Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF

[WalesOwl]

Lets not be stingy on defense when we NEED all three.

Trident, well I think it's pretty obvious that we need to have something to nuke some random countries with.

Aircraft carriers are pretty useful in ALL situations. There really isn't a reason for not having them.

Aircraft to fly off aircraft carriers are a must as well, otherwise having an aircraft carrier becomes rather silly.

So there is my case for all 3. If you need em, you get em.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Why won't they?

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

i.e. MAD. Makes for some good reading on wiki (and quite scary reading). Especially when you consider all the nuclear bombs aimed at us right now (and with the destructive power of them these days).

 

[Rroff]

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

Trident is currently in use all the time...

+1

We can never know what the world will be like tomorrow... most people seem to think that due to the relative peace and civility during the last couple of decades that it will continue like that... history teaches us a very different picture.

 

[Tefal]

i.e. MAD. Makes for some good reading on wiki (and quite scary reading). Especially when you consider all the nuclear bombs aimed at us right now (and with the destructive power of them these days).

That was my point.

Arguing that there is no need for nuclear weapons as they will not be used, when the reason they are not used is because we have nuclear weapons doesn't make sense does it?

 

[CaptainRAVE]

On the plus side, if they were used, you wouldn't know much about it. Except of course if you were in a really remote part of the world.

 

[Rroff]

On the plus side, if they were used, you wouldn't know much about it. Except of course if you were in a really remote part of the world.

tbh most conventional (actually in use) nuclear weapons aren't as "holocaustical" as the movies, etc. make out... sure if you targetted a city or used a few 100 of them theres be massive casualties and a bit of fallout but you'd need 1000s to wreak the kinda devastation to a country as a whole as you see in the movies.

 

[Efour]

History teaches us Lots of people will die. Seeing as we all have Nuclear weapons, lots of people will die on both sides.

Yes they can never be un-invented

Do you really believe a pathetic insignificantly small country as modern Britain should waste Millions of pounds to hang with the worlds tuff guys.

why not just skip it for 30 years and by the next gen ones from China if we haven't been blown up by some crazy jihadists by then...

 

[CaptainRAVE]

tbh most conventional (actually in use) nuclear weapons aren't as "holocaustical" as the movies, etc. make out... sure if you targetted a city or used a few 100 of them theres be massive casualties and a bit of fallout but you'd need 1000s to wreak the kinda devastation to a country as a whole as you see in the movies.

Apparently a nuclear bomb targetted at London would take out a fair bit of the UK. When you consider the damage caused by the last nuclear weapons dropped, and the bombs today dwarf those in power. Either way, it wouldnt end well! Tbh though, I would rather be in the impact zone that live in nuclear fallout.

 

[Rroff]

I bet in 1925 or so they didn't expect to be embroiled in another world war a few years later...

 

[Superficial]

whilst those living in cities would be mercifully incinerated - its those in the rest of the country that would suffer terribly

some on here need ot watch Threads - it was produced as much as a fact based documentary as it was a drama: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488#

each trident missile warhead carries 8 times the destructive power of Hiroshima and there are three warheds per missle as they are MIRV (they could carry many more btw but we agreed to carry a maximum of 48 warheads per sub carrying 16 missiles in 1994 i believe)

 

[Tefal]

Apparently a nuclear bomb targetted at London would take out a fair bit of the UK. When you consider the damage caused by the last nuclear weapons dropped, and the bombs today dwarf those in power. Either way, it wouldnt end well! Tbh though, I would rather be in the impact zone that live in nuclear fallout.

not many places use the massive ones any more, you use lots of small ones (well i say small they're still big ). does more damage.

Also unless it was some kind of salted bomb (and a ground detonation) there wouldn't be masses and masses of fallout.

 

[amkan13]

not many places use the massive ones any more, you use lots of small ones (well i say small they're still big ). does more damage.

Also unless it was some kind of salted bomb (and a ground detonation) there wouldn't be masses and masses of fallout.

yes thats correct, things have moved towards tactical nukes rather than mutli-megaton weapons, or if there is a big nuke it has multiple warheads thereby increasing the chance of a good hit and making interception that much more difficult.

also lets not forget about the type 45's which don't even have a Goalkeeper or Phalanx CIWS fitted to them...what a joke

 

[Stringy]

I twisted it to mean the F-35. IMHO the F-35 will be fine as a strike aircraft. However, as a fleets primary means of air defence it's just too much of a compromise and should not be relied upon to take on the likes of advanced SU-30 and MiG-29/35 variants.

