UK votes to modernize nukes

[SUBMAN1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6451615.stm

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/news/article_1277424.php/British_parliament_votes_to_modernize_nukes__Round up_

Good for you guys! :up:

-S

[waste gate]

Why would any nation, much less a European one, need nuclear weapons?

[SUBMAN1]

Why would any nation, much less a European one, need nuclear weapons?

Simple - deterrance. Russia, CHina, Pakistan, India, France, and even Iran soon could possibly be a future threat.

-S

[waste gate]

Why would any nation, much less a European one, need nuclear weapons?

Simple - deterrance. Russia, CHina, Pakistan, India, France, and even Iran soon could possibly be a future threat.

-S

It was sarcasm. Brought me back to the fire arm debate and why would anyone need a gun. We don't know the threats by name but we know the threats exsist.

[SUBMAN1]

It was sarcasm. Brought me back to the fire arm debate and why would anyone need a gun. We don't know the threats by name but we know the threats exsist.

Thought so, but wasn't sure.

-S

[Godalmighty83]

Why would any nation, much less a European one, need nuclear weapons?

we are not in the same situation as mainland europe and current policies put us in a very different light to certain people then most eu members.

personnaly i would have been happy with either

-spend the 20 billion on new nukes

or

-spend the same 20 billion on boosting the armed forces.

dont want to see that money wander off to a different department, (iam sure the scottish parliment could think of a new building or two to waste it)

[STEED]

Why would any nation, much less a European one, need nuclear weapons?

Simple - deterrance. France
-S

Are old enemy, good point. ;)

[Godalmighty83]

hands up in favour of a pre-emptive strike....

:rock:

:arrgh!:

[ASWnut101]

On who?


I'll put my hand up!:D

[STEED]

Nuke France and we will have world peace. ;)

[SUBMAN1]

Nuke France and we will have world peace. ;)

Can I come over and watch? :D

[STEED]

Nuke France and we will have world peace. ;)

Can I come over and watch? :D

Of course you can don't forget your camera. :lol:

[Godalmighty83]

[al murray]

the eiffel tower...what does that tell you eh? it tells you that the french had a load of iron lying around and didn't build a battleship [/al murray]

[fatty]

Wasn't it just decided to keep half of the Royal Navy in mothball? This seems like a strange way to be spending money.

[SUBMAN1]

We shouldn't pick on the French too much. Besides the global scandals lately like the food for oil programs, selling French made weaponry to Iraq in 2000's, etc., they aren't all bad.

-S

[waste gate]

Wasn't it just decided to keep half of the Royal Navy in mothball? This seems like a strange way to be spending money.

How would you spend the money? Is protecting the homeland not a priority/

[STEED]

We shouldn't pick on the French too much. Besides the global scandals lately like the food for oil programs, selling French made weaponry to Iraq in 2000's, etc., they aren't all bad.

-S

You haven't got them for a neighbour. :lol:

Frogs legs and snails wrapped in smelly cheese. :shifty:

[Kpt. Kozloff]

You haven't got them for a neighbour. :lol:

Frogs legs and snails wrapped in smelly cheese. :shifty:


But the wine!!!! Oooh la la!!! Irresistible.... you just can't beat it.....

[ASWnut101]

They just put cocaine in the wine. That's why it's so good. :yep:

[fatty]

Wasn't it just decided to keep half of the Royal Navy in mothball? This seems like a strange way to be spending money.

How would you spend the money? Is protecting the homeland not a priority/

No doubt, otherwise I wouldn't be on this forum :rock:

I'd put the money back into the ships that have been / are going to be mothballed. The upcoming fleet cuts are supposed to save £250 million yet the .U.K government is prepared to drop at least £15 billion to replace these subs which are still newer than most of the Ohio-class?

IMHO it's more important to maintain a peak capacity of power projection, in-land strike, and amphib ops against uncooperative states like Iran than to sit idly until the worst scenario - they employ a nuclear device and you must retaliate in kind.

If the Vanguards are going to be in that serious shape, then perhaps it's worth it to rely on the U.S. for nuclear deterrence for a couple of years until the whole Royal Navy is sorted out. There's nothing wrong with that.

[waste gate]

Wasn't it just decided to keep half of the Royal Navy in mothball? This seems like a strange way to be spending money.

How would you spend the money? Is protecting the homeland not a priority/

No doubt, otherwise I wouldn't be on this forum :rock:

I'd put the money back into the ships that have been / are going to be mothballed. The upcoming fleet cuts are supposed to save £250 million yet the .U.K government is prepared to drop at least £15 billion to replace these subs which are still newer than most of the Ohio-class?

IMHO it's more important to maintain a peak capacity of power projection, in-land strike, and amphib ops against uncooperative states like Iran than to sit idly until the worst scenario - they employ a nuclear device and you must retaliate in kind.

If the Vanguards are going to be in that serious shape, then perhaps it's worth it to rely on the U.S. for nuclear deterrence for a couple of years until the whole Royal Navy is sorted out. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not one to get involved in the internal politics of other nations. That being said, a surface fleet is much more vulnerable than a sub-surface fleet. Since WWII Britain has not deployed a large surface fleet. I am certainly not one to say that power projection is not important. Yet it seams to me that Britain is looking at what, based on the current world situation, will give it the most effective deterrent and first strick options. The cost of resurrecting, maintaining in battle ready condition, and deploying surface ships in a capable number, is cost prohibitive to a nation that has traded 'swords for plough shares'. Given a limited tax base, which wants to grant itself social benefits at the expense of national security.........well you know.

[Flanker15]

Nuclear weapons: the most pointless money hole in history. You build them because another country has them which means another country will want to build them. All they do is sit there waiting to be stolen or go off accidently, if the governments of the world had any brains they'd remove them from existance. The money would be far better invested in medical research.

[Letum]

I very much dislike nukes.
However, I see no other way to best prevent their use than to have mutualy assured destruction. Did anyone see WilliamHauge's speach in the commons yesterday?

if the governments of the world had any brains they'd remove them from existance. The money would be far better invested in medical research.

You can not un-invent them. If everyone got rid of them than if someone made one that country could hold the world to ransom.

[The Avon Lady]

You can not un-invent them. If everyone got rid of them than if someone made one that country could hold the world to ransom.
Plus Captain America is dead. :oops:

[Oberon]

I'm glad this got pushed through, though I do ponder just why the Vanguards need replacing so urgently? As already commented, they're younger than the Ohio class, probably as quiet as an Ohio too. I recall the switch over from Polaris to Trident, with John Major at the controls of a Resolution SSBN during a news report. Now considering these girls were built in the 1960s and decommed in the 1990s, that's a good lifespan.
The Vanguards were built in the 1990s, with the last boat making her maiden patrol in 2001...so the latest Vanguard isn't even ten years old yet!! Hell, even Vanguard herself is only about fourteen years old!
They are one of the most modern SSBN classes around!

Is it because the D5 refurb will make the Trident missiles bigger, thus requiring extra missile space?

I just don't get it...to be honest, the money spent on building new SSBNs could be better used in the carrier air arm IMHO.

[Letum]

I'm glad this got pushed through, though I do ponder just why the Vanguards need replacing so urgently? As already commented, they're younger than the Ohio class, probably as quiet as an Ohio too. I recall the switch over from Polaris to Trident, with John Major at the controls of a Resolution SSBN during a news report. Now considering these girls were built in the 1960s and decommed in the 1990s, that's a good lifespan.
The Vanguards were built in the 1990s, with the last boat making her maiden patrol in 2001...so the latest Vanguard isn't even ten years old yet!! Hell, even Vanguard herself is only about fourteen years old!
They are one of the most modern SSBN classes around!

Is it because the D5 refurb will make the Trident missiles bigger, thus requiring extra missile space?

I just don't get it...to be honest, the money spent on building new SSBNs could be better used in the carrier air arm IMHO.

The Vanguards have a far shorter lifespan than the Ohio class. The current timetable for the next gen. subs leaves only a year free to account for delays before the first Vanguards need to be removed from there service (accounting for a 5 year extension to the service time).

[Oberon]

Wonder why the Vanguards have such a short life-span? Were they rushed into production to fit the Trident missiles being shipped in? Let's hope the next SSBNs have a longer lifespan.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I'm not one to get involved in the internal politics of other nations. That being said, a surface fleet is much more vulnerable than a sub-surface fleet.

True, but the surface fleet has far more flexibility and presence. Besides, they are building SSBNs, not SSNs.

Since WWII Britain has not deployed a large surface fleet.

You sure? Sure, it definitely wasn't as large as the glory days, but the British fleet IIRC ain't exactly small (unless you compare it to superpowers).

I am certainly not one to say that power projection is not important. Yet it seams to me that Britain is looking at what, based on the current world situation, will give it the most effective deterrent and first strick options.

Unless you think a nuclear war would happen, the Trident is neither a deterrent nor a first strike weapon. It is a hunk of wasted money set aside for insurance against a historically uber-low prob event. Britain can only pay that insurance at the cost of what's left of its presence (pretty much).

I'd say if they MUST have a sub-based nuclear deterrent, they should go with one of the alternative plans that was proposed against the Vanguard subs - stuff a pair of nuclear armed Tomahawks on each SSN (with more to go on crisis). This should produce a credible threat against most powers, while still leaving them with the flex to do something.

[SUBMAN1]

You can not un-invent them. If everyone got rid of them than if someone made one that country could hold the world to ransom. Plus Captain America is dead. :oops:

Don't make me laugh! :lol:

[STEED]

I rather have nukes to hit back if we have to, if we are to be wiped out then we should go down fighting and wiped them out who started it all. I know it's a no win situation but why should they who start it get away with it.

[MadMike]

Deterence works-

http://www.geocities.com/usaf463/00000003.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/usaf463/Bruch-17.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/USS_George_Washington_%28SSBN-598%29.jpg/800px-USS_George_Washington_%28SSBN-598%29.jpg

Yours, Mike

[XabbaRus]

I think it is as much about keeping a skills base as it is replacing the v boats.

The vboats will be start being replaced around 2025, so that means almost 30 years service. Also don't these boats have the once only nuke reactor that doesn't need refuelling during its life time.

What a lot of people seem to forget is that the v-boats and the industry needed to support and build them provide a lot of jobs and money.

Take Faslane. The SNP would love to shut that down if Scotland got independence but what about the large and I mean large number of people who rely on it.

House prices there are 3rd highest in the country, if there were no nuke subs the place would be another slum land.

I think it is the right decision to start designing the new subs as well as build the carriers. Once you have lost the capability to make these things it is nigh on impossible and more costly to get it back.

[bradclark1]

I think it is as much about keeping a skills base as it is replacing the v boats.
Thats the thinking here at Electric Boat also. Their will always be at least one a year built just to keep the people and the jobs.