VinnieK Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 "Today's British submarines need US generated computer software, some supported by US satellites, to provide navigational, weather and targeting data." "If Britain retains a US sourced nuclear capability for the twenty first century then it is not reasonable to expect that Britain could use it in circumstances where the US were either actively neutral as in 1940 or actively opposed as in 1956 at Suez, let alone where the US were an adversary. Such circumstances are as undesirable as they are unlikely, and yet this is precisely the test that an independent force must pass to be worth the expenditure of financial and political capital." This analogy of Suez is problematic in that Britain would never use nuclear weaponry in a Suez style conflict, it would be counter productive and excessive. Questions of what if the US were to become an adversary ignore the fact that hostility between two nations ordinarily takes a relatively long time to develop to the stage where war is likely. If the US were to become an enemy, it, in all likelyhood, would only do so after a significant period of failed diplomacy and shifting trends in attitudes between the two countries, during which it would be expected that the UK would seek alternatives to Trident. What if... we went to war with a US client state? It's got to be remembered that nukes would only really be used in an 'all or nothing' conflict. It's unlikely that the U.S. would allow such a situation to develop between an ally and a client state, and if it did so (in favour of its client) this could surely only be a result of the US and UK drifting apart, diplomatically speaking, during which the UK would again probably review its policy regarding its deterrant. The only real danger we face as a result of this situation is if the U.K. woke up tomorrow to find the U.S. Navy sailing up the Thames, all guns blazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ermo Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 This analogy of Suez is problematic in that Britain would never use nuclear weaponry in a Suez style conflict, it would be counter productive and excessive. Questions of what if the US were to become an adversary ignore the fact that hostility between two nations ordinarily takes a relatively long time to develop to the stage where war is likely. If the US were to become an enemy, it, in all likelyhood, would only do so after a significant period of failed diplomacy and shifting trends in attitudes between the two countries, during which it would be expected that the UK would seek alternatives to Trident. The Suez analogy wasn't example of type or scale of conflict, it was an example of UK Government (& others) policy running at odds with US. but anyway if 25BN has to be spent on the Armed Forces, then spend it in the right place. A decent Infantry weapon as the SA80 is crap... accurate yes, but its design is totally flawed A working field radio/comms system Body/Vehicle armour Heavy Airlift capability for logistics etc Sort the Chinook debacle out I mean can you name any other country that is totally reliant on US assistance in order to run its nuclear deterrent? France = Home grown China = Home grown Russia = Home grown India = Home grown (with Israeli assistance) Pakistan = Home grown (with North Korean assistance) North Korea = Home grown (with limited Chinese assistance) Israel = Home grown (with limited outside assistance from various sources) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 According to the BBC item the missile system and submarines need replacing by 2024. But in 2023 they'll still be okay? Aren't the missiles, at least, kept in mint condition? Or are they gradually deteriorating? I wonder why the system can't be refurbished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 According to the BBC item the missile system and submarines need replacing by 2024.But in 2023 they'll still be okay? Aren't the missiles, at least, kept in mint condition? Or are they gradually deteriorating? I wonder why the system can't be refurbished? Your brother will probably be able to give you an answer on this one Simon. Missile systems are essentially just that ... a system. The system includes the submarine so if the submarine is knackered it isnt really possible to maintain a stae of readiness of the missiles in isolation. [hope that makes sense] During my time on Resolution we were frequently unable to maintain the desirable situation of one Polaris boat always at sea. This was entirely due to the age of the boats at that time. The missiles worked perfectly well but we werent always in a position to deliver them as the boats were knackered. Hope that clarifies not confuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I've voted 'yes' at the moment, even though I have strong reservations about it. There is still the feeling that some people in Britain try to maintain the illusion that it is still a world power and feel the need to assert this by having a nuclear 'deterrent' (entirely independent or otherwise). Although the country may, currently, be able to maintain its status in this respect, the likelihood is that it won't be able to do so for very much longer. Ultimately, GB's role (other than becoming America's largest aircraft carrier) must be to continue to set the standard for the quality of it's forces and, as Ermo has said, to ensure that those forces are equipped and supported to the highest possible standards. If it comes to the point where it is no longer possible to find the finances for both then I would suggest that the latter option will become the better one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 I would have to vote 'NO'. Britain has already signed a treaty requiring it and the other nuclear powers to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Any upgrade is simply a move in the other direction and contravenes such a treaty. It would be hypocritical for Britain to embark on this upgrade whilst simultaneously putting pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions. i Besides having nuclear weapons is unlikely to benefit us strategically. We are no longer living in the Cold War, so far the threats to national security have come from terrorist organisations and not other nuclear powers. It unlikely that expensive submarines would be the upgrade in any case given the main purpose for their use was for counter-force. If new nuclear weapons are to be produced they would be more likely to be implanted terra firma. I think, if more money is going to be wasted on defense, that more should be spent on conventional arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.