Lib Dems wave white flag over Trident replacement...

[alpine_saint]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/16/trident-alternatives-nuclear-submarines-lib-dems

 

Last sentence:

 

"Investing in the development of a new warhead, new missile, new platform and new infrastructure means that transitioning to any of the realistic alternative systems is now more expensive than a 3 or 4-boat Successor Trident fleet."

 

Wonder how much money the review wasted ?

 

Inadequate w'*nkers..

[buctootim]

Interesting article here, ignore who it is by. You could argue that the billions spent on Trident would be better used on conventional forces.

http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/04/america-tells-britain-pick-replace-trident-or-be-real-military-partner

[Batman]

IF and it a big IF..the Government want a credible replacement.

The 4 boat submarine trident system is the cheapest and/or most practicle for the job. having a round the clock system that is

[moonraker]

The problem I have with the lets do away with CASD brigade is they all say it will save loads of money for schools and hospitals and then go on to say we can spend it on conventional forces, even CND use this argument, just how often can you spend the same £. They also quote the whole life cost as if it were an in year saving, the Trident replacement programme is a 40 plus programme @ £100billion that’s an average saving of 2 - 3 billion or so per year. Essentially the argument should only be based on need: I personally believe the Governments first duty is to defend the nation, CASD is the ultimate deterrent.

[Saintandy666]

I don't really see how your title for this thread in any way reflects the reality of the current Lib Dem position on this report. I think you have an axe to grind, and should step back from that. I don't see a problem with this report at all. I bet it cost virtually nothing, whilst adding a lot to the debate.

[badgerx16]

.... CASD is the ultimate deterrent.

 

Devil's Advocate question - Deterrent to what ? It's unlikely to be a terrorist threat, who would you target to counter it ? It's unlikely to be a rogue nuclear state with a grudge solely against the UK.

 

Genuinely interested in what purpose people who are pro CASD think it actually serves.

[Batman]

Devil's Advocate question - Deterrent to what ? It's unlikely to be a terrorist threat, who would you target to counter it ? It's unlikely to be a rogue nuclear state with a grudge solely against the UK.

 

Genuinely interested in what purpose people who are pro CASD think it actually serves.

depends what paper you read. its a debate where no one will ever concede defeat or change their opinion

[aintforever]

Expensive cold war relic, the money would be much better spent providing us with energy security than deterring some threat that doesn't even exist.

 

Of course it provides that extra bit of security from potential overseas threats but I think getting rid would be worth the risk, especially given that we are skint and there are other risks to our safety. Energy, the environment and the potential collapse of our monetary system are all more potent risks IMO.

 

There are plenty of countries around the world that don't need nukes, the best deterrent there is is to stop interfering in other countries issues.

Edited 16 July, 2013 by aintforever

[Saint in Paradise]

Think how much of that "saved" money could be sent overseas in "foreign aid for the needy."

Spend it on benefits for people who live better on benefits than actually work for their living.

Think of all the votes that will earn !!!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Devil's Advocate question - Deterrent to what ? It's unlikely to be a terrorist threat, who would you target to counter it ? It's unlikely to be a rogue nuclear state with a grudge solely against the UK.

 

Genuinely interested in what purpose people who are pro CASD think it actually serves.

 

Fair question.

 

I think you will find that pro CASD views are (very often) held by those conservative types who seem quite incapable of understanding that the strategic situation has changed out of all recognition since the end of the Cold War. The Soviet era Red Banner Northern Fleet has long gone now - I say the need to maintain a SSBN constantly at sea went with it.

 

But I would go much further than that. Methinks that the vast sum we are about to spend on a new generation of nuclear weapons would be better directed towards our overstretched conventional defences and/or ballistic missile defence.

 

That's not going to happen alas ...

[TopGun]

I don't really see how your title for this thread in any way reflects the reality of the current Lib Dem position on this report. I think you have an axe to grind, and should step back from that. I don't see a problem with this report at all. I bet it cost virtually nothing, whilst adding a lot to the debate.

 

Absolutely agree with this point. Alpine,s been popping steroids again.

[alpine_saint]

I don't really see how your title for this thread in any way reflects the reality of the current Lib Dem position on this report. I think you have an axe to grind, and should step back from that. I don't see a problem with this report at all. I bet it cost virtually nothing, whilst adding a lot to the debate.

