy invaders might be?  The cold war as ended, NATO still exists; so it seems the only current "threat" to "our shores", is illegal immigration; so perhaps our soldiers could help out the UKBF?!. Any dastardy terrorist attack, such as 9/11, wouldn't be dealt with by ICBMs anyway, and the question would be, who would you nuke in retaliation - Bradford?! So basically, nukes are an expensive dressing, that has given us a seat at the UN security Council, if we consider that a plus. We should be reducing nuclear weapons in the world imo, through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; as the more countries that have them, the greater the possibility of their use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we have sabre rattling by the North Koreans not so long back & aren't the Iranians supposed to be developing weapons grade uranium ? A change of regime in China could also make a massive difference to its dealings with the west. 

 

Far from having the means to give someone a bloody nose ,the deterrence is to stop someone giving Britannia a black eye .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So perhaps Dave, you could let us in on the scenario whereby the N/Koreans or the Iranians march all the way to Dover to take over these Islands - excepting the one's coming in under lorries of course ?!  As for their use of ICBMs, the Yanks would take them out as soon as the pop their noses out of a silo. And if the game escalates to Chinese involvement, then it's all over for everyone anyway. But we'd have the satisfaction of adding our 16 nukes to the hundreds deployed by the US !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They wouldn't have to, they would just have to march to a Country we are dependent on for resources  :wink: , I don't think any Western Country would or could stand around if Saudi Arabia was to be invaded by a Country the West did not like, its a simple fact we need the oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our nukes would probably be involved anyway under NATO commitments, if push comes to shove ,considering their mobility with the ability to be launched from anywhere  under the 7 seas. God forbid our friends from the Orient would invade the UK because our welfare state couldn't handle so many at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion of an "independent" nuclear deterent, is simply that, a notion. We couldn't release a weapon without US sanction in any case; and as part of NATO, their arsenal covers us, just as it covers all other NATO countries (who don't have nukes). So basically, it's no more than a status symbol, that gets us a seat at the UN security council. As for invasions, we are being invaded - by immigrants, and nukes or the Army, are powerless to stop it. Think you over-estimate the capacity of nations to move large numbers of troops around the world Kije, a capacity that only the Yanks have at the moment.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...