Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF

[^^Gord^^]

Our nuclear capability gets us a seat on the UN Security Council so the politicians are unlikely to get rid of it but I don’t think Trident is the incorrect option.

I think the Vanguard class subs and Trident both should go and the first and second strike nuclear capability be provided by Astute class subs with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The new carriers should go ahead but should be re-designed to use cat and trap. They should also be nuclear powered, the cost of fuel now and in the future would more than cover the cost.

With a cat on the carrier we can junk the F-35s and go buy the Marine version of the Rafale from the French. It’s got a proven carrier capability and the French need export customers.

BAE Systems won’t like the Rafale purchase but the Astute and CVF purchases should keep them quiet.

 

[V4NT0M]

Those pursuits of eradicating terrorism have done nothing but increase the risk of domestic attacks though. Over 300 have died in Afghanistan as a pursuit of eradicating terrorism - yet everyone and their mother knows their presence there isn't making it better, it's making it worse.

If we didn't engage in such pursuits, there'd be no need for it.

Exactly, there's no need for it in the first place.

 

[KNiVES]

what were we meant to do though, not invade and allow Afghanistan to harbour terrorists and terrorists camps.

we did try diplomacy and they refused to help out or hand over the key players.

Yes, we should have kept our silly little noses out of a country that had zero relevance to us. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were going to do absolutely nothing to the UK, and now it's high on their list of targets after several billion pounds down the drain, and countless young lives lost.

What a massive own goal.

 

[teaboy5]

We need all 3!!!

We are entering a world of energy wars and in the near future we will be going to war to make sure the country has enough energy to keep the lights on.

I would like to make sure that we have the equipment to defend ourselves and attack others, instead of cost cutting and getting caught with our pants down round our ankles.


And dont laugh, we will be fighting over energy, there is a shortage of cheap oil and all the larger players will be fight to make sure they get their share.

 

[Glaucus]

They hate the west we were allready on the list.
You can't stand back and do nothing. That's how things grow out of control.
If we can get afghan stable and trained to defend themselves, then risk in long run should be lower.


We won't be fighting for oil, there are plenty of alternative energies we can use. We just have to build them. Which we are doing and all the time the speed of building is growing, we are at the base of an exponential graph.

 

[Malc]

We may buy more Typhoons in the future as there is an Carrier variant in the works (originally being designed for the Indians).

I think part of the defense review will mention scrapping Tornado and Harrier a few years early to reduce their sustainability contracts. Then deploying Typhoon early instead of leaving them in a hangar at Coningsby doing nothing.

Also I hear there's a plan to scrap Nimrod MRA4.

So to answer your original question, keep trident and the carriers but use adapted Typhoons instead of JSF. JSF is a good 5 years away yet anyway.

 

[KNiVES]

They hate the west we were allready on the list.
You can't stand back and do nothing. That's how things grow out of control.
If we can get afghan stable and trained to defend themselves, then risk in long run should be lower.

You have no proof of that, and I can conclusively state that we are now a much higher priority target than ever before no thanks to our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as backed up by the Chilcot Enquiry and the recent US Senate grillings of senior advisors to the Bush administration.

 

[Firestar_3x]

We need all 3!!!

We are entering a world of energy wars and in the near future we will be going to war to make sure the country has enough energy to keep the lights on.

Indeed we do, but future energy will be more dependant on Nuclear with any luck, carriers are needed shorter term should Argentina take another brave pill.

You have no proof of that, and I can conclusively state that we are now a much higher priority target than ever before no thanks to our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Deffo further up the list now, but lets not forget its not just the USA and UK in those countrys, with our close ties to the USA i would say we already had quite a high standing on the "to attack list".

 

[Castiel]

JSF/Carriers or Trident replacement. As both are neccessary for different reasons and scenarios it is not an choice anyone should make. The funds should be found for both.

Defence or Offence. We need both. Trident isn't actually that expensive longterm anyway and the Carriers are injecting much needed capital into our economy.

 

[Glaucus]

Can you state that will be a long term trait, or that if left untouched and protected from retaliation from 9/11 that they wouldn't of increased operations?
At least they are now spending money and resources in their back yard and a goverment is emerging.

People said we could not win Iraq, it's not perfect but it seems to be generally on the right path.

These things take decades or generations, doesn't mean we need to stay there that long. We need to stay there till they can look after themselves after that it takes a long time to change opinions.
We changed slowly over hundreads of years, yet people expect over countries to change in a few years.

 

[Castiel]

What use is Trident against an ideology considered to be the world's biggest threat? We live in a world where the only ones capable of attacking with such ferocity that calls for nuclear deterrence are so entwined with us economically and globally, and where the biggest foes are ethereal in terms of presence and ever stark in terms of danger. The world's biggest nuclear stockpile can do nothing against bitter and angry men who can simply walk on our doorsteps.

Being a nuclear power is no longer about deterent, it is about political projection. Permanent seat on the UN Sec Council anyone?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6549544.ece

 

[ojrules]

Exactly, there's no need for it in the first place.

while i agree with you, it is strategically advantageous to have a strong military presence in the middle east, we do enflame the situation but maybe it's the lesser of 2 evils.. (although i'm not quite sure what the other evil is )

 

[Allnamestaken]

You guys dont seem to understand we dant just abandon our carrier program.

We have already laid keels and there being built.

A gigantic waste of money to just scrap it now.

You wouldnt make any savings worth anything in the end.

few hundred million here n there maybe.

We cant compromise on these things so easily.

 

[Glaucus]

It's a hypothetical question, not what is actually going to happen, as outlined in the OP

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Not sure I see the point of trident anymore - it isn't like we could even use the missiles without approval from the US. Would definitely agree that nuclear weapons have probably prevented many wars in recent years though.

 

[Superficial]

Not sure I see the point of trident anymore - it isn't like we could even use the missiles without approval from the US. Would definitely agree that nuclear weapons have probably prevented many wars in recent years though.

isnt this total BS though? after we take delivery we require no US codes or satellites. its only the maintenance and purchase that requires the Americans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4805768.stm

 

[Efour]

I vote for none of the above.

Aircraft carriers are not going to protect anyone in the UK but be used to bomb children in far off lands.

nuclear weapons will never be used and if anyone is silly enough to It really wont matter who pushed the button 1st.

 

[Biohazard]

This is a total joke in all honesty.

Regular defence should never be cut for this glamorous and status driven program.

The dissapearance of the UK's so-called independent nuclear deterant would not alter the world balance of power to any great extent.

If we could accept a more modest role in the world, we wouldn't be facing a cut in the forces as could happen depending on how this argument pans out.

 

[Tefal]

nuclear weapons will never be used

Why won't they?

The only thing that stops people using nuclear weapon is the fact that their enemies have nuclear weapons.

 

[Dolph]

I vote for none of the above.

Aircraft carriers are not going to protect anyone in the UK but be used to bomb children in far off lands.

nuclear weapons will never be used and if anyone is silly enough to It really wont matter who pushed the button 1st.

Do you really think nuclear weapons have to be fired to be used?

Trident is currently in use all the time...