ChatterBank23 mins ago
Is Money Building The Next Generation Of Uk's 4 New Successor Class Icbm Submarines Money Well Spent?
23 Answers
Savings from not building new ICBMs is a false argument, as the funds for building the planned 4 ICBMs carrying Successor class submarines comes from the ring-fenced defence budget of 2% of GDP pa. UK's 4 ICBMs carrying submarines are UK's safeguard/insurance policy against being bullied and oppressed militarily.
Nuclear missiles launch sites need to be stealthy to be an effective deterrent. Submarine based IBCMs are the stealthiest & safest. It is common sense that ICBM launch sites based in open ocean (away from land masses) are less dangerous. Land launched ICMs sites are more prone to sabotage & can cause claustrophobic destruction in event of accident or attack.
SNP complained about threats from Russia in the north of Scotland because of the presence of Russian warships, associating their presence with UK not having maritime patrol aircrafts. Surely the best way to counter the military threats from Russia is to be nuclear armed with stealthy & credible submarine based ICBM system – as they are more powerful & effective than hundreds of warships. Around 12,600 Scottish people in Scotland benefit by more than £1.8bn pa as a result of UK MoD & her operations.
New equipment are constantly being updated & replaced, which include - 2 new aircraft carriers (with 48 Lightning 2 (F-35B) for the aircraft carrier squadron), 19 new warships (6 Type 45 destroyers & 13 Type 26 Global Combat Ships), 9 new Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, 7 new Astute class & 4 Trafalgar class nuclear powered attack submarines, new missles & radar (like Sea Ceptor, Sea Viper, Aster 15 & 30, Artisan 3D radar, integrated anti-aircraft Sampson radar system), 4 new Successor class ICBM submarines.
Why do you think states like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? It is because nuclear armed states cannot be defeated or invaded in any military conflict, hence other countries would not dare to confront them head-on with all out military conflict.
Contrary to wrong assertions by Jeremy Corbyn and SNPs (lead by Nicola Sturgeon) that UK's nuclear deterrence are ineffective - UK use her nuclear deterrence everyday to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers). Britain’s ballistic missile submarines are the ultimate guarantee of our nation’s safety.
Nuclear missiles launch sites need to be stealthy to be an effective deterrent. Submarine based IBCMs are the stealthiest & safest. It is common sense that ICBM launch sites based in open ocean (away from land masses) are less dangerous. Land launched ICMs sites are more prone to sabotage & can cause claustrophobic destruction in event of accident or attack.
SNP complained about threats from Russia in the north of Scotland because of the presence of Russian warships, associating their presence with UK not having maritime patrol aircrafts. Surely the best way to counter the military threats from Russia is to be nuclear armed with stealthy & credible submarine based ICBM system – as they are more powerful & effective than hundreds of warships. Around 12,600 Scottish people in Scotland benefit by more than £1.8bn pa as a result of UK MoD & her operations.
New equipment are constantly being updated & replaced, which include - 2 new aircraft carriers (with 48 Lightning 2 (F-35B) for the aircraft carrier squadron), 19 new warships (6 Type 45 destroyers & 13 Type 26 Global Combat Ships), 9 new Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, 7 new Astute class & 4 Trafalgar class nuclear powered attack submarines, new missles & radar (like Sea Ceptor, Sea Viper, Aster 15 & 30, Artisan 3D radar, integrated anti-aircraft Sampson radar system), 4 new Successor class ICBM submarines.
Why do you think states like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? It is because nuclear armed states cannot be defeated or invaded in any military conflict, hence other countries would not dare to confront them head-on with all out military conflict.
Contrary to wrong assertions by Jeremy Corbyn and SNPs (lead by Nicola Sturgeon) that UK's nuclear deterrence are ineffective - UK use her nuclear deterrence everyday to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers). Britain’s ballistic missile submarines are the ultimate guarantee of our nation’s safety.
Answers
It sounds from your question that you have already got the answer! In Corbyn and Sturgeons' world, defence spending is a waste of money. Strange considering how many thousands of jobs would be lost if we listened to them.
15:19 Wed 19th Jul 2017
Perhaps the UK should "invest" in more nuclear bombs in order to possess enough to "nuke 'em all", "'em all" being everyone outside the limits of the Empire. Money well spent, eh ? Best of all, once all these weapons are unleashed, together with those "'em all" possess as a retaliatory measure, pretty much all life on the planet will be wiped out - some cockroaches will perhaps survive. That will show "'em" not to mess with a great, noble, special, etc. nation/country. No more immigrants, in fact no more foreigners - fabulous, bring it on, what ?
KARL ,
The idea of Mutual assured destruction (or MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy that accepts that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
Nuclear deterrent has kept the peace between the superpowers since WW2 (over 70 years ago). UK use her nuclear deterrence everyday to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers).
The idea of Mutual assured destruction (or MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy that accepts that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
Nuclear deterrent has kept the peace between the superpowers since WW2 (over 70 years ago). UK use her nuclear deterrence everyday to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers).
I have said several times that Nuclear deterrent is an outdated concept that belongs back in the Cold War era. It is useless against the modern threat by terrorist groups. We need to scrap the N subs and build more surface vessels particularly aircraft carriers, which are far more versatile. We currently have just one aircraft carrier and that is still on its sea trials before coming into full service.
Do you know by the way that we are not allowed to launch our Nuclear deterrent without permission from the USA who actually supply the missiles?
Do you know by the way that we are not allowed to launch our Nuclear deterrent without permission from the USA who actually supply the missiles?