Mind if I ask what you are basing this opinion on?

 

[Efour]

I always come across as a "hippy" in discussions about nuclear weapons, i've calmed down a bit, it really makes me sick to the stomach reading and watching that film and others like it. Ive seen it plenty of times. I think they made us watch it at school too, back in the late 80s! :O

I try to take a philosophical view rather than a political one.

For any future i can imagine for Great Britain, i can see none where we are threatened with a serious conflict where we are not Allied with the United States to sort an outcome. Most people can agree?

Same goes for the European states, I cannot envisage another war between any of the big 3 or 4.

That leaves the Middle East, China North Korea, India Pakistan.

Whatever happens the US will be on our side - share their umbrella and save billions of pounds not updating a cold war deterrent.

If a religious fanatic or idolatrous regime have nuclear weapons they will not care about using them and the consequences as by definition they are nutjobs.

 

[Superficial]

I always come across as a "hippy" in discussions about nuclear weapons, i've calmed down a bit, it really makes me sick to the stomach reading and watching that film and others like it. Ive seen it plenty of times. I think they made us watch it at school too, back in the late 80s! :O

I try to take a philosophical view rather than a political one.

For any future i can imagine for Great Britain, i can see none where we are threatened with a serious conflict where we are not Allied with the United States to sort an outcome. Most people can agree?

Same goes for the European states, I cannot envisage another war between any of the big 3 or 4.

That leaves the Middle East, China North Korea, India Pakistan.

Whatever happens the US will be on our side - share their umbrella and save billions of pounds not updating a cold war deterrent.

If a religious fanatic or idolatrous regime have nuclear weapons they will not care about using them and the consequences as by definition they are nutjobs.

Argentina? Whilst i dont see a conflict any time soon - such is the lvel of feeling for the Falklands it most certainly is our most likely UK only flash point.

edit: i would also say that it would be extremely naive to think that our interests and the USA's overlap all the time. In such circumstances, where there is no mutual interest, the USA will not offer military assistance to any great degree if at all - in fact , on the flaklands issue, we can see an opportunity missed to nip the Argies claim in the bud, was tossed aside by America in favour of an adudicating role which has only sought to give the Argentinians the belief of a political will to further their claims.

 

[avec]

We need it all, but our aircraft carriers are useless without nuclear power, that was a foolish cost cutting measure that wont actually cut any costs in the long run and will leave us burdened with extremely limited ships compared to what they could have been.

 

[Dist]

Why do we need to replace trident? Didn't the US decided that was too expensive and instead of replacing it what they did was to just upgrade it so it will last another 20 years or something and was cheaper than compleatly replacing it.

 

[meghatronic]

Can't we just cut benefit cheques by £1 or something.

 

[Tefal]

I always come across as a "hippy" in discussions about nuclear weapons, i've calmed down a bit, it really makes me sick to the stomach reading and watching that film and others like it. Ive seen it plenty of times. I think they made us watch it at school too, back in the late 80s! :O

I try to take a philosophical view rather than a political one.

For any future i can imagine for Great Britain, i can see none where we are threatened with a serious conflict where we are not Allied with the United States to sort an outcome. Most people can agree?

Same goes for the European states, I cannot envisage another war between any of the big 3 or 4.

That leaves the Middle East, China North Korea, India Pakistan.

Whatever happens the US will be on our side - share their umbrella and save billions of pounds not updating a cold war deterrent.

If a religious fanatic or idolatrous regime have nuclear weapons they will not care about using them and the consequences as by definition they are nutjobs.

What if the USA is the hostile force?

What if the EU bonds strengthen and we do end up as some sort of EU nation made up of states, and are competing with the USA for resources.

As governments on both sides becomes more extremist and willing to take by force the only thing that would defend us is the UK and French nuclear deterrent.

Now i don't know about you but i don't want our safety relying on the French military resolve

 

[meghatronic]

For any future i can imagine for Great Britain, i can see none where we are threatened with a serious conflict where we are not Allied with the United States to sort an outcome.

Whatever happens the US will be on our side - share their umbrella and save billions of pounds not updating a cold war deterrent.

I find your lack of history a little disturbing