The end to the UK's new carriers?

Glaucus · 30 Jun 2009 at 10:58

Fusion said:
But as I said, can anyone imagine us launching them without the US leading a strike? Who would we use them against, and why would we have cause for launching without the support of the yanks?

As I said we might not always be allied with the US.

LAunching them is not the point they are a deterrent. The sheer fact we have them, protects us. Imagine if North korea or a dozen other country got them and we and Europe disarmed. We would be blackmailed.
Unlikely - probably
Possible - certainly

It's not a waste of money. The contract to build and maintain them will employ thousands of people in the uk for decades. Like any project some will go to america.

KaHn · 30 Jun 2009 at 10:58

The Mad Rapper said:
Yes, so it's not codes but navigational data and GPS. Without accurate GPS the missiles are pretty useless.

Now why don't you FO? No idea what your problem is, other than living on the wrong side of the river of course

Eh? because you are arguing a point of something you know crap all about and seem intent on spouting any crap which comes out of your mouth as fact with out looking into it before hand.

KaHn

NickK · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:00

Interesting if you listen to him they'll be delivered too quickly. Thus by the time the strike fighter becomes available the ship will have been sat idle. So they're slowing the building inline with the timescales. Cheaper in the short term on a yearly budget but more costly in the long term.

Sounds like defence guys have been asked to lower their spending over the next 3 years to help the government cover other higher priority areas. Sounds like a good mature approach to financial planning to me. You have to remember in the armed forced 1bn is not that much, especially over the 5-8 year time period.

The Mad Rapper · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:02

KaHn said:
Eh? because you are arguing a point of something you know crap all about and seem intent on spouting any crap which comes out of your mouth as fact with out looking into it before hand.

KaHn

No, I said 'apparantly' because that's what I'd heard. I then googled the matter to find some information and posted the link. The fact I thought it was codes was wrong, but the fact a dependence exists which would render Trident useless was correct.

What do you know about it? Nothing. You just seem intent on mouthing off and ******* me off this morning.

KaHn · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:06

The Mad Rapper said:
No, I said 'apparantly' because that's what I'd heard. I then googled the matter to find some information and posted the link. The fact I thought it was codes was wrong, but the fact a dependence exists which would render Trident useless was correct.

What do you know about it? Nothing. You just seem intent on mouthing off and ******* me off this morning.

So yet you posted we "CANNOT" launch with out US help? Yet we know nothing of the independance of the system, the GPS will probably be independant of the US control and do you think they have the capability to offset the GPS system at a push of a button.

I am merely pointing out that you are talking crap, also about the NHS failing but I won't get into that. The dependance on the US as you put it is merely a joint venture to allow the UK to have more nuclear weapons in a shorter period of time, as indicated in the article you posted.

Now as I have said my post was that you should look into what you post before you post it instead of then resorting to calling people "n00bs" are "chopsy ****".

But as this is now going off topic if you don't like what I have said then have your little rant and rave at your screen, take your keyboard and shove it up your arse and I'll get on with my day.

KaHn

The Mad Rapper · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:14

KaHn said:
So yet you posted we "CANNOT" launch with out US help? Yet we know nothing of the independance of the system, the GPS will probably be independant of the US control and do you think they have the capability to offset the GPS system at a push of a button.

It's well known that the US can alter the resolution of GPS at will. That's why the EU is building their own competing system. Search for it, you'll see I am right and not 'talking crap' at all.

Oh, and if you think the NHS isn't failing you are more stupid than I gave you credit for, and believe me I didn't set the bar high for you.

Fusion · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:19

Err, can we have less of the insults please? Using American GPS won't be an issue when Europe's Galileo system comes online next year.

Fair points AcidHell. I can't see us leaving Big Sam's side, we are too integrated economically, being one of America's most staunch allies.

It would be great to disarm, but it's unlikely that China, India, Iran, North Korea would wish to follow.