EDDIE51,
UK can launch her ICBM independently without the permission of any other nations, including USA. It is mere fiction by CND that UK need permission of USA to launch her ICBMs (Check it out on the internet)
Europe's version of GPS system is expected by ESA to be operational soon. Many of the 30 Galileo satellites (mostly UK built) had already been launched.
Check out https:/
UK can launch her ICBM independently without the permission of any other nations, including USA. It is mere fiction by CND that UK need permission of USA to launch her ICBMs (Check it out on the internet)
Europe's version of GPS system is expected by ESA to be operational soon. Many of the 30 Galileo satellites (mostly UK built) had already been launched.
Check out https:/
Jno said, "the main means of launching attacks recently has been hire cars, and Tridents have been of very little use in deterring them"
Nuclear deterrents deter aggression from nuclear powers or those fast seeking to acquire them (like North Korea, Iran, etc)but not necessarily terrorism.
Nuclear deterrent has kept the peace between the superpowers since WW2 (over 70 years ago). UK use her nuclear deterrence everyday to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers).
Nuclear deterrents deter aggression from nuclear powers or those fast seeking to acquire them (like North Korea, Iran, etc)but not necessarily terrorism.
Nuclear deterrent has kept the peace between the superpowers since WW2 (over 70 years ago). UK use her nuclear deterrence everyday to deter (and insure) against the most extreme treats from existing nuclear powers (and against those countries are desperate seeking to become nuclear powers).
The military and their exploits create lots of wonderful jobs. Better still, they also produce lots of body bags full of heroes, those who admire the concept enough to become the martyrs ("Hail the hero, give the bag a medal, build a monument"). Leave them to it and the logical conclusion is that there will be no more wars through a shortage of people - at least until more have been bread and "trained" and then it can be started all over again. Glory, glory and thank you, brave schemers.
Hold on, are the modern replacement jobs a viable idea - the ones created by non-destructive industries/ideas including the HUGE employment machine which is regulations needing monitors, enforcers, fee collectors and record keepers (easy money). What about all those working one way or other to make a better life for others ? Trouble is though, absolutely no macho factor, no thrilling lethal force to ostentatiously carry/manoeuvre around, no marching and beating the chest..... no more self-congratulation/deception ? Oh, and think of the uniforms that would disappear - not to mention the "noble, proud" traditions. No casualties for "defence" purposes - ever. Nah, it'll never catch on.
Hold on, are the modern replacement jobs a viable idea - the ones created by non-destructive industries/ideas including the HUGE employment machine which is regulations needing monitors, enforcers, fee collectors and record keepers (easy money). What about all those working one way or other to make a better life for others ? Trouble is though, absolutely no macho factor, no thrilling lethal force to ostentatiously carry/manoeuvre around, no marching and beating the chest..... no more self-congratulation/deception ? Oh, and think of the uniforms that would disappear - not to mention the "noble, proud" traditions. No casualties for "defence" purposes - ever. Nah, it'll never catch on.
KARL,
Asking tin-pot dictators and bullies to become pacifists is rubbing against the gain, like persuading lions to become vegetarians.
It is submitted that being pacifist will encourage (rather than deter) others to launch military attack on oneself or other 3rd countries. Being well-armed militarily is a good deterrence from being attacked by another country – analogous to a well-armed effective police force can deter criminals.
Military strength can be used to prevent wars not start wars, analogous to having a deterrent from being bullied in a school playground.
If Europe & USA do not have credible military force, for example, it will be more likely that they will experience more threats (& even invaded) by other countries, causing chaos & disruption.
World politics, life & everything requires - making alliances, influences, trade, co-operation, look after each other interests, taking sides, preserving world order even in a playground level, never mind world government's scale.
Asking tin-pot dictators and bullies to become pacifists is rubbing against the gain, like persuading lions to become vegetarians.
It is submitted that being pacifist will encourage (rather than deter) others to launch military attack on oneself or other 3rd countries. Being well-armed militarily is a good deterrence from being attacked by another country – analogous to a well-armed effective police force can deter criminals.
Military strength can be used to prevent wars not start wars, analogous to having a deterrent from being bullied in a school playground.
If Europe & USA do not have credible military force, for example, it will be more likely that they will experience more threats (& even invaded) by other countries, causing chaos & disruption.
World politics, life & everything requires - making alliances, influences, trade, co-operation, look after each other interests, taking sides, preserving world order even in a playground level, never mind world government's scale.
The modus operandi of megalomaniac power crazy dictators is not negotiations (as Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly keep repeating parrot fashion) but military force.
The modus operandi of such megalomaniac power crazy dictators include imprisoning political opponents/demonstrators, torture, censorship of the media, as well as using brutal force to subdue protest from the masses, rule by dictation, doing anything (including murder of own relatives) to grasp hold of power.
The modus operandi of such megalomaniac power crazy dictators include imprisoning political opponents/demonstrators, torture, censorship of the media, as well as using brutal force to subdue protest from the masses, rule by dictation, doing anything (including murder of own relatives) to grasp hold of power.
https:/
The key point here is that the British deterrent does not have permissive action link control, which means it does not rely on the use of codes to fire the system. The UK’s Trident fleet relies purely on military discipline to prevent a launch. In summary, the UK retains full operational control, to the extent that the US could not stop the UK from using the system".
https:/
The key point here is that the British deterrent does not have permissive action link control, which means it does not rely on the use of codes to fire the system. The UK’s Trident fleet relies purely on military discipline to prevent a launch. In summary, the UK retains full operational control, to the extent that the US could not stop the UK from using the system".
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.