pslewis

paid for out of the MoD budget!

The numpty ..... what is going to suffer to enable us to sit at the Nuclear Top Table?

I think the 2 Aircraft Carriers will get scrapped ..... the Nuclear Subs are not cheap at £20billion.

There should be a distinct, seperate, pot of money for the Nuclear Deterrent.

David Lock

I'd be prepared to take a chance in the future without Trident. If there are problems then we would ask USA or even France to help.

I'd have thought the biggest threat would be from a terrorist bomb left in London and a sub isn't going to be much help then.

Why can't we just have a few aircraft ready to nuke some dodgy state if and when required?

dl

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Personally, I'd like to see a collaboration with ally countrys for a joint funded nuclear deterrant. We all don't need one, but as a group we do just incase the likes of North Korea throws a wobbly.

I think the nukes are kept on subs as they are the most immune to attack. The weapons are long range, so it fires them off and then dives back under cover.

With nuclear bombers, they need to be kept on an airfield somewhere on 24hour alert so they can scramble as and when...but thats assuming they can get the plane off the ground in time (assuming its a counter attack and a nuke is heading straight for us). Also the crew would be aware that there may not be enough fuel to return or anywhere to land should they ever make it back to home soil, so technically its a suicide mission.

SJ_Skyline

Reminds me of the bit from "Yes Minister":

Jim: "But why would the Russians want to attack us anyway?"
Sir Humphrey: "The Russians? Who said anything about the Russians? This is to protect us from the French."
Jim: "The French? But they're our allies!"
Sir Humphrey: "Well they might be today, but they haven't been for most of the last 900 years."

Coffin Dodger

If the previous lot hadn't fcuked it all up so badly then there might have still been some money left to fund our next generation of nukes. As it is the country is on it's knees and everything needs to be carefully considered.

I do tend to agree that the need for a nuclear deterrent is somewhat diminished post cold war but you never know....

At least if they decided to scrap the nukes some good would come of it.... you'd be out of a job (though we all know you really work at Asda )

richie001

iTrader: (3)

The RAF doesn't have any aircraft left which are capable of carrying Nuclear weapons.The cost of developing and building aircraft which can would cost Britain billions of Pounds(unless you buy ready made Aircraft ie surplus B-B2).

andythejock01wrx

We could always use the 1960s Vulcans that are used for airshows - that's about our level finance-wise!

richie001

iTrader: (3)

I'm sure Les will correct me but during the cold war,If Nuclear war did break out that the RAF did expect Bomber crew to return to the UK,so the Out bound route of the mission was just as detailed as the In bound route(Where they were expected to land i have know idea).

dpb

Surely its a detterent ! So all we have to do is tell the world we are ordering a replacement

MICAWRX

The new Aircraft Carriers are/were getting new F35 STOVL JSF planes...

They may still build them but get the spitfires out.

David Lock

I don't think nukes all need to be heavyweight Hiroshima type loads?

Anyway don't we have enough friendly bases around the world to have strategic missiles to reach most places? Will a UK one reach the Middle East?

dl

SirFozzalot

Not sure what will have to suffer but personally I think it's somewhere we need to be. Especially with the current atmosphere with North Korea flexing it's muscles and Iran still trying its hardest to get nukes.

Rely on our allies? Not sure I would be comfortable with that. They will then have a rather large bargaining chip when they want stuff their own way.

David Lock

Why would North Korea want to attack UK?

Only reason could be that we want to be at the "Top Table". Get away from this philosophy and we are far less of a target for rogue nations and terrorists. Plus it would free up money for home security where I think the future danger lies..

dl

SirFozzalot

Not so sure they would directly, but the way I see it is that whilst we are "at the table" we have a bigger part in some of the major decisions that could affect the world.

Not so sure by getting rid of a nuclear deterrant would mean we were any less of a target for terrorists.

Leslie

Tell me about it!

Les

Leslie

Where did you get that idea from?

Les

Leslie

Didn't mean we would be able to do it, and there would be no UK left anyway!

Les

Leslie

The Americans were so impressed with the old girl that they seriously considered building an uprated big delta for themselves. The Vulcan's performance during the Red Flag exercises made them think that way when they discovered that with all the defences that they had on the ground or airborne, they were unable to get a single strike on a low level Vulcan during the whole exercise.

Les

pslewis

Planes could and would be shot down before deployment.

Submarine launched warheads is the only real solution.

The warheads are cheap, it's the delivery system (subs) which cost the money.

Leslie

You will know as well as anyone Pete that governments treat the ability to sit at the nuclear table as vital because they all want to be effectively important with a voice which the possession of a nuclear arsenal will do for them.

Even the formerly most rabid left winger, ex anti nuclear demo's etc. member will soon modify those views when in power.

What did your hero Billy Liar think about it all when he was in power after all his anti nuclear demonstrations in earlier years? Didn't see him throwing the nukes out of the window did we!

I agree that it is impossible for the defence budget to pay for the Trident and still maintain an effective force. It should certainly be a separate budget as you say.

Les

Leslie

They may or may not be destroyed as you say, but that would also depend on the amount of notice of a nuclear attack. If they were deployed then a significant number would still get off the ground. Under the old "four minute warning" and the way the political climate would be going, the other side knew that although some of us would not make it, those who did would be a bit of a nasty blow! Too much of a blow to make it worth their while.

As you say, the submarine launched weapons are the most effective way of course. A goodly bunch of air launched nukes would also help them to think twice of course. Spreads out the type of defences they need to have.

Les

andythejock01wrx

Agree with Les on this.

Les, did you fly Vulcans? Curious what Scoob you have now too!

The Zohan

+1

Leslie

Yes I did-for about 11 years. Had to sell my original STi, number 197 of 200, and I still miss her now!

Les

Leslie

You would be surprised how small they are in relation to their yield these days. PSL can back that up of course.

I would not expect a British government to bin its nuclear abilities and lose its seat at the top table.

Les

andythejock01wrx

Thought so. Something to be proud of (the RAF service more than the STi ownership, but that too!).

Bonehead

It's beyond me why they're throwing all this money into the overseas budget when they're tightening all the other budgets.

I was reading they're toying with grounding either the Harrier or Tornado fleets to save some coinage.

I fail to see why they dont do the obvious, stop the freebie money to overseas countries that really dont need it. What's it all for?, do they think these countries will come to us for business?

David Lock

Well Pakistan for example would care a lot less about UK and our complaints about alleged Taliban support if it wasn't for large amounts of aid we provide to them.

Givng aid to China on the other hand...........

dl

Leslie

Thanks, you are right and i would not have missed it for anything.

Les