HMS Daring

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:02

Freefaller said:
So you know what's going on in the intelligence agencies all around the world, or even in the UK? Impressive.

so apparently do you.

Tell me please, who are we about to be invaded by?

Lopéz · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:02

Nana said:
it is totally irrelevant because we are not under a military threat.

How do you know that we are under no military threat?

If you are walking down a street in broad daylight you may not consider yourself under threat until somebody steps out of an alley, beats you over the head and steals all your posessions.

big_white_dog84 · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:03

Quick point - they are ships, not boats. A ship has its first watertight deck above the waterline. A boat has its first watertight deck below the waterline (which is why a submarine is called a boat).

fatiain · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:03

BWD, are the RN still responsible for fisheries protection?

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:04

Nana said:
not at all, but does it justify buying these boats?

Its not that black and white...Ill never understand why seemingly intelligent people such as yourself feel the need to bring an issue down to its most basic of components...The Iraq war was about oil...Of course, its impossible for it to have been about oil AND other reasons...Its impossible that there may be more decisions involved than the one you believe in..There are many factors in politics today..

Does the possible prospect of heavy future UN action justify the cost of these boats? No, of course not...Not on its own..

But it is ONE reason which will have been added to the OTHER reasons and those multiple reasons together, justify the cost.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:04

big_white_dog84 said:
Quick point - they are ships, not boats. A ship has its first watertight deck above the waterline. A boat has its first watertight deck below the waterline (which is why a submarine is called a boat).

learn a new thing every day, I was calling it a boat to sound a tad flippant, but henceforth these destroyers shall be referred to as ships.

big_white_dog84 · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:04

fatiain said:
BWD, are the RN still responsible for fisheries protection?

In England and Wales yes they are. They have three new River Class ships for this purpose and some adapted minesweepers.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:05

Balddog said:
Its not that black and white...Ill never understand why seemingly intelligent people such as yourself feel the need to bring an issue down to its most basic of components...The Iraq war was about oil...Of course, its impossible for it to have been about oil AND other reasons...Its impossible that there may be more decisions involved than the one you believe in..There are many factors in politics today..

Does the possible prospect of heavy future UN action justify the cost of these boats? No, of course not...Not on its own..

But it is ONE reason which will have been added to the OTHER reasons and those multiple reasons together, justify the cost.

so the entire UN part of this chat is essentially a bit of a red herring.

I havent read anything here, that justifies introducing this much extra firepower and cost into our navy.

Freefaller · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:05

Nana said:
so apparently do you.

Tell me please, who are we about to be invaded by?

Please see my edit to my post.

I don't know what's going on - but there's nothing like being prepared. As I said, shortsightedness would be crippling in such a case.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:06

Balddog said:
Its not that black and white...Ill never understand why seemingly intelligent people such as yourself feel the need to bring an issue down to its most basic of components...The Iraq war was about oil...Of course, its impossible for it to have been about oil AND other reasons...Its impossible that there may be more decisions involved than the one you believe in..There are many factors in politics today..

Does the possible prospect of heavy future UN action justify the cost of these boats? No, of course not...Not on its own..

But it is ONE reason which will have been added to the OTHER reasons and those multiple reasons together, justify the cost.

in fact, iraq was about getting rid of wmd that could hit us in 45 minutes. :/

Lopéz · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:06

I sell cruises for a living, and anybody refers to any of the liners (even the little Thomson ones) as "boats" our customers absolutely freak.

Stelios doesn't like Easycruise1 being referred to as a "ferry" either.

Sorry, just felt the need to get that in somewhere

big_white_dog84 · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:06

It isn't extra firepower at all. The fleet's anti-air capability is very depleted at the moment compared to 10 years ago. We are simply getting back to previous levels with fewer, but more capable ships.

cleanbluesky · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:07

Is there anyone here who would realistically like their safety to be based on nothing more than the potential 'good will' of other nations and their promises not to attack?

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:07

Freefaller said:
Please see my edit to my post.

I don't know what's going on - but there's nothing like being prepared. As I said, shortsightedness would be crippling in such a case.

if we were short sighted then, we'd be 650 million quid per ship better off...

now I know this is flowery rhetoric, but how many people lives could be changed with that money. How much good could that do in providing clean water or healthcare or whatever.

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:07

Nana said:
so the entire UN part of this chat is essentially a bit of a red herring.

I havent read anything here, that justifies introducing this much extra firepower and cost into our navy.

Ugh...pathetic.

Fine...If you want to ignore my points then go right ahead.

No, its not a red herring. Neither of us can speak for the ultimate reason why these boats were bought...You obviously think the UK is evil and will use them for evil..I happen to think otherwise.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:08

cleanbluesky said:
Is there anyone here who would realistically like their safety to be based on nothing more than the potential 'good will' of other nations and their promises not to attack?

WHO IS GOING TO ATTACK US?????

should I be living in fear? what do you all know that I don't?

melchy · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:08

There are still some big players around in the world that could cause us a problem if we didnt maintain an effective deterent. Its not all about Iraq/Iran etc.

theleg · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:08

Nana said:
in fact, iraq was about getting rid of wmd that could hit us in 45 minutes. :/

Save your silly flippant trolling remarks for someone who cares mate..

Thats not what Iraq was about and you know it...There were many reasons why we went into Iraq.

Nana · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:09

Balddog said:
Ugh...pathetic.

Fine...If you want to ignore my points then go right ahead.

No, its not a red herring. Neither of us can speak for the ultimate reason why these boats were bought...You obviously think the UK is evil and will use them for evil..I happen to think otherwise.

now you're just putting word into my mouth.

How can an enormous death spitting war machine be used entirely benevolently?

big_white_dog84 · 2 Feb 2006 at 12:09

We are not about to get invaded at the moment. How long does it take for a country to become hostile to us and decide to invade us or one of our overseas territories? Maybe a couple of years in the right circumstances (less in the case of the Falklands).
How long does it take to design and build a fleet capable of preventing this invasion? Maybe 10 years. How long does it take to replace the skills of the sailors that would be lost if we didn't maintain our fleet's capability? A lot longer.