12-05-2016, 09:24 PM
11
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
I'm afraid that so many people fail to realise that the strength of nuclear weapons is their deterrent effect.There is infinitely more chance of someone actually using these weapons if their perceived enemies do not have them!
It would be nice if there were no nuclear weapons at all but, unfortunately, it is impossible to 'uninvent' something.
13-05-2016, 07:40 AM
12
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by JBR
->
I'm afraid that so many people fail to realise that the strength of nuclear weapons is their deterrent effect.There is infinitely more chance of someone actually using these weapons if their perceived enemies do not have them!
It would be nice if there were no nuclear weapons at all but, unfortunately, it is impossible to 'uninvent' something.
13-05-2016, 09:13 AM
13
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by JBR
->
With this I completely agree.What I don't fully understand is how we can possess our own SLBM submarines, which are under our complete control, yet have missiles on board which, apparently, are not under our complete control.
I believe that the targeting data are set by us, but what control does America have over whether or not we can fire them?
If we should decide to tell the Yanks that we are taking full control, and make the necessary adjustments to the firing controls in the missiles, what could they do about it? Refuse to supply spare parts or assist with maintenance?
I believe that we have the necessary skills to make our own ballistic missiles, which we have definitely done in the past. We certainly have the necessary skills to make our own nuclear warheads, which we already possess anyway.
I suspect that if push came to shove, the Yanks would see it our way and remove any limitations as to who has control of them.
And if not, perhaps we can buy them from the Frogs!
You are barking totally up the wrong tree if you think that we can make our own missiles within a reasonable time frame.
We disbanded our infrastructure and expertise for doing so years ago.
It was lumped in with Airbus and moved abroad.
We subsequently sold our stake in Airbus, so no input to it at all.
Airbus make the French submarine launched missiles, known as the M51.
It is not for sale, the French designed it, paid billions for development costs and they ain't selling it.
They service it and have overseas testing facilities, which they keep to themselves.
We would have to start from scratch
The subs are designed around the missiles, we can't just dump Trident and drop in a few French Missiles, it doesn't work like that.
We are totally dependant on the USA for the missiles, we cannot service and maintain them ourselves
As for the USA helping us, forget it, we learnt that lesson during the Falklands, even denied us satellite imagery.
As for just abandoning the entire thing, I cannot agree with those who say that we should because that will make us less of a target.
It won't, as long as we have Menwith Hill and GCHQ for example we are a target and we need them if only just to monitor terrorists.
There is also the simple fact of Geography, control the UK and you control access to Northern Europe.
13-05-2016, 09:17 AM
14
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
It's just ridiculous! When would we use ours? Even if Trumpton gave us permission. Say N.Korea dropped one, they would be flattened by Trumpton before we got out of bed. Unless, of course, Trumpton decided we should do it for them.Can you see Corbyn signing up for this? Who's the loony now?
13-05-2016, 10:23 AM
15
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
It won't, as long as we have Menwith Hill and GCHQ for example we are a target and we need them if only just to monitor terrorists.
Menwith Hill, and presumably GCHQ, are of great advantage to the Americans.
Perhaps if we suggest to them that, yes, we'll allow them to continue to access them if in return they provide us with full access to our own Trident missiles? Of course, to do that we'd need a PM with backbone.
No, I realise that the French missiles won't fit our submarines, but we are going to replace them anyway before too long. I'm not surprised, to be honest, that they wouldn't sell them to us though.
What we ought to do, and should have done long ago, is to create our own designs, production lines and ballistic missiles straight away. We have a long history of selling our assets, or even giving them away, and it's time we started reversing this trend. Whilst we're at it, it's time we reclaimed our ability to build our own nuclear power stations.
As I've said before, we are our own worst enemy in many ways, and how we've managed to drag ourselves down to what we are today God only knows.
13-05-2016, 05:13 PM
17
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by moreover
->
I assume you're joking. GCHQ is owned and run by the Americans and has been since the 1980's when Thatcher kicked the union out and gave it to them.
Absolute, total and utter rubbish.
GCHQ is 100% British.
Menwith Hill is run by the USA.
16-05-2016, 07:12 AM
19
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Originally Posted by JBR
->
Doesn't matter who owns them on paper. They're both in our country.Possession in nine tenths of the law!
Not quite as simple as that JBR.
We rely on the USA for all sorts of things, GPS for a start.
The EU is building a much better GPS System, which we are part of, we need it and we can't afford it on our own.
We have no spy satellites of our own and we most certainly cannot afford to set up our own.
We rely on two satellite systems, the American one and the EU one.
The EU one is not part of NATO, sure the data is shared when necessary, but not to all.
Turkey is part of NATO and we certainly don't share every thing with them, for obvious reasons.
International Cooperation is vital with all these things and we must continue this in or out of the EU.
There is no reason at all to suppose that anything will change after Brexit providing we keep cooperating, but we will still be paying into the EU for both GPS and spy satellites.
I do not believe for one minute the scare stories flying around.
However if we start threatening them, they could take their ball home so to speak, and we will be the losers.
Common sense, a pragmatic approach, is the best way forward, not belligerency, that does nobody any good at all.
That doesn't mean that we have to roll over and not get the best deal possible, just that there are certain things where it is in our best interests not to rock the boat.
16-05-2016, 10:16 AM
20
Re: Austerity -v- Trident replacement
Well then, if we have absolutely no bargaining power with the US, I don't see any point in retaining our Trident programme which, of course, is far from being an independent SLBM system. Let the Americans pay for them themselves. We can always rely on them to protect us with theirs, or perhaps the French, can't we?It sounds to me that there is little point in our attempting to run our country independently anyway. Britain is already under the control of the EU, the US and the rich Arabs and whether we leave the EU or not, it seems that we'll never be completely independent, so what does it matter?
I'm glad I'm 64 this year. The country's had it.
|
|