 

Deary me. The only debate this report has brought anything to is the ongoing concern about the sanity and reality awareness of members of the LibDem party.

 

Your heroes spend months going through a list of 700 alternative proposals, cant find anything cheaper (hence waving the white flag), then come up with a typical loony half-baked LibDem cockamamie plan about only buying two new subs and sending them to sea without warheads ? Absolutely bonkers. As bonkers as the SDSR ws in 2010, which has totally emasculated the Navy.

 

Was this exercise about saving money ? Or was it about trying to deliver unilateral disarmament under the cover of saving money? . After all, even this moronic plan would still require about 2/3 of the outlay and running costs, whilst totally trashing the operational viability of the UK independent nuclear deterrence.

 

The LibDem are a bunch of dogmatic loonatics who are doing massive damage to the country. Sooner they are gone, the better. Utterly ridiculous the amount of sway they have over Govt. policy, considering the miniscule amount of seats they bring to the coalition.

Edited 17 July, 2013 by alpine_saint

[Saint in Paradise]

Err Chapel End Charlie, you might like to read ths article as it just might change your mind for you.

 

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130707/182106098.html

 

ST. PETERSBURG, July 7 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Navy will receive 36 warships in 2013, an unprecedented number

in Russia’s history, Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Vice Admiral Alexander Fedotenkov said on Sunday.

 

“During this year, 36 combat ships, fast attack crafts and support vessels will join the Russian Navy. This

has never happened before,” Fedotenkov said at the International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg.

 

Russian Navy warships are now performing missions in all areas of the World Ocean, with over 60 combat ships

currently at sea, he said.

 

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said in March the Russian Navy would receive 24 submarines and 54 warships of

various classes by 2020.

 

Not very good reading is it ?

[alpine_saint]

Fair question.

 

I think you will find that pro CASD views are (very often) held by those conservative types who seem quite incapable of understanding that the strategic situation has changed out of all recognition since the end of the Cold War. The Soviet era Red Banner Northern Fleet has long gone now - I say the need to maintain a SSBN constantly at sea went with it.

 

But I would go much further than that. Methinks that the vast sum we are about to spend on a new generation of nuclear weapons would be better directed towards our overstretched conventional defences and/or ballistic missile defence.

 

That's not going to happen alas ...

 

I think people who make your argument miss an essential point, which has been well made in the Telegraph editorial on the report.

 

Designing, developing and deploying such systems takes a huge amount of time. I think the current estimate is about 10 years. The Vanguards and Trident have been in sevice for ca. 20 years already, so it will be ca. 30 years by the time they are decomissioned.

 

Now, cast your mind back over the last 30 years, and how the geo-political landscape has evolved. How can we tell from here what the landscape will be in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years ? You cannot replace these systems overnight, even the LibDem report makes it clear a new warhead for a cruise missile system is going to take 2 DECADES to develop and deploy.

 

We need to decide are we a nuclear power (Trident sub replacements like-for-like) or not (unilateral disarmament). That's it. The LibDem policy is utter b*ll*cks.

[View From The Top]

Do we need SSBNs in a post cold-war world? No.

 

No we still need a delivery system? Perhaps.

 

I'm more inclined to nuke tipped cruise missiles myself if we must have anything at all.

 

I've yet to hear a convincing argument for keeping SSBNs and as an ex-Jack I'm very pro RN. Would sooner have a modern & adequate surface & subsurface fleet.

[moonraker]

Fair question.

 

I think you will find that pro CASD views are (very often) held by those conservative types who seem quite incapable of understanding that the strategic situation has changed out of all recognition since the end of the Cold War. The Soviet era Red Banner Northern Fleet has long gone now - I say the need to maintain a SSBN constantly at sea went with it.

 

But I would go much further than that. Methinks that the vast sum we are about to spend on a new generation of nuclear weapons would be better directed towards our overstretched conventional defences and/or ballistic missile defence.

 

That's not going to happen alas ...

First myth to blow away, not a Conservative (the greedy party) type never have been never will be lifelong LD voter. As to the changing strategic situation your bang on, so perhaps you can tell me what it will be in assay 5, 10 , 15 years’ time. Development and deployment of CASD is not an overnight event, as I previously stated the Governments first priority is defence of the realm this means true long term planning; design, build and commissioning to operational status of new platform minimum 20 years, recruiting training and maintaining crew competence on going, if you stop it you lose it 10 – 15 years to regain it; infrastructure to support the capability, it took 10 years to get Faslane ready for Polaris and another 10 for Trident. Can you honestly tell me we will have minimum of 20 years warning to deploy a deterrent? If not what is your solution to long term security in a very insecure world?

Edited 17 July, 2013 by moonraker

[alpine_saint]

Do we need SSBNs in a post cold-war world? No.

 

No we still need a delivery system? Perhaps.

 

I'm more inclined to nuke tipped cruise missiles myself if we must have anything at all.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument for keeping SSBNs and as an ex-Jack I'm very pro RN. Would sooner have a modern & adequate surface & subsurface fleet.

 

This was also my wish (especially if we got a couple of additional Astute hulls for it), but apparently its been ruled out as being more expensive (warhead and possible cruise missile itself development), take too long (warhead development), and has increased vulnerability (needs to be closer to target and/or requires forward staging bases)

[badgerx16]

If not what is your solution to long term security in a very insecure world?

 

What is the solution for Italy, Germany, Holland, Sweden, or Spain ? Or over 150 other countries around the world ? Why does the UK HAVE to have these systems ?

[buctootim]

Basically the two options, given current spending plans, are:

 

1. A very big '**** off don't mess with us' stick and a home defence force (which means no more foreign adventures, no bad thing).

2. A decent sized armed forces capable of meaningful defence of Britain and overseas ops.

 

Either are okay imo. Trying to do both on the budget of one is the only stupid option.

[alpine_saint]

What is the solution for Italy, Germany, Holland, Sweden, or Spain ? Or over 150 other countries around the world ? Why does the UK HAVE to have these systems ?

 

Because we have a lot more global interests/legacies/responsibilites/enemies than all of those countries, except possibly the Spanish, but in their case it was all longer ago and they dont really have any overseas territories any more.

 

And also we for some bizarre reason, like to play global cop. Its some sort of imperial throw-back, to be sure.

[Saintandy666]

Deary me. The only debate this report has brought anything to is the ongoing concern about the sanity and reality awareness of members of the LibDem party.

 

Your heroes spend months going through a list of 700 alternative proposals, cant find anything cheaper (hence waving the white flag), then come up with a typical loony half-baked LibDem cockamamie plan about only buying two new subs and sending them to sea without warheads ? Absolutely bonkers. As bonkers as the SDSR ws in 2010, which has totally emasculated the Navy.

 

Was this exercise about saving money ? Or was it about trying to deliver unilateral disarmament under the cover of saving money? . After all, even this moronic plan would still require about 2/3 of the outlay and running costs, whilst totally trashing the operational viability of the UK independent nuclear deterrence.

 

The LibDem are a bunch of dogmatic loonatics who are doing massive damage to the country. Sooner they are gone, the better. Utterly ridiculous the amount of sway they have over Govt. policy, considering the miniscule amount of seats they bring to the coalition.

 

No, I would say it has given people the evidence to finally have a meaningful evidence based debate, although I would add it seems you are choosing bluster and hyperbole over engaging with the findings of the report. Interestingly, the actual Liberal Democrat proposal of a cut in submarines from 4 to 2 and non-constant surveillance whereby it is cranked up and down in times of need is not examined in this report. I'm sure that would save a lot of money, but obviously money isn't the only key aspect here as we do need to maintain an effective armed forces which can protect this country from outside attack if needed. I've yet to be convinced of nuclear disarmament by the UK or renewing trident, so I'm very much on the fence here. What I do know though is that the attacks of the future won't be like the old. One of the 'glories' of capitalism is that you no longer need to nuke a country to 'win'. You can quite easily dominate the world or protect yourself via economic means. As for attacking other countries - digital espionage is the method of choice for the future. So for me, we should concentrate on our economy and grow our cyber capabilities. Though of course, trident renewal doesn't have to distract from either of those, but it could re-route money away from other areas more vital to our defence in the modern world.

 

Also, your post says 'your heroes spend months'. I was under the impression this was a 'Liberal Democrat ordered report', not a Liberal Democrat written report.

[alpine_saint]

Basically the two options, given current spending plans, are:

 

1. A very big '**** off don't mess with us' stick and a home defence force (which means no more foreign adventures, no bad thing).

2. A decent sized armed forces capable of meaningful defence of Britain and overseas ops.

 

Either are okay imo. Trying to do both on the budget of one is the only stupid option.

 

Agree.

 

IMO the main role of HM Armed Forces is to protect the UK and its Overseas Territories/Friends. Not to peacemake in places like Libya, Syria and FYR, and not to bring about regime change (Iraq and Afghanistan)

 

Therefore I consider the SDSR was right about the army, but too severe on the RAF and Navy.

[alpine_saint]

Also, your post says 'your heroes spend months'. I was under the impression this was a 'Liberal Democrat ordered report', not a Liberal Democrat written report.

 

Your mistake.....

 

Whether I am blustering or indulging in hyperbole is a moot point; the whole exercise has been a f**king embarassment for the LibDems and that fat ginger tw*t in particular.

 

Its clear there is no sensible third way; its unilateral disarmament or like-for-like replacement; the evidence from an agenda-driven pre-loaded LibDem commissioned report even states this.

Edited 17 July, 2013 by alpine_saint

[Saintandy666]

Your mistake.....

 

Whether I am blustering or indulging in hyperbole is a moot point; the whole exercise has been a f**king embarassment for the LibDems and that fat ginger tw*t in particular.

 

Its clear there is no sensible third way; its unilateral disarmament or like-for-like replacement; the evidence from an agenda-driven pre-loaded LibDem commissioned report even states this.

 

Thank you for your deletion of the vast majority of my post in favour of one small part of it. Next time, I won't even bother replying if when you answer my post you don't even address any of the points within it.

[moonraker]

Originally Posted by badgerx16

 

What is the solution for Italy, Germany, Holland, Sweden, or Spain ? Or over 150 other countries around the world ? Why does the UK HAVE to have these systems ?

 

Good question; in reply I would suggest none of these have the global legacy, ties and responsibilities the UK has. Each countries needs are shaped by history, Germany is not allowed by international law to have such weapons (maybe Italy I do not know) nor are they allowed to partake in overseas operations (front line), this is also true for Japan. Sweden is a neutral country and Spain was until the early eighties a non-aligned fascist state without the money or technical know how to build and own a Nuclear Deterrent. No nation has developed a Strategic ICBM Nuclear Deterrent since the late 50’s early 60’s (arms limitation at work). Israel’s, India’s and Pakistan’s weapons are essentially regional and tactical and not submarine based.

NATO was formed to provide collective security, part of the NATO strategy is a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent maintained by the US and the UK, (note not the French Deterrent, why do they have one?). If the UK decommissions its Trident force without replacement then a key part of the NATO strategy will be undermined and we (Europe) will be even more reliant on the US.

I do not subscribe to the argument that it is about empire and past glories it is however a legacy of these. A question if Europe (the EU) were a fully integrated sovereign state do you think it would have a Strategic ICBM Nuclear Deterrent?

Edited 17 July, 2013 by moonraker
Add quote

[alpine_saint]

Thank you for your deletion of the vast majority of my post in favour of one small part of it. Next time, I won't even bother replying if when you answer my post you don't even address any of the points within it.

 

What are you expecting from my responses ? I actually believe I replied to the whole of your post.

 

Look, deal with the fact that the LibDem leadership didnt get the conclusions they were expecting from this review and are making ridiculous suggestions/outbursts to the media as a last resort or pride salvation thing.

[moonraker]

What are you expecting from my responses ? I actually believe I replied to the whole of your post.

 

Look, deal with the fact that the LibDem leadership didnt get the conclusions they were expecting from this review and are making ridiculous suggestions/outbursts to the media as a last resort or pride salvation thing.

 

Thats politicians (all colours) for you, sounds just like Jeremy Hunts reponse to the Keogh NHS report, from which the authors and other well informed and rational people have distanced themselves,.

[derry]

Lib Dems run up the white flag.

[Batman]

Do we need SSBNs in a post cold-war world? No.

 

No we still need a delivery system? Perhaps.

 

I'm more inclined to nuke tipped cruise missiles myself if we must have anything at all.

 

I've yet to hear a convincing argument for keeping SSBNs and as an ex-Jack I'm very pro RN. Would sooner have a modern & adequate surface & subsurface fleet.

nuke tip missiles are simply not the answer

either have proper nuke capability or none at all

[Batman]

This was also my wish (especially if we got a couple of additional Astute hulls for it), but apparently its been ruled out as being more expensive (warhead and possible cruise missile itself development), take too long (warhead development), and has increased vulnerability (needs to be closer to target and/or requires forward staging bases)

 

this is true. it will be new technology for the UK and will cost vast sums of money (and may not even work too well)

the site where they are based, say Neptune will STILL be set up to house nuclear missiles, so no change there.

the cost of astutes are more than the Vanguard class submarines to build in actual fact

 

With that. having a mixy-blob of a kind of nuclear tipped missile. the threshold of their use is far lower than unleashing hell on earth (or the threat of)

The boats will STILL act like the current vanguard class in that they go on patrol (somewhere), come back. go into maintenance and go back out.

you will lose the ability to strike anywhere in the world of your chosing with nuc tipped missiles.

 

the only missile that could be nuke tipped are TOMAHAWKS. they are not sub-sonic. they are easily tracked on radar, the are low flying and the range is limited compared to a trident. They are infact a great deal easier to shoot down than you think.

 

if you want a nuclear system for the UK. a continuation of the current 4 boat system is the most viable/cheapest option to have a credible force.

and that is not me being biased as I have never served on one do not wish to. is it a fact

[Batman]

I will add. all well and good saying this system is a relic

yet, more and more nations are advancing theirs, adopting new variants of this or just buying it off the russians.

 

so, not really a 'relic' is it

 

whether we should have it another question

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27378/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf

Edited 17 July, 2013 by Batman

[moonraker]

Having now read the report in full I belive it contributes a lot to the debate. All 3 main Political parties accept the need for some form of Nuclear weapon system for the foreseable future. The report was commsioned to provide a definitive anaswer to the system options and costs arguments. It has effectively concluded that the only cost effective viable option is the 4 boat CASD one. You might say no surprises there however I belive this report is important, and worth the money, as it gives a credibilty to the proposed 4 boat programme and the fact it was led by and LD whose party members are the most sceptical demonstrates that its conclsuion are not politically skewed.

[pap]

Just get rid. They probably won't work when push comes to shove anyway.

[alpine_saint]

Having now read the report in full I belive it contributes a lot to the debate. All 3 main Political parties accept the need for some form of Nuclear weapon system for the foreseable future. The report was commsioned to provide a definitive anaswer to the system options and costs arguments. It has effectively concluded that the only cost effective viable option is the 4 boat CASD one. You might say no surprises there however I belive this report is important, and worth the money, as it gives a credibilty to the proposed 4 boat programme and the fact it was led by and LD whose party members are the most sceptical demonstrates that its conclsuion are not politically skewed.

 

I like this post; it makes an important point.

 

The fact that a report pushed-for by the LibDems has come out with such a clear message for a 4-boat CASD system means that somehow the conclusion is above the norms of politcal skewing, as you wrote, and must be viewed as cold-clear fact.

 

My oh my, the LibDems must be furious in private...probably why publication was late, so they could try (and fail) to come up with and alternative not covered (the mental two-boat without-warhead proposal)....

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

First myth to blow away, not a Conservative (the greedy party) type never have been never will be lifelong LD voter. As to the changing strategic situation your bang on, so perhaps you can tell me what it will be in assay 5, 10 , 15 years’ time. Development and deployment of CASD is not an overnight event, as I previously stated the Governments first priority is defence of the realm this means true long term planning; design, build and commissioning to operational status of new platform minimum 20 years, recruiting training and maintaining crew competence on going, if you stop it you lose it 10 – 15 years to regain it; infrastructure to support the capability, it took 10 years to get Faslane ready for Polaris and another 10 for Trident. Can you honestly tell me we will have minimum of 20 years warning to deploy a deterrent? If not what is your solution to long term security in a very insecure world?

 

1 - To avoid any future misunderstanding, if I had intended to portray someone as a Tory voter (or of possessing a centre-right political viewpoint) than I would have been careful to employ a capitol 'C' when spelling 'conservative'. Note the use of the lower case in my post, which clearly signifies that the alternate definition of 'conservative' was intended. In that sense some of the most 'conservative' politicians of the 20th century were actually members of the Communist Party.

