We dont have crap forces at all. Too many people reading too much trash in the media.
Our forces are among the best trained in the world, Who do you think trains most of the worlds armed forces....
Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
We dont have crap forces at all. Too many people reading too much trash in the media.
Our forces are among the best trained in the world, Who do you think trains most of the worlds armed forces....
because in the cold war the ussr had 10's of thousands of nukes aimed at america enough to wipe out the entire usa many many many times over
theres doubt whether a NK nuke could even reach the us same goes for iran
Soldato
then why on earth does china supports so closely NK ,because it acts as a buffer zone to american interests in the region (SK). NK does have nukes and a massive army , is the US would engage in a lengthy and bloody war with NK they could probably launch an attack , needless to say NK would probably nuke SK and open the gates of hell. My point is , nukes are attractive to everybody and are really REALLY dangerous piece of kit , why preserve them when you know they preserve a situation in which your country could end up in ruins...
Last edited:
We dont have crap forces at all. Too many people reading too much trash in the media.
Our forces are among the best trained in the world, Who do you think trains most of the worlds armed forces....
Well yes, but going purely from tech etc, we are getting seriously old. Maybe crap was a bit of a strong word, but they sure as hell are not half of what they should be.
The threat from Iran having a nuclear weapon isnt them using one, Iranis historically defensive, it has never used it's Armed Forces in offence, but the action of the Nations around them, Turkey, Saudi and Syria would almost certainly nuclearise and we would have the scenario of a nuclear Middle East and the risks to Israel and nuclear security globally.
Soldato
and to stay on topic i will just say that based on a book i read the other day , the triumph of the anglosaxon world and the west generally the last 4 centuries is based exclusively in the formation of strong disciplined and advanced navies , rule the sea and you rule the world....so i would suggest to scrap the F35 and go on with the naval projects
Maybe it's because we've been spending the defence budget on projects like Type 45, Eurofighter, Astute and ignoring the unfashionable, unsexy part of the armed forces - the infantry.
The F-35 would be part of the navy?
They already can push us pretty hard through diplomacy and economic threats. That is all it will ever take for us to become obedient.
It would never be in the world interest to let a nuclear state collapse, and if it did I am sure there would be international resolve to ensure global security. The concerns over Pakistan for example.
It is in no ones interest to fire these weapons, no ones. Ever.
Apart from a 'rogue' state but even then I still fail to see someone crazy enough actually doing it and it working, I cannot invisage it happening either.
Not in our lifetime anyway.
I don't agree with your analysis in parts, if we didn't have nuclear weapons we wouldn't be any more susceptible to being pushed around than now. We would be covered by NATO, perhaps America, European neighbours and the vary nature of world nuclear power spheres and concepts such as MAD.. our tiny fraction percentage of this power is just vanity.
This weapon is just a nasty hangover from the '40s that has shaped world development and relations ever since. We have fallen by the way side, and it would be in our long term interests to not continue this path.
Soldato
it can be replaced easily with cheaper fighters , i think the question is to scrap 1 of the 3 projects so i chose the F35 for reasons stated above
Thats not really true either, pretty much all the equipment I was issued was as good as any other nation I served beside. In fact, we went to Afghanistan originally at the request of the US as we were better trained and equiped to deal with the terrain in the mountains.
Sure some of the 'big' stuff need updating, but that's in hand as is being discussed here. To much 'top trumps' BS to be honest and not enough experience.
I agree that Nukes are not likely to be used, but do we really want to rely on the US to honour their NATO committments alone.
Trident isn't expensive. The overall budget is £20bn-£30bn over the 30 year lifespan of the deterent, all this talk in the media of it being half the annual budget is misleading as its cost a spread over that lifespan.
Sometimes it is prudent to have a big stick, even if you don't intend to use it.
There is also the argument of economics, the jobs and research opportunities possessing Trident and the AWE related to it would also be lost.
Last edited:
Soldato
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but if I recall correctly the Vanguard class subs are due to remain in service until 2030-2035 or so, and the current Trident D5 ballistic missiles until 2042. There's still time for the economic situation to sort itself out before a decision has to be made I suppose.
To extend the lifespan would mean joining the US extension programme at a cost of £5bn or so. The sticky bit isnt Trident, but the Subs. They take 17 years to complete so a decision is needed sooner rather than later.
maybe i'm sounding dense here but how the hell does it take 17 years to build a submarine?
tridents from keel laying to them entering service was circa 7 years
for example HMS vanguard
Laid down: 3 September 1986
Launched: 4 March 1992
Commissioned: 14 August 1993
Seems like a total waste of money to me.
There is no one left that we can point that particular ‘stick’ at, and those that which we do already have far bigger ‘sticks’ and in far greater numbers pointed at them.
Frivolous as I am concerned. I would rather us be able to project power with man and machine more than a theoretical 'we will obliterate you' threat; which is slightly devoid of reasoning when you take in the bigger picture.
We face different challenges these days, and should move accordingly. Not hinder it and pay a huge amount of our defense and tax money on a throwback to the sixties and seventies.
Trident is very expensive in my opinion; it is a £30bn pretense.
Soldato
Those dates seem to be missing the design stages. I've certainly seen stuff prior to 86.
If we don't have nuclear capability there will be no deterrent against others using nuclear weapons against us as we can not retaliate what so ever.
The point is to deter others from using them, unless they want the same or worse back.