5punk

Personally, whilst I can see appreciate the reasoning behind wanting a nuclear deterrent, I don't see that such an argument carries the same weight now as it did in the height of the cold war, and the cost of £100bn over 30 years is money that I believe would be better spent elsewhere/saved off the deficit. I just can't envisage the situation arising where we would actually need a nuclear weapon, and the kinds of people who are most likely to attack us these days won't be put off by us having them in any event.

This is possibly worth starting a new debate thread for, but not sure if we want to try and do them one at a time.

MOD EDIT: Split from election thread.

oh and that too. I'm completely torn over the Nuclear detterent. Everything in me says we need one, apart from logic, which says it's just a waste of money.

friznit wrote:

oh and that too. I'm completely torn over the Nuclear detterent. Everything in me says we need one, apart from logic, which says it's just a waste of money.

Presumably though not replacing Trident just means we'll keep using Trident, not scrap our nuclear arsenal altogether.I would think that more advanced systems in smaller quantities are likely to be safer and less expensive in the long run.

I feel odd about the "replacement for Trident" because I think those plans could be shelved.

It's weird but unless I've missed something none of them have mentioned that they've considered maintaining the current Trident program, which is what the USA are doing with their Trident missiles, they're extending their operational service life to 2040 apparently.

The first of our Trident carrying subs was only launched in 1993 after all, okay, it's coming up to 20 years old now, but the last boat is barely 10 years old. I'm sure there is a bit more life in that design yet.

The jist from the Tories and Labour is that if they don't put money in for a brand new system, we'll simply have no nuclear arsenal, which just isn't true.

I suppose I'd always assumed that a replacement was needed for Trident which is now long in the tooth, and therefore that no replacement would lead to not having nuclear weapons. The truth is clearly that I don't actually know the facts behind the different options, but I have my own opinion regarding the principle of nuclear weapons which is that I can't foresee a situation where they would be required, even as a deterrent if not to be dropped on someone.

I've always wondered about an 'independent nuclear deterrent', who are we deterring?

Nations who may harm us? Iran might fit that bill and they're still making bombs, ruled by dudes mad enough to not give a shit? China? With enough conventional, biological and chemical stockpiles to turn the planet into glass?

Or are we talking the eponymous Al-Qaeda? How the fuck do we nuke them?

We deter no-one to my mind, we don't even posture like we once did because there's no-one we can out muscle on our own. We could instead join South Africa in giving up its nukes.

We can save a lot of money by not buying something we will never use. We will never use it because of the stigma attached. We can drop as many conventional bombs as we want, but even one small tac nuke would send political as well as physical repercussions around the world. We will never use it because if it gets to that point humanity is doomed and as much shit goes on in the world I can see that happening, we like living too damn much.

I also see this for the navy, we can't afford huge fleets, so why not use our superior yachting skills to build specialist boats and beat others with brains, we sure as hell can't do brawn with our piddly fleet displacement.

We're no longer a great empire, I honestly don't think we can sustain the level of warring we do. And nukes are an expensive and high media attention place to start saving money.

That very nicely sums up my view.

.

amblin wrote: The question about capability extends further. By the same logic as we no longer need nuclear weaponry, we no longer need main battle tanks, or the eurofighter, or aircraft carriers, or rocket interceptors like the type 45s.

Mutually assured destruction doesn't apply to tanks or planes though.

.

amblin wrote:I've heard from the horses mouth of procurement requests sitting in the system longer than the whole of WW2

Triple that number and you'd be closer to the truth. It took us nearly 15 years just to replace a bloody radio.

There's about to be another Strategic Defence Review, which asks all those difficult questions about the future, then a bunch of people sit down and make some guesses, it gets lobbied to fuck by the heads of the armed services and the defence industry who have a vested interest in the MOD spending as much money on expensive toys as possible, then the politicians all make it up depening on who's constituency is going to benefit from the most jobs come election time. And I'm not joking, this is how it works.

Which is why we as a nation are currently tied into over 20 big projects costing nearly £36bill for cold war weapons that were obsolete 20 years ago - to name but a few: Astute, Eurofighter, Queen Elizabeth carriers, even Challenger 2 (albeit CR2 has been used in anger and proven mighty useful, if somewhat limited capability in the current operating environment)...and that's not including Trident. All of which is money that could otherwise be spent on the chaps getting shot to bits in Afghanistan so their helicopters don't fall out of the sky.

The real shitter is, in many cases we insisted on clauses in the joint contracts with other European nations to prevent them pulling out. Which means we can't either, without it costing even more. And working with Europe is bloody hard anyway cos the Yanks won't give us tech if it's going to a joint project with anyone else - and boy do we need that tech.

Trident options as you correctly surmise are indeed threefold: extend, replace or scrap. I'm mostly in favour of replace (airborne standoff TLAM-N for example. Cheap and simple, forget the subs and kiss goodbye to our last shipyard).

[Edited that last bit out, wrong thread ]

Oh, and in response to Amblin: the simple reason we can't do what you're wishing for is that we can't even come close to affording it. Look up the % of GDP spend on the Defence budget and compare it to the rest of Europe and USA sometime. It's eye watering what the Americans spend and even they complain they're under resourced.

.

Hang on, I'm going to have to untangle the nuclear/armed forced discussion here...

amblin wrote:More helicopters and hopefully a complete rethink on how they're managed (it's madness to have them spread across all 3 horses I think).
Less fast jets.

Or both horses. The RAF has been in decline for years. Every station I've been posted to has either closed, is about to close, or has been seriously considered for closing. Search and rescue is being civilianised, fighter squadrons are being disbanded, we've lost something like 20,000 personnel in the ten years I've served, and anything that is permanently UK based is being contracted out. What we're left with is our expeditionary horses (TLAs beginning with T and ending in W - TCW, TPW, TSW, all Tactical something wing). Even UK based stations have been organised into expeditionary air wings (EAWs).
This has the first effect of pissing everyone off, because where once we were in theatre for, say, four months out of every four years, we're now away for six months every three years. It's less than the army do, but that's why we don't join the army and it's catching up. Which brings me to my next point. The whole service is being brought into line with the army. From the length of detachments right down to the actual ethos, we're being turned into a fighting horse first and tradesmen second. The distinction is becoming smaller and smaller, and many cynics (myself included) have been predicting the RAF being eaten by the army eventually. This year it was announced that the future of the RAF is under review, pretty much proving us right.
That aside, the Typhoon is capable of close air support and I believe it is due to be (if it hasn't already been) deployed to theatre for that role. Helicopters are all well and good, but a fast jet can and do put munitions on the enemy faster at longer ranges. It's possible that it's all American stuff doing that at the moment though, I'm not sure what we've got out there fast jet wise.

So I agree that it probably is going that way, but it's very short sighted. Just because the Taliban don't have air assets, doesn't mean the next threat won't have.

Nicely Chopped.

All the things Amblin mentioned would be great for us, providing specialist task horses with amazing equipment to war zones would allow us to punch above our weight and suffer less losses.

I've never seen the point in blowing billions on things like large capital ships, we can't buy enough to provide adequate cover and each one is crippled by beuracratic decision.

I think diversification is the key.

.

Dog Pants wrote:It's possible that it's all American stuff doing that at the moment though, I'm not sure what we've got out there fast jet wise.

We have Harriers out there.

Ty aka Sir Die Aloty wrote:
We have Harriers out there.

Tornados are are doing CAS, they've deployed to Afghan, and live in Tents. TAKE THAT SAMSONITE AIRFORCE! HOW DO YOU LIKE IT!

Love, Ex-MudForce