Britain could cut nuclear stockpile, Gordon Brown says ....

#4
2 things immediately spring to mind here:

The Parliamentary Labour Party being chock-full of ex-and not-so-ex-CND'ers;

Gordon Brown desperately trying to deep throat The-One-Out-Of-Whose-Chocolate-Starfish-Light-Emerges, since he wants to do the same to the US stockpile.
 
#5
What I've seen mentioned (and bLiar mooted it when he was still in charge) was cutting the number of subs to 3. Now, I may be an idiot, but I thought we had 4 ssbn's in order to provide 24hr/365 days cover allowing for refits and maintenance and all that sort of stuff.

Sounds to me like Cyclops is wanting to cut spending, but try to make it look as if he's saving the fcuking world again.
 
#6
That mans treachery know no limits.
In the day and age of Nuclear equipped luntics Brown wants to give ours away?
Perhaps we ought to remember there is an awful lot of places in the world where the UK ranks alongside the devil himself in popularity contests, some of these places already have nukes and others are working hard to develop them.
Just because he cold war is over doesn't mean we don't need the threat of MAD anymore.

I suppose this is what happens when we have a cabinet filled with Communists and lunatics.
 
#7
doc80905 said:
Sounds to me like Cyclops is wanting to cut spending, but try to make it look as if he's saving the fcuking world again.

DING! DING!!!

We have a winner!
 
#8
ffs :roll:

nuclear armed lunatics are not going to be deterred by MAD because there nuts or they believe there going to paradise :roll:
The cold war is over are dubious belief we are some sort of world power that china or Pakistan or North Korea are going to be threat to is stupid :twisted:

CND are a bunch of kunts but buying trident to deter who exactly :? .
Name a state that is preparing to target multiple ... ICBMs at us and has defensive capability or rapidly moving targets that a trident style nuclear weapon will be needed to defeat?

there more important kit we need than the ability to destroy a city on the otherside of the world.
 
#9
I don't support cutting the stockpile, but if he's going to do it then I hope he cuts the number of warheads per sub as opposed to decommissioning a boat- it's important we maintain a constant deterrent patrol.
 
#10
It's not who the threat is now, it's whether the threat may come back in the next 25/50/100 years. It's only 15 years since the end of the Cold War, and 20 years ago if he told strategist about what the situation is now they would have laughed at you.

Once you've got rid of nuclear capability you have then got a 5-10 year lead time to get it back if you need it again. In such a case, it is probably cheaper to keep it than to mag-to-grid and to try to get it back later.

However, if you know for a fact that we will never need nuclear capability again, can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to put some money on the 3:30 at Chepstow...
 
#11
you could argue are nuclear capability wasn't really needed in the cold war if it had kicked off the UK and Frances contribution would have been the sprinkles on the cake.

leasing missiles off the states its hardly independent and with the US looking to Asia theres no guarantees it would remain viable.
a few nuclear tipped cruise missiles seem more than enough deterrence for the time being.
worrying about a future 20 years down the line while we haven't got enough cash to fight the conflict we are in now
 
#12
brighton hippy said:
Leasing missiles off the states its hardly independent and with the US looking to Asia theres no guarantees it would remain viable.
Say what? The US want us to remain a force in Europe, and the French of all people really dont want to be the only nation left with a Nuclear capability. There isnt any reason why they would refuse to service the Missiles.

A few nuclear tipped cruise missiles seem more than enough deterrence for the time being.
Range of Trident - 7,000 miles
Range of Tomahawk - 1,500 miles
Range of Storm Shadow - 150 miles

As the number of Subs in the next 10 years looks to be cut to just the 7 or 8 Astutes, what are you going to launch them off? Buy a few B52's from the US?

worrying about a future 20 years down the line while we haven't got enough cash to fight the conflict we are in now
Which is great, except that the MOD doesnt fund Afghanistan. The Treasury does.
 
#13
You're right we shouldn't be leasing, after all orbital bombardment systems with conventional warheads are still permitted under the terms of SALT II - so we should get some of our own Space Artillery programs on the go.

Russia's nuclear Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems were hidden under tarpaulin in 1983, but as they stated a few years back when Iran & North Korea started out on their own ICBM programs, "watch out, all the defence systems are still active".

A bit bizarre considering every bit of NK & Iranian nuclear know how was transferred directly from Russian Nuclear University with the caveat, "don't you go building no bombs now".

IMHO for Britain to remove itself from the club of openly non conventional players would prove to be one of the biggest strategic blunders that we've made since Maggies Government scuttled the Fleet just before we needed it to liberate the Falklands.

Odds on, some upgraded Nuclear Skinny Trident + Nuke Stormshadow + Nuclear Tipped Torpedoes to cover this century will be wending their way to some Top Secret Places some point soon; despite them all.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#14
Personally, I don't think we need to replace Trident. Why opt for a Harrods solution when one from the cornershop will do just as well? ICBMs are the solution when you really, absolutely just have to obliterate every major city in a continent in a first strike but you can achieve deterrence much more cheaply with nuke cruise missiles and air-dropped bombs: it only needs a couple to get through and you've made your point.
 
#15
Surely Brownski can see the sense.

If we look big and hard because of the Military Hardware we have we don't have to be big and hard because nobody well test us.

Nukes are a comfort blanket we can't afford to lose in an age when the world is falling to sh1t all around us.
 
#16
Closet_Jibber said:
Surely Brownski can see the sense.

If we look big and hard because of the Military Hardware we have we don't have to be big and hard because nobody well test us.

Nukes are a comfort blanket we can't afford to lose in an age when the world is falling to sh1t all around us.

No, no, no you are wrong, Brighton Hippy just told us so above
For what its worth I suspect the point that Brown is trying to cut spending while looking like the savior of the world (again) is pretty close to the mark.
 
#17
brighton hippy said:
you could argue are nuclear capability wasn't really needed in the cold war if it had kicked off the UK and Frances contribution would have been the sprinkles on the cake.

leasing missiles off the states its hardly independent and with the US looking to Asia theres no guarantees it would remain viable.
a few nuclear tipped cruise missiles seem more than enough deterrence for the time being.
worrying about a future 20 years down the line while we haven't got enough cash to fight the conflict we are in now
Could you please learn to f**king write in English, and that includes f**king full stops, coma's and all that jazz.

Reading that dribble gave me a f**king headache...
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
We need to have the capability to turn a large city into a sheet of glass - end of.

MAD is what it is. "If you screw with us, you will not profit from the experience, you will take you and yours back to the stone age, so, don't basically."

Maybe we don't need Trident to do that. What we DO need is the ability to protect that ability from all comers.
 
#19
who are we exactly trying to deter?
Russia why there too busy selling us gas and other stuff.
Iran they don't have a nuke .
pakistan with india and china as neighbours they won't be bothering us.
Israel see Iran.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top