That's ok, but will you leave Orwell out of it? :p

Awww, but I liked his Mercury theatre adaptation of 'The War of the Worlds'. :cry:

:lol:

pour Qoi? Are subs likely to be attacked with peanuts?:o

Makes sense to me. When you're feeding 100+ men three tiomes a day (more often with separate watches, innit?), you can't be that careful. peanut allergies are very severe things, and nuts are used in a lot of dishes.

Taking someone with a very severe allergy on board......don't make sense.

unless of course his peanut allergy is extrememly mild and I'm completely wrong :)

They probably figure it's cheaper for the US Navy to protect trade routes etc.

Sort of like how the US depended on the Royal Navy to enforce the Monroe Doctrine back in the day.

Now the Soviets will realise the foolishness of all the money they wasted on developing the supercavitating Shkval torpedo with the peanut warhead - muhahahaha!

"I have with me incontrovertible proof that Iraq possesses several Peanuts of Mass Destruction and intends to grow more."

Sure, the underfunding's critical, but this is not so bad. The Americans have developed a nice tradition of "hot-shipping" for decades with their ballistic missile subs.

Still, In a few years, the Brits will say "If we had a choice to command the Russian Navy or ours, we'd command the Russian Navy. At least they are trying to keep it running..."

The US is way ahead of them with the SSN Jimmy Carter.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9...anutsubfh5.jpg

No comments from the peanut gallery. :roll:

All any country really needs these days are a few subs with nukes and maybe an aircraft carrier or two if they want to mix it up elsewhere.

:rotfl:

Really a TLAM equipped SSN and a CVBG is good for projecting power to foreign coastlines, the UK's got that kinda right, we have the TLAMs on the Traffies but our CVNs are still a bit bjorked without air cover, even if we do have A/G ability on them it does leave them rather vulnerable.

As it stands at the moment, a large fleet isn't really needed, a mobile rapid strike force is what's needed, and that's something CVBGs and SSNs with TLAMs are good at...that's one of the reasons there's been such a furore over the Vanguards in the UK, a lot of people (primarily in the Green house and CND groups, naturally) have stated that we don't need SSBNs...and at the moment, yeah, we don't really...Russia is our friend, Chinas nuclear missile boat never leaves dock, Iran would have difficulties firing a ICBM from a Kilo (though I'd pay good money to see them try) and India and Pakistan would probably nuke each other before sending anything our way. Since we are no longer under any major obligation to protect loads of overseas colonies, and no longer needed to plug the GIUK gap against a fleet of Russian SS and SSNs pouring through to hit the merchant lines, we've cut back on naval forces to put money into the RAF and Army...this is a short-sighted view however and should any major naval power in Europe or Eastern Europe, turn hostile...then we'll be in the brown stuff pretty rapidly. After all, a navy protected us for well over 200 years, and while its importance has waned some what since the evolution of the air arm, it's still a vital part of any small island nation, and Britain (despite what it likes to think) IS a small island nation, and we need a decent navy to compliment our air force, and we need to stop overstretching ourselves. Soon.

Anything else is just peanuts. :lol: