Woolf
New Member
Look for the rainbow, don't just stare at the rain.
Posts: 1,761
|
Post by Woolf on Jan 16, 2009 18:27:12 GMT
The UK's nuclear deterrent should be scrapped, according to a group of retired senior military officers. Is Trident still an effective defence against modern day security threats?
In a letter to the Times, Field Marshal Lord Bramall and Generals Lord Ramsbotham and Sir Hugh Beach denounce Trident, saying it is useless against modern day threats, particularly international terrorism.
They argue that more funds should be spent on the armed forces and that the case for Trident is no longer a military argument but a political one.
Supporters say it is still essential that the UK should maintain its independent nuclear arsenal.
Do you support Trident? Would you rather see nuclear disarmament in the UK? Do you agree that Trident funds should be diverted to the armed forces?
Where do you stand on this.
As the UK would not launch a first strike,the deterrent would only be used to respond.
Responding would assume we have any idea who detonated it in the first place. Odds are it would be detonated as a terrorist attack
The Royal Air Force have the ability to launch nuclear armed missiles and drop nukes.
The Army have the option of tactical nuke artillery shells for battle field use.
The Royal Navy could easy modify cruisers to carry sea launch missiles.
Trident is just the politicians ultimate Big Boys Toys
Scrap the planned replacement and use the money to give the troops:
Decent guns (see the next gen infantry weapons like the XM8 and OICW)
Decent body armour
AFV's (Armoured Fighting Vehicle) where the first word is applicable.
|
|
|
|
Post by deefender on Jan 16, 2009 19:31:20 GMT
There are those that say the world has changed, we no longer need a deterrent, but they are way off the point.
The world has changed - And continues to change.
Today’s threat is very different from what we thought would be happening 20 years ago. Can we today predict the threat we will face in 20 years’ time?
Twenty years ago, at the height of the Second Cold War, it would have seemed crazy to predict that suicidal fundamentalist terrorism would be our principal concern now. Who can possibly know what the situation will be 20, 30 or 40 years hence? Just as it makes no sense to scrap the Army, Royal Navy or RAF when no obvious enemy is in sight, it is vital to retain a minimum strategic deterrent as the ultimate insurance policy against aggression by any future opponent armed with weapons of mass-destruction.
Conventional forces can NOT protect us in such a situation, and NO conventional campaign can be risked against an aggressor possessing even one or two nuclear bombs if we abandon all of ours.
The purpose of the British nuclear deterrent remains what it has always been: to minimize the prospect of the United Kingdom being attacked by mass-destruction weapons.
The new threats are multi-faceted and if a country such as Iran becomes a nuclear weapon state, and this leads to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a British Government without the insurance policy of having a minimum but credible deterrent might feel somewhat vulnerable.
There is no middle path - Tomahawk cruise missiles for example, have only a single warhead, and being subsonic, are vulnerable to interception and destruction. The Tomahawk’s range is far less than that of the Trident missiles.
The proposed life extension programme for Trident would be costly and potentially leave a gaps.
Trident is our only nuclear weapon. With it we have minimum deterrent. We have the right to replace this deterrent - maintaining such a deterrent is compatible with the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The problem is that over the past few years we have been fighting two full scale wars, providing peacekeeping forces, and disaster relief. All this on n tiny budget. A budget that is cut every time Labour wants to look good in the media.
Last month the MoD announced a delay in the construction of the Royal Navy’s two £3.9 billion 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers and the Army’s £16 billion programme to provide a new generation of armoured vehicles.
It is 11 years since a new warship was ordered for the Royal Navy.
The government is prevaricating about new ships while still decommissioning more of the fleet.
Do you think if they cancel a Trident replacement they will put into ships or armoured vehicles or aircraft? I think NOT.
|
|
Rude Eric
New Member
Very basic me
Posts: 160
|
Post by Rude Eric on Jan 16, 2009 19:51:00 GMT
Trident is illegal, immoral and a waste of resources. It does nothing to increase world security and undermines international efforts to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
To fulfil its international legal obligations, the Government should comply with its unequivocal commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty by immediately decommissioning Trident and ruling out plans for future nuclear weapon systems.
Wee should continue to disband regiments and run down ALL of the armend forces. Wee can now join in europe with there new defence force. Wee can be one united eorpe against the rest of the world that wants to opress us.
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeeric on Jan 16, 2009 19:55:45 GMT
Trident is illegal, immoral and a waste of resources. It does nothing to increase world security and undermines international efforts to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. To fulfil its international legal obligations, the Government should comply with its unequivocal commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty by immediately decommissioning Trident and ruling out plans for future nuclear weapon systems. Wee should continue to disband regiments and run down ALL of the armend forces. Wee can now join in europe with there new defence force. Wee can be one united eorpe against the rest of the world that wants to opress us. OI Shiteface! I was rude eric before you. pleese stop using my name. admin!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by puffin on Jan 16, 2009 19:57:05 GMT
Ermmmm. Eric,
if we run down all of the armed forces how could we join in with Europe in a united force?
The European defence force is supposed to be made up of troops etc from the member countries.
We wouldn't have anything to unite to Europe with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beachcomber on Jan 16, 2009 19:58:04 GMT
Ooh ........ FIGHT ! FIGHT !
Please Miss - Eric's fighting with Eric
|
|
|
|
Post by gangster on Jan 16, 2009 20:05:42 GMT
I always thought Eric had a split personality.
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeeric on Jan 16, 2009 20:08:23 GMT
i am the original rude from the mns site.
this joker is trying to steel my identitie.
|
|
Rude Eric
New Member
Very basic me
Posts: 160
|
Post by Rude Eric on Jan 16, 2009 20:09:07 GMT
f**k off you little runt before i give you a good sideswipe and an upper left. Theris only ONE eric rudie
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 16, 2009 20:20:43 GMT
Who is the real Rude Eric? There are clues.
|
|
|
|
Post by cn on Jan 16, 2009 20:23:53 GMT
f**k off you little runt before i give you a good sideswipe and an upper left. Theris only ONE eric rudie Looks like the other one joined and posted before you. Come on Omni, own up, its you puny alter ego. |
|
|
|
Post by Brittles on Jan 16, 2009 20:30:08 GMT
It is 11 years since a new warship was ordered for the Royal Navy. Ahem ........... The latest addition to the fleet - HMS Daring - Type 45 Destroyer sailed down the river Clyde from Glasgow today bound for Portsmouth. She never took 11 years to build, we do things rather quicker in Scotland. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7832270.stm |
|
|
|
Post by reverend on Jan 16, 2009 20:31:26 GMT
and a damn fine job they did building it too!
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeeric on Jan 16, 2009 20:35:39 GMT
why hare we still making these war ships, whne we shuld be making tractors an farm tools. not fight american wars and selling guns to israelys
|
|
|
|
Post by reverend on Jan 16, 2009 20:36:38 GMT
so we can shell people who can't type to save thier lives!
|
|
|
|
Post by puffin on Jan 16, 2009 20:36:51 GMT
Split?
Segmented more like
|
|
|
|
Post by puffin on Jan 16, 2009 20:38:34 GMT
It's cheaper to buy tractors and farm tools from abroad, eric
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeeric on Jan 16, 2009 20:41:48 GMT
but wee nead the work here in europe as well.
we could bild a lot of tractors instead of battleships......when was the last time we had a navla battle? Forklands?
|
|
|
|
Post by reverend on Jan 16, 2009 20:43:10 GMT
of course tractors are damn handy when your hunting pirates off the Somali coast!
|
|
|
|
Post by cn on Jan 16, 2009 20:44:41 GMT
but wee nead the work here in europe as well. we could bild a lot of tractors instead of battleships......when was the last time we had a navla battle? Forklands? AAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH! MY EYES! |
|