Glaucus · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:24

Fusion said:
Fair points AcidHell. I can't see us leaving Big Sam's side, we are too integrated economically, being one of America's most staunch allies.
.

Yep certainly seems unlikely but we can not predict what will happen over the next few hundred years. If we disarmed America could also use it as a bribe for us to follow their policy.

We won't give you nuclear protection, unless you follow x,y,z policy and support us in x,y,z country.

The Mad Rapper · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:27

AcidHell2 said:
Yep certainly seems unlikely but we can not predict what will happen over the next few hundred years. If we disarmed America could also use it as a bribe for us to follow their policy.

We won't give you nuclear protection, unless you follow x,y,z policy and support us in x,y,z country.

If Europe developed it's own detterent then there would be no need for reliance on the US.

Thought I can't see how that would ever realistically work, given we can't agree on anything!

Glaucus · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:32

The Mad Rapper said:
If Europe developed it's own detterent then there would be no need for reliance on the US.

true,,
we would still have nukes and it would still cost us billions and we would probably have less control of them than we do at the moment.

fadetoblack · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:35

And Europes great at looking after it self ? No we need nukes as we are a major part of NATO

Don't forget during Falklands war British warships carried nuclear weapons,

The Mad Rapper · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:42

AcidHell2 said:
true,,
we would still have nukes and it would still cost us billions and we would probably have less control of them than we do at the moment.

It would be cost prohibitive to develop our own solution wouldn't it?

alex24 · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:45

I find it sad that it's necessary to continue creating ships for war. Re-arming with nuclear weapons I believe is wrong too, you go on about them being a deterrent, which is true, but why do we have to deter people, why can't we just take the first step towards peace and not fight each other for once? It seems nobody learns from the wars of the past, they're not something anyone should be involved in, they just cause death and suffering. Do you think that if we continue to prepare and arm ourselves for war, the other countries will just give up and stop trying to make nuclear weapons?

Fusion · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:49

alexhull24 said:
I find it sad that it's necessary to continue creating ships for war. Re-arming with nuclear weapons I believe is wrong too, you go on about them being a deterrent, which is true, but why do we have to deter people, why can't we just take the first step towards peace and not fight each other for once? It seems nobody learns from the wars of the past, they're not something anyone should be involved in, they just cause death and suffering. Do you think that if we continue to prepare and arm ourselves for war, the other countries will just give up and stop trying to make nuclear weapons?

It's in our nature to crave power, and influence. Many nations still harbour imperalist ambitions, China is one country that many have their eye on but any emerging, devloping power will want to extend its sphere influence, particularly when resources become more scarce. While ever there is disparity in the world and limited resources, there will be conflict.

alex24 · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:52

That doesn't justify killing each other for it though, not in my eyes. I think we (China included), can be better than that. I'd hope that one day the disparity you talk of is gone, and resources are equal across the world for everyone. I'll cut the Star Trek **** now though. I just think we can do better than this.

Glaucus · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:55

alexhull24 said:
That doesn't justify killing each other for it though, not in my eyes.

of course not. But not everyone is you. There are plenty of people who will and that is why you need deterrents. This I can not ever see changing.

Fido McNasty · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:57

For those who haven't seen it yet...

alex24 · 30 Jun 2009 at 11:58

Well as we're a highly developed country we should be setting a precedent and example for the rest of the world, and trying to convince them to live with us rather than out gunning them into submission. People need to be prepared to embrace change rather than just carrying on how things have always been. We have an opportunity to make things better surely? It's not the easy thing to do, for sure, but it's the right thing.

Glaucus · 30 Jun 2009 at 12:00

alexhull24 said:
Well as we're a highly developed country we should be setting a precedent and example for the rest of the world, and trying to convince them to live with us rather than out gunning them into submission.

so when that fails, how do we protect ourself and are interests. That thought is deluded and unworkable.

Manlove is my forte · 30 Jun 2009 at 12:09

Rroff said:
If you want peace... first prepare for war...

It was relevant when Flavius Vegetius said it, its relevant now.