News1 min ago
A £350 million start on the next generation of nuclear deterrant submarines...
Which of our enemies are these submarines supposed to deter?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think you're missing the point MFB
This isn't about nuclear disarmament it's about nuclear submarines.
We don't need hugely expensive nuclear submarines to sit at the bottom of the ocean to deter Iran from launching a devastating first strike wiping out all UK infrastructure
Like cavalry officers in the trenches- you're fighting last war
This isn't the cold war
This isn't about nuclear disarmament it's about nuclear submarines.
We don't need hugely expensive nuclear submarines to sit at the bottom of the ocean to deter Iran from launching a devastating first strike wiping out all UK infrastructure
Like cavalry officers in the trenches- you're fighting last war
This isn't the cold war
I'm not talking about disarmament, where did you get that from? Apart from my refereence to an earlier post.
Submarines are a deterrant, just what is required. Iran may get a missile but it will have to launch from a fixed source, at least initially, so a sub is a good deterrant.
And what is 350m when we are looking at 16Billin extra in contributions to the EU? (for nothing except to appease the eurosceptics)
Submarines are a deterrant, just what is required. Iran may get a missile but it will have to launch from a fixed source, at least initially, so a sub is a good deterrant.
And what is 350m when we are looking at 16Billin extra in contributions to the EU? (for nothing except to appease the eurosceptics)
Where did I get it from?
Your post:
//DJ and all his extremists mates have got it and you have not? //
Or were you epecting Iran to build nuclear submarines?
The point of a submarine is that it is very difficult to detect and hit.
They made sense (of a sort) when the USSR was a threat with the potential to take out any land based sites.
If Iran does develop a nuclear weapon they will be very limited - a nuclear submarine facility is definately fighting the last war.
Besides which Iran needs a nuclear weapon for defensive means - It can see US invasions of countries it doesn't like. Having a nuclear weapon makes it immune to that in the same way that North Korea is
The idea of some great East West exchange of nukes is fanciful nonsense and diverts military spending from more effective projects.
I think you may be falling for naval propaganda - they are very keen to keep them because it keeps them important
Your post:
//DJ and all his extremists mates have got it and you have not? //
Or were you epecting Iran to build nuclear submarines?
The point of a submarine is that it is very difficult to detect and hit.
They made sense (of a sort) when the USSR was a threat with the potential to take out any land based sites.
If Iran does develop a nuclear weapon they will be very limited - a nuclear submarine facility is definately fighting the last war.
Besides which Iran needs a nuclear weapon for defensive means - It can see US invasions of countries it doesn't like. Having a nuclear weapon makes it immune to that in the same way that North Korea is
The idea of some great East West exchange of nukes is fanciful nonsense and diverts military spending from more effective projects.
I think you may be falling for naval propaganda - they are very keen to keep them because it keeps them important
Since the OP hasn't bothered to provide a link, how do we know what he is talking about?
What are these next generation submarines, because this is the latest and a pretty awesome vessel it seems?
http://
What are these next generation submarines, because this is the latest and a pretty awesome vessel it seems?
http://
A link might have been helpful, but I think it pretty clear that Hammond was announcing spend on the successor subs to carry the Trident missiles, currently carried by the Vanguard class subs.
The central point remains - do we need to spend billions, nevermind this 350 million, continuing with the Trident programme, a programme that is essentially a relic of the cold war "mutually assured destruction" scenarios. We are spending billions on an increasingly unlikely nuclear ICBM exhange, money that could be spent much more productively elsewhere.
In times of austerity, swords into ploughshares ought to be high on the agenda. And perhaps this govt could use some of the money to equip or latest aircraft carriers with something useful, like, you know, aircraft. Scrapping harriers and long distance sensor/scanning was a short sighted consequence of a rushed Strategic Defence Review.
The central point remains - do we need to spend billions, nevermind this 350 million, continuing with the Trident programme, a programme that is essentially a relic of the cold war "mutually assured destruction" scenarios. We are spending billions on an increasingly unlikely nuclear ICBM exhange, money that could be spent much more productively elsewhere.
In times of austerity, swords into ploughshares ought to be high on the agenda. And perhaps this govt could use some of the money to equip or latest aircraft carriers with something useful, like, you know, aircraft. Scrapping harriers and long distance sensor/scanning was a short sighted consequence of a rushed Strategic Defence Review.
Whoever the enemy is you can bet it will come from Europe or the Middle East. In the event of a nuclear war its not the US being hit but Britain. Its just been released the Soviets had nuclear missiles aimed solely at Britain from Eastern Germany during the cold war. This was at the same time when the US had the Cuba blockade. They forgot poor old England.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.