![]() |
England to get rid of Tridents?
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...530766,00.html
Interesting article. What would they replace it with, if anything? |
Well we have plans in place now for replacements hanging around the date of 2014, nothing has been said to what the replacements are but they have said replacements should be happening.
So no we are not getting rid of them. |
I thought the gripper had gone long ago.http://photos.airliners.net/photos/s.../5/1065569.jpg
[IMG]http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/mus/uk/dehav/mos4.jpg[/IMG] http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tec...ikon)A.N222868 |
This one came up briefly in my thread Blair force one, here's a recap of the post.
Quote:
|
England (right now, anyway) doesn't really need a strategic deterrent. I'm not speaking ideologically -- I'm speaking realistically. Katie bar the door for whomever flips one at England. There would be an American response, by which I mean ICBM's, with or without England's consent. Same would go for Australia.
So, the reality of the situation is that Australia and England just don't need them, and I'm not really pissed about them MOOCHING off us. :rotfl: |
Quote:
What happens if nuclear retaliation for a variety of reasons goes against the us strategic interests (in the future) ? Its a very very big bet to put all your eggs in the same basket, and giving the us that kind if political power over the united kingdom is just that. De Gaulle understood that over 40 years ago, and was one of the reasons why he kicked Nato HQ out of France, together with the dual key control on nuclear missiles (as was the case in italy, turkey, england). |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.