Man of Honour
You're assuming that America will never be the bad guy and that it will definitely intercede on our behalf - both of those are fairly large assumptions to base a defence strategy on.
Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
You're assuming that America will never be the bad guy and that it will definitely intercede on our behalf - both of those are fairly large assumptions to base a defence strategy on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,999
When has the USA ever jumped at the chance to help out the UK?
Soldato
Fair enough.
I see the point of view, but short of global meltdown i can't see it happening. By then it's dog eat dog anyhow, few nukes would probaly improve the landscape
I see the point of view, but short of global meltdown i can't see it happening. By then it's dog eat dog anyhow, few nukes would probaly improve the landscape
Soldato
aside from that one example, he doesn't go into return on investement with any specifics (ie galileo which is what he is talking about mostly ie possibility of life on Europa) what is the return on that in $.
also the apollo space program was in a cold war context to show American dominance in space since the russians were ahead, so it wasn't really for the sake of science as much as it was for national pride during the Cold War
- again this was possible by Von Braun who was the one who developped V2 rockets during ww2 and you could even refer to the chinese that invented the first rockets for war purposes way back when
Last edited:
Soldato
I think the problem is people seem to forget history. We have been allies and enemies with most countries in the world at 1 point. Just because we are allies with them now does not mean we won't be fighting them in the future. People seem to dismiss history and say.. "oh but the world is nothing like how it was back then " This is correct but what do you think the people of that time were saying. The exact same thing no doubt with that goverment / people wanting to make cuts to what ever weapon gave them the edge. And because of this, history repeats its self time and time again. All the cuts will be made in the peace time. so instead of building up the military in relatively small increments over the years when raw materials are readily available and our economy is relativity good ( compared to a major war ). When a war breaks out and be under no illusion 1 will happen sooner or later we will find out selves trying to rush our way back into the growth of the military complex. Tanking our economy as resources / raw material prices are sky high and all being diverted to the military trying to make up for time/money and know how lost.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Is the Tornado not long in the tooth now ?
The ADV variant must surely not be in the same league as the latest generation of MiG and SU fighters ?
f16 is not a carrier aircraft
I think an aircraft carrier would be more usefull, and i believe that the typhoon can be adapted for aircraft carriers. trident is expensive for very little, when an ICBM can do the same cheaper. as far as JSF it's capabilities still need to be proved and the US accept money from foreign countries however want to keep it's software etc... theirs, not what i call an open and friendly partnership.
Bit tough to move ICBM Silo's out of the way of a first strike. Plus we don't have the ability to place them hundreds of miles away from the nearest large city. SLBM's are the only practical option for us.
Thank God someone has made this point.
I would also point out that Cruise missiles are NOT a viable deterrent. They have a much shorter range, and would need the launching submarine to be somewhere off the coast of most target nations. In fact they probably couldn't reach the interior of large countries. They also take much longer to reach the target, long enough in fact for the leadership of a target nation to have the possibility of escape.
Also they are vulnerable to interception.
Anyone who thinks they can replace SLBM's (Lib Dem's, i'm looking at you) need to do their homework. Either that, or they are hoping other people don't do theirs.
Bad guys to us you mean?
You think it could start to be directed towards the UK?
Even if they did, and started along these apocalyptic lines I doubt everywhere else in the world is just going to kick back with shades and a pina colada and watch the fireworks.
If anyone, US or otherwise, started going nuke crazy no one is safe and no one would simply let 'x' side have the first strike.
It would be back to cold war thinking in a flash, so to speak.
The US can bend the will of the UK without having to resort to threat of attack, or even nuclear weapons. When, in the future we are even weaker it will become all the easier - depending on them too of course.
Anyway - We don't need this defence. Let others pick up the bill and play MAD games.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone in the LibDems has said they think Trident isn't anything but the best solution for nuclear device delivery, their objection is mainly along the lines of:
a) can we afford a gold plated solution? We can still be a nuclear power without Trident, hopefully retain our seat on the SC, and we probably and hopefully will never have to use them anyway
b) idealogical reasons e.g. Trident replacement might be against Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Soldato
i have never understood the use of nuclear weapons , in a nuclear war the enemy is war itself , so what exactly a country will win using nuclear weapons? the destruction of the enemy , the enemy will destroy you as well because they have exactly the same weapons...
That's the point.
If two sides have nukes they can't go to war, everybody wins.
Imagine if there where no nuclear weapons do you really think the cold war would have stayed cold?
Or more recently India and Pakistan?
Man of Honour
It was more of a general comment that assuming America will always be the "good guy" for the World is a pretty big one to make, indeed there are a number of countries that would already dispute the idea of America as a force for good in the World.
But sure, it's not a good idea to assume that America will always be an ally to the UK or that even if it is that it will always step in should we get into trouble. It doesn't seem likely right now or even in the foreseeable future that we will be enemies but as you get told with share purchases - "past performance is no guarantee of future results".
I'm not suggesting that the rest of the World would be especially sanguine about the idea of nuclear war but pretending to know with certainty what each country will do in such an event and who they'll side with isn't something I'm overly comfortable with. We can have a best guess type approach but that's about it and even then I'd be loathe to put too much weight on it.
In relation to your final point, maybe not but as I've said I don't feel I know enough to comment fairly.
it's not about going nuke crazy, it's just about limiting damage.
If we have no nukes America/anyone else could just push us as far as they like, with nukes there's only so far they can go before the country/government gets radicalised or scared enough that nuclear forces looks like a tempting option.
Keeps everyone civil while they try to **** each other over.
Aren't the cod games just based on shooting anyone who isn't white or doesn't speak with an American accent?
Soldato
ok but this fact makes nuclear weapons attractive and increases the possibility of action. furthermore i dont think if a country uses these kinds of weapons another will just watch , imagine if the US nukes NK will China do nothing? what about Iran, will Russia stay put? a doomsday scenario is increasing with nuclear weapons and i believe they are a threat to us all, they are built to destroy us not the enemy
This is true.
Also, after reading above, how on earth do we have such crap forces when we have the 3rd largest budget? where is all of that money going? I think even France would stand a good chance if they faced the UK today.
If you launch an IBM without warning odds are everyone will assume it's coming that them and respond in kind.
It's why the attempt to make a conventional trident warhead (relying purely on it's massive kinetic energy like a meteorite) failed.
America is not going to nuke NK or Iran.
Why on earth would they nuke such pathetically small foes when they never nuked the much greater threat of Russia in the cold war?