Brown in favour of updating Trident!!!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Agent_Smith, Jun 22, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Finally he's managed to find his nuts and actually make an adult decision, instead of pandering to the quasi-commies in his midst.


    Note the last paragraph! Could this be a politically driven statement rather than a well thought out strategic decision?? :wink:
    telegraph
     
  2. Smithy wrote:

    Note the last paragraph! Could this be a politically driven statement rather than a well thought out strategic decision??

    The most blatant bit of electioneering I've seen in a long time. Mind you, anything that p*sses of Bruce Kent gets my support!!
     
  3. You don't think that £25 billion (and does anyone want to put money on the project coming in at or below that price?) might be better spent elsewhere in HM Forces?

    It's a multi-billion pound vanity project.
     
  4. No doubt we'll see another of those strategic reviews regarding the basing/refitting/assembly of the new system.

    Back in the 60s Polaris was going to be based in either Falmouth (ideal, close to the continental shelf in the western approaches) or Faslane (not ideal, accessed by a narrow and shallow channel that the Soviets could easily block).

    For political reasons the boats went to Faslane (Labour constituency y'see).

    So, will Boredom Brown try to relocate the new boats' base or maintenance to Rosyth, to make ammends for the Tory government moving the refitting complex from Rosyth to Plymouth?

    And who might the MP for Rosyth be? Step forward Gordon Brown!

    The new carriers, by the way, will be built in sections in shipyards across the UK and assembled in, you guessed it, Rosyth. If Rover had decided to make bits of its cars around the UK and then transport those bits for assembly in the middle of nowhere they'd go out of business because of the costs. Oh, er, hang on.......
     
  5. Should spend the money on updating/replacing the TRISTARS!
     
  6. And you don't think that once in power this idea will be dropped in oh, I don't know, 15 ns?

    Or maybe he's actually learnt from Michael Foot's 1983 "we want to surrender to our friends the Soviets" fiasco?
     
  7. If you assume that we're not going to entirely give up nuclear capability.
    And I'd say that that is a very safe assumption.

    The safest and most effective system from the deterrance point of view is an SLBM system. No other available system offers the virtual absoulute assurance of an unacceptable level of retaliatory capability against any enemy.

    Does such an enemy exist today?
    No.

    But the development and lead-in time of such a complex system is measured in decades. And you cannot state that in 15/20 years from now we will not be faced with an unfriendly nation or power bloc with considerable capability for power projection.
     
  8. Rubbish Crabster. Ultimately as a small nation of 60 million souls, nukes are the 'Force Multiplier' that guarantee our independence. Also without them we'd be out of the UNSC without touching the ground..and the French would still have them!

    So unless you have a crystal ball we need a nuclear deterrent and those carriers, we'll find the money.
     
  9. They are definately needed. Who knows what may happen in the future? God forbid that one day we would have to rely on the USA because we didn't invest in our own nuclear deterent capability.
     
  10. Whilst i do advocate more money on defence, what good are soldiers and tanks against a nuclear exchange?

    We need a 'detterent', and at the moment, the only one of sufficient magnitude happens to be a dose of instant sunshine. Yes it may be vanity (as in, "I'm in the 10 inch willy club'), but is it a price we can afford not to pay?
     
  11. Could I refer everyone to the 'Yes Prime Minister' episode where Jim Hacker, as the new PM, goes over to the MoD to have a look at the 'button'.

    Timeless observations about the need for conventional forces, but also that they need to be backed up by a big stick. Oh, and you'd better hope the PM doesn't get drunk and use the red phone as a joke.....

    Although, they only got through to the Kremlin once on the hotline, and the operator at the other end didn't seem to speak much english. :D
     
  12. When the likes of Iran, N Korea etc are developing Nukes, it would be an act of gross folly not to have the capability to deter. As for the location of the bases, I refer you all to the many posts on the break up of the UK. They will be built and based in England for we will be independent by then.
     
  13. Gents please tell me just WHO Britian is going to nuc.
    The politicians retain the nuc for the Seat on the UN Security Council, to THEM a Seat on the top table.
    john
     
  14. Who knows what will happen in the future?
     
  15. Anyone who in the near to middle distance poses a substantial threat to the national security (in the form of 'the bomb')

    It's very short sighted to claim that because we have no enemies now, we have no need for such a weapon...