Lol. That is retarded.
Scrap Trident ICBM program?
- Thread starter Ali195
- Start date
Lol. That is retarded.
Australia is my country. We can't afford it, that's true.
But even if we could afford it, we still wouldn't have it because we are signatories to various nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and Australia is a self-declared nuclear free zone.
i think the op is downplaying our military might a little.. even with cutbacks we are a major player in the world at peacekeeping, and having nukes is needed in this climate where arab states are trying to develop their own capability.
if I remember out defence budget is still in top 3-4 in the world.
we will soon join the super carrier club and be able to project serious air power anywhere in on the globe.. way beyond any country outside the US.
if we had no nukes and say iran developed the capability with a delivery system I would not feel safe AT ALL.
edit: 20billion wouldn't help any public services to any extent anyhow... hell, it wouldn't even bail out a bunch of banks
, the op sounds more concerned about the next gen broadband, but internet wont save you with a iranian nuke soaring overhead.. though you could post about it real fast lol
if I remember out defence budget is still in top 3-4 in the world.
we will soon join the super carrier club and be able to project serious air power anywhere in on the globe.. way beyond any country outside the US.
if we had no nukes and say iran developed the capability with a delivery system I would not feel safe AT ALL.
edit: 20billion wouldn't help any public services to any extent anyhow... hell, it wouldn't even bail out a bunch of banks
, the op sounds more concerned about the next gen broadband, but internet wont save you with a iranian nuke soaring overhead.. though you could post about it real fast lol
Last edited:
The reason those countries don't need them? Because we do have them. You are advocating the west disarm all its nuclear weapons?
Russia / Pakistan etc will never get rid of theirs, they don't give a **** what we think, and we need ours if they have theirs.
MAD keeps conventional enemies in check. Terrorists and such would not care if they have a grudge against the world.
We need Trident as a deterrent and the cost of the system sustains jobs and industry. No doubt Rolls Royce will be building the reactors in this country, and we will (presumably) build and maintain the subs. Yes the nukes will be built and maintained by the yanks as is Trident.
We have just completed the Astute class nuclear subs and these are one step further. Same goes for the new carriers. Rolls Royce already has some orders for major parts of these and that will help to create new jobs and opportunities.
I think we should nuke something though . . .seems a waste otherwise . . .
If it comes to a point where 'we' are forced to deploy nuclear weapons through a nuclear threat to our own soil, it won't really matter whether we do or not - such a world would be inhabitable through the sheer magnitude of these weapons.
Why not let the USA pay?
Why not let the USA pay?
The government hinted a few weeks ago at actually speeding up these projects ("speeding up" == pumping more money in, to them) due to the recession...
These sort of projects keep hundreds of thousands of jobs going and keep big companies like BAE and RR alive.
That is just from the economic perspective...
These sort of projects keep hundreds of thousands of jobs going and keep big companies like BAE and RR alive.
That is just from the economic perspective...
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,188
Trident gives us a seat at the big table. IMO that alone justifies the £20bn cost for a new fleet of submarines.
exactly, and afaik they are looking at just stetching the current astute design to acom missiles which would be a cheaper option.
Urm - wasn't a 2 year delay was just announced on the new £4bn aircraft carriers.
AWE Aldermaston got sold, but its been sold many times before and has been in the organisational hands of a U.S. company for a long while already. Wont see any changes in that area me thinks, the only time the uk will scrap trident is when we have a new nuke in the tube.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
And realistically,
What chance is there of an all-out war breaking out in the next 20 or even 50 years and us needing such a system ? Why subs ? They are a dated, slow war machine that we should leave to the Ruskies & yanks And even if we did have a few subs ready to nuclear annilialate the planet, they would probably be taken out by the someone more experienced in underwater attacks.
Considering we've had relative peace for the last 50 years (with our neighbours) - and most of the crazy horses are long gone
I say scrap it. If we need nukes, we can manufacture them in a short enough time (and get them long-range by other means)
What chance is there of an all-out war breaking out in the next 20 or even 50 years and us needing such a system ? Why subs ? They are a dated, slow war machine that we should leave to the Ruskies & yanks
And even if we did have a few subs ready to nuclear annilialate the planet, they would probably be taken out by the someone more experienced in underwater attacks.Considering we've had relative peace for the last 50 years (with our neighbours) - and most of the crazy horses are long gone
I say scrap it. If we need nukes, we can manufacture them in a short enough time (and get them long-range by other means)
Last edited:
They slowed them down, speeding them up would end the jobs more quickly!
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
That is anything but realistic.And realistically,
What chance is there of an all-out war breaking out in the next 20 or even 50 years and us needing such a system ? Why subs ? They are a dated, slow war machine that we should leave to the Ruskies & yanks
I say scrap it. If we need nukes, we can manufacture them in a short enough time (and get them long-range by other means)
Why subs? As the UK is far, far, far too small to have land based silos, and the country's infrastructure could be obliterated with 1 or 2 nukes. Subs are silent, deadly and pretty much undetectable. They are anything but dated if you look at the new astutes for instance. Its Sonar 2076 is THE most advanced system in the world. And:
And http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/.
That aside, who the hell is "more experienced in underwater attacks"?????
WTH are you on?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
I don't care how we make it - or how we get it to it's intended target.
As I said.....I think it's highly unlikely we will ever need it - and there's a lot more stuff we could spend 20billion on other than some steroids for our military muscle - nukes are so 1980's after all.......
and if it happens, we will still be kissing the USA's behind (who will still have many more nukes than we could ever dream of affording and probably have no trouble in firing on our behalf if someone decides to target us )
Last edited:
As I said.....I think it's highly unlikely - and if it happens, we will still be kissing the USA's behind (who will still have many more nukes than we could ever dream of affording)
Number of nukes isn't important, once you've got a few anyway, because it becomes academic, 2 or 3 is plenty big enough as a threat.