We need nukes says CMD.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Biscuits_Brown, Apr 4, 2013.

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. Doesn't mention whether he thinks the Norks can be ready in 45 minutes....

    David Cameron has issued a stark warning against any move to abandon Britain's Trident deterrent in the face of the growing nuclear threat from North Korea and Iran.

    The Prime Minister said it would be "foolish" to leave the country defenceless at a time when the "highly unpredictable and aggressive" regime in North Korea was developing ballistic missiles which could eventually threaten Europe.
    His comments came as the United States said that it was moving an advanced missile system to the Pacific island of Guam as Pyongyang continued to ratchet up the rhetoric against South Korea and its American ally.
    Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Cameron said such "evolving threats" underlined the need for the UK to maintain the ultimate deterrent.
    "We need our nuclear deterrent as much today as we did when a previous British Government embarked on it over six decades ago. Of course, the world has changed dramatically. The Soviet Union no longer exists. But the nuclear threat has not gone away," he said. "In terms of uncertainty and potential risk it has, if anything, increased."
    Mr Cameron said that Iran was continuing to defy the will of the international community over its nuclear programme while North Korea may already be building a nuclear arsenal.
    "The highly unpredictable and aggressive regime in North Korea recently conducted its third nuclear test and could already have enough fissile material to produce more than a dozen nuclear weapons," he said. "Last year North Korea unveiled a long-range ballistic missile which it claims can reach the whole of the United States. If this became a reality it would also affect the whole of Europe, including the UK."
    He went on: "Does anyone seriously argue that it would be wise for Britain, faced with this evolving threat today, to surrender our deterrent? Only the retention of our independent deterrent makes clear to any adversary that the devastating cost of an attack on the UK or its allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain."
    His comments underline the Conservatives' commitment to a like-for-like replacement for the ageing Trident submarine fleet while their Liberal Democrat coalition partners are seeking a cheaper alternative. The future of Trident is also likely to feature in next year's looming Scottish independence referendum campaign, with the SNP insisting that it would not allow nuclear missiles to be based in an independent Scotland.
    Shadow defence minister Kevan Jones said it was "absolutely right and necessary" for the UK to retain an independent nuclear deterrent, but it must take into account the costs involved. "World events demonstrate that in an unpredictable era our country needs the ultimate security guarantee," he said. "The precise nature of the deterrent must be judged on meeting military capability requirements and cost."

    Cameron warning of nuclear threat - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk
  2. So what'd happen if an independent jockistan went nuke free? If they got glassed by the nasty men would we tell 'em "I told you so" 'n insist they kept the fizzing clouds on their side of the border?
  3. skid2

    skid2 LE Book Reviewer

    Heavens. WMDs this could mean trouble.

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
  4. It seems that the Norks have a missle that is, theoretically, capable of reaching the northern most bit of Scotland.

    Time to nuke 'em till they glow and then shoot them in the dark!
  5. "The Prime Minister said it would be "foolish" to leave the country defenceless". Quite, particularly by reducing the Armed Forces to little more than a token militia.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. All you need if you've got big missiles, innit?
  7. Israel has no expeditionary warfare capability.
  8. What's the point. They're not ours, and we can't use them on our own.
  9. Don't get you?
  10. The missiles aren't, but possession is nine tenths of the law.

    We can use them any time we like. Entirely alone.
  11. IDF is very much a defence force, no amphibious capability or blue water navy. Relies on its nuclear umbrella to keep the well tooled up restless natives playing at home.
  12. Oh right. Sorry.
  13. if cmd says we need nukes then we probably dont.
  14. Of course probably not needing them is not the same as not needing them, it could even mean might need them.

    On balance I'd rather have the stick than trust the nutter.
  15. I think we need a nuclear component BUT I dont think we should replace Trident (yet) some form of SLEP must be available for them.... after all nuclear confrontation against a soveriegn country is much less likely (lunatic Norks excluded!) the most likely nuclear scenarion is some insurgent group with a dirty bomb and our nukes would be useless then, better to direct defence budgets earmarked for Trident Replacement into maintaining/improving convention forces predominantly tasked for COIN (or is it "asymentrical warfare"these days?)