 

2 - The argument you then go on to promote is a very familiar one which can be readily summerised as:

We may not need a nuclear deterrent today, but it might just come in handy one day.

 

There are multiple problems with this idea, not least of which is the profound consequences on our conventional defences that financing the Vanguard Class replacement (a project known as 'Successor' within government) will entail. Unlike past generations of UK nuclear deterrent (such as Polaris or V Bomber for example) this time HM Treasury has been very careful to ensure that all Successor costs are carried by the MOD budget alone - IE there will be no special funding allocation from central government this time.

In a era where our national debt is now measured in £ trillions, then the budgetary implications of that decision will almost certainly be disastrous on our (already pared to the bone) RAF, Royal Navy, and Army.

So if it comes down to a choice between your 'might come in handy' argument and the (very real) need to defend this nation and its varied international interests & commitments with meaningful conventional armed forces ... well I for one vote for the latter.

 

3 - It should be abundantly clear to any observer that to argue against the ruinousness expense of another generation of UK nuclear weapons is not at all the same thing as arguing that NATO (by which we mean the USA of course) should also disband its strategic forces. If you really still loose sleep worrying about a old cold war style nuclear Armageddon scenario, then rest assured that as long as we maintain our NATO membership then any such insanity would - by treaty obligation - entail a appropriate response from all other NATO member states.

It seems to me the UK (and French) independent deterrents merely duplicate a perfectly adequate capability that already exists - surely an extravagant and wasteful policy in this day and age. This explains why other comparable NATO states to the UK (such as Germany, Italy or Spain) have not seen the need to maintain their own nuclear forces.

 

4 - Yes the world is indeed a insecure place - it always has been - but the promise of security via a pensionable old policy of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' may well prove to be an illusion I'm afraid. A thermonuclear exchange between NATO and democratic Russia is almost unthinkable now, while nuclear warfare between 'little england' and a true superpower such as China is surely an absurdity.

The real nuclear threat we may face is from the so called 'rogue states' (a highly pejorative phrase that) and/or the emerging wave of sophisticated and well funded terrorist organisations. A nuclear missile submarine is unlikely to stop a fanatical terrorist group from trying to do its worse. The 'Rogue State' threat can be better countered by negotiation, or by a new generation of defensive measures currently known as Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) that I have already advocated on here.

 

I say nations truly concerned with their nuclear security would do well to concentrate their efforts on curtailing the number of these murderous weapons in the world, rather than building more of them.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited 17 July, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Viking Warrior]

The liberals need to get real yes the Cold War has been over for a good few decades but I believe the treat is even greater than before . A lot of country's are fast developing nuclear weapons and the odd submarine as well . How many do Iran and china have . Have just two subs is ludicrous . We would be so vulnerable . Still the Libs would give a hoot if we are attacked with no vessel to counter strike any attack . If the Libs get their way they will only want a homeguard . We would have a few naval vessels and the odd tank . Maybe we could ask uncle almond s army to provide a defensive back up. Back to the question do we need a nuclear deterrent . Yes but then again we have that many terrorist livi g here it doesn't really matter anymore . So they are right to wave the white flag

[View From The Top]

The MAD argument is mad. Always was, always will be.

[Saintandy666]

Just putting an idea out here... what about an EU-wide nuclear weapons programme (or even shared with France)? When would we ever possibly want to use them if not in association with the rest of Europe?

[badgerx16]

...... the profound consequences on our conventional defences that financing the Vanguard Class replacement (a project known as 'Successor' within government) will entail. Unlike past generations of UK nuclear deterrent (such as Polaris or V Bomber for example) this time HM Treasury has been very careful to ensure that all Successor costs are carried by the MOD budget alone - IE there will be no special funding allocation from central government this time.

In a era where our national debt is now measured in £ trillions, then the budgetary implications of that decision will almost certainly be disastrous on our (already pared to the bone) RAF, Royal Navy, and Army.

So if it comes down to a choice between your 'might come in handy' argument and the (very real) need to defend this nation and its varied international interests & commitments with meaningful conventional armed forces ...

 

In a very good post, this paragraph probably contains the most important, and most overlooked, detail - where the money to pay for the next gen CASD will come from. The 'special' budget is going, and the full cost must come directly from the MOD - at what cost to the Army & RAF, and consequently our 'real' ability to project force ?

[Batman]

Just putting an idea out here... what about an EU-wide nuclear weapons programme (or even shared with France)? When would we ever possibly want to use them if not in association with the rest of Europe?

 

what do you mean?

only 2 nations in the EU have such capability and already work together?

[Batman]

The liberals need to get real yes the Cold War has been over for a good few decades but I believe the treat is even greater than before . A lot of country's are fast developing nuclear weapons and the odd submarine as well . How many do Iran and china have . Have just two subs is ludicrous . We would be so vulnerable . Still the Libs would give a hoot if we are attacked with no vessel to counter strike any attack . If the Libs get their way they will only want a homeguard . We would have a few naval vessels and the odd tank . Maybe we could ask uncle almond s army to provide a defensive back up. Back to the question do we need a nuclear deterrent . Yes but then again we have that many terrorist livi g here it doesn't really matter anymore . So they are right to wave the white flag

that is true. The russians are more aggressive towards us than ay any time in the last 20+ years

just never read/talked about anymore

[TopGun]

This is a mental thread. Everyone has a little Alpine inside.

[alpine_saint]

This is a mental thread. Everyone has a little Alpine inside.

 

Maybe most people just think the LibDem attitude is garbage.

[Viking Warrior]

I have no alpine inside but agree with his comment that the liberal attitude is garbage . Also salmond wants rid of trident etc from Faslane . Just think of all those jobs that will be lost up here . Also is he planning to make the Scottish coast a submarine exclusion zone . If he is then he's a bigger ***** than I gave him credit for

[ecuk268]

I have no alpine inside but agree with his comment that the liberal attitude is garbage . Also salmond wants rid of trident etc from Faslane . Just think of all those jobs that will be lost up here . Also is he planning to make the Scottish coast a submarine exclusion zone . If he is then he's a bigger ***** than I gave him credit for

 

Does he really or is he looking for a large amount of cash to retain the bases?

 

The MOD has said that the costs of relocation are "prohibitive". I think that Salmond is preparing the ground for a lucrative rental agreement.

[angelman]

Nuclear weapons......are we really going to drop the bomb on anyone? If we get to that stage, then frankly, I think the world would be a better place not to be in. Would we use the bomb as a retaliatory weapon or a first strike one? Either way, I can't see the collateral damage to civilians being something that we would accept. You can have it as a deterrent, but who is going to nuke us? The biggest risk (currently) is from a dirty bomb from some terrorist group, and you can't send Trident to sort them out.

 

My personal view is that we keep the nukes so that we get to keep our permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The Americans sure like that, as they can't rely on the French to counter Russia and China, but do we really need to be there? Our influence in the world is not what it used to be. Also, the economies of all developed countries, as well as a lot of developing one, are so linked to each other, that it serves no purpose to go to war with each other. There may be a lot of brinkmanship going on, but really, it's little more than sabre rattling. There's no point China nuking EU, as then they lose most of their customers.

[alpine_saint]

I'll go further....

 

The fact that the report conclusions didnt deliver the LibDem agenda (unilateral disarmament, or as a sop to the sane elements of the population, a cheapo nuke cruise missile strategy based on existing SSNs) and that the best they have been able to come up with to save face is the two-boat non-CASD non-warhead proposal, despite months of holding back publication, just goes to show how intellectually- and integrity-bankrupt the LibDem party really is.

 

They are totally unfit-for-purpose as a serious coallition partner, and are just getting in the way of real Government business.

[badgerx16]

 

They are totally unfit-for-purpose as a serious coallition partner, and are just getting in the way of real Government business.

 

Without the LDs there isn't a Government.

[alpine_saint]

Without the LDs there isn't a Government.

 

A total myth. Scaremongering b*ll*cks.

 

Legislation-passing may be somewhat limited (as if it isnt already thanks to the likes of Clegg and Cable), but we've had minority governments in the UK before.

[badgerx16]

A total myth. Scaremongering b*ll*cks.

 

Legislation-passing may be somewhat limited (as if it isnt already thanks to the likes of Clegg and Cable), but we've had minority governments in the UK before.

 

And how much more 'Conservative' could a minority Tory Government be ? Go away, do some research, and come back with a list of UK minority administrations that have lasted for more than 18 months.