Making the news today....

[the village idiot]

Mind-bogglingly expensive, no doubt about that. And that goes a long way towards the question of should we / should't we.

 

Deployed submarine launch allows independent global deployment, surprise and the potential ability to launch after the home nation has suffered an attack - further enhancing the deterrent / uncertainty effect. You have to have minimum 4 subs, 1 deployed, 1 recovering from deployment, 1 preparing and 1 in deep maintenance. The early days of air launch via the RAF was a perfect con by the staffies at the Air Ministry - the aircraft lacked the range to deliver the cargo to most of the designated targets and resulted in the requirement for manpower increases to maintain security and operation of bases. It was a classic example of the RAF top brass being clererererer than the ARMY and Navy equivalents.

 

I forget who it was getting hung up about the "...but we'll never use it so it's a waste of time..." argument earlier (pre-shut down.) I'd suggest "use" and "usefulness" are perhaps better ways of thinking about it.

 

Nobody (sane) wants to USE it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a use.

 

It's also important to take the whole issue within the broader context of how and why it came into being. It would be my view that it has served a valuable purpose post WWII and through the Cold War period. It started to get out of control and was curtailed by the SALT treaties which provided a kind of 'balance' between the US / USSR.

 

The question of replacement of Trident kind of transcends the political divide - it's bigger than a single party issue and bigger than a single term of government.

 

I'm kind of relieved that the decision has been made to replace - albeit (along with the carriers) at the expense of more conventional forces.

 

We live in uncertain times today and certainly don't know what the future holds. Whilst we might all desire global peace and stability, i think we are better to walk quietly and carry a big stick.

 

Chairman Corbyn's obvious and declared inability to say he would be prepared to press the button if necessary kind of undermines the usefulness of the system.

 

In my book, having it (and we are going to despite what he might want) and not being prepared to say you'd use it (even if you don't really mean it) rather undermines the usefulness and illustrates how singly out of touch with reality the man is.

 

Nobody wants it, nobody wants to use it, but it's here. Having it and telling everyone you wouldn't use it is even more insane than having it.

 

All of that said, I wish we were in a different place and we didn't have it. We're not there yet though.

 

Very comprehensive and informative, cheers Kevin

[the village idiot]

That's not true. Look how much the welfare state costs us.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

 

Compared to £58 a year EU wide on CAP.

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/what-would-brexit-mean-for-farmers-and-the-common-agricultural-p/amp/

 

I'm not against the "little man" I just think he should be trying to help himself instead of getting others to do it for him (unions etc)

 

Your scenario of waiting for parts fits this perfectly. Why not drive and collect the stuff instead?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

Forget trident everyone, Richard's just started World War Three!

[Richard 1234]

Forget trident everyone, Richard's just started World War Three!

 

 

[emoji16][emoji16][emoji16]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[fen01]

Im not convinced a nuclear deterrent is going to prevent a rogue nutter like kim jong from launching his own nuclear weapons.Lets be honest here,as soon as one country launches it will only take minutes for another to launch a retalitory strike-in that case were all goners.

Anyway that aside i did say only take a portion of the cash to renew trident and improve our military and police force.

Good description of how deterrent works, and works everyday. Just think Bay of Pigs, Cuba and now Russian expansionism. I think the deterrent (not offensive capability hence why we don't have tactical nuclear weapons) is as important now as it ever was. As for fighting terrorism you need an holistic approach accross a wide range of functions but most importantly a political will to win and pay in both blood and treasure...

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Arbtalk mobile app

[felixthelogchopper]

That's not true. Look how much the welfare state costs us.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

 

Compared to £58 a year EU wide on CAP.

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/what-would-brexit-mean-for-farmers-and-the-common-agricultural-p/amp/

 

I'm not against the "little man" I just think he should be trying to help himself instead of getting others to do it for him (unions etc)

 

Your scenario of waiting for parts fits this perfectly. Why not drive and collect the stuff instead?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

So while the employer has all the benefits of the big guns behind them, you think the little man should have nobody in his corner? Bit unfair, don't you think?

[skyhuck]

I wonder how the events in london would have ended under a Corbyn government ?

[ame]

[/ame]

[scotspine1]

Cheers Steve B, good call.

 

Ok where were we.......

 

Right, we have a serious threat from Islamic extremist terrorists. This would not be a good time for our Home Secretary to be Diane Abbot.

.

[eggsarascal]

That's not true. Look how much the welfare state costs us.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

 

Compared to £58 a year EU wide on CAP.

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/what-would-brexit-mean-for-farmers-and-the-common-agricultural-p/amp/

 

I'm not against the "little man" I just think he should be trying to help himself instead of getting others to do it for him (unions etc)

 

Your scenario of waiting for parts fits this perfectly. Why not drive and collect the stuff instead

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

I'll read your links and come back to you later........

 

When you work for a big company the parts that you need are not held in local stores any more, they are held by preferred contractors which are/could be at the other end of the country.

 

Who's going to man the excavation whilst you drive off to collect parts?

 

You really ain't got a clue how big companies work/waste our money.

 

We don't all push lawn mowers about in our local village ya know.

[WesD]

Mind-bogglingly expensive, no doubt about that. And that goes a long way towards the question of should we / should't we.

 

Deployed submarine launch allows independent global deployment, surprise and the potential ability to launch after the home nation has suffered an attack - further enhancing the deterrent / uncertainty effect. You have to have minimum 4 subs, 1 deployed, 1 recovering from deployment, 1 preparing and 1 in deep maintenance. The early days of air launch via the RAF was a perfect con by the staffies at the Air Ministry - the aircraft lacked the range to deliver the cargo to most of the designated targets and resulted in the requirement for manpower increases to maintain security and operation of bases. It was a classic example of the RAF top brass being clererererer than the ARMY and Navy equivalents.

 

I forget who it was getting hung up about the "...but we'll never use it so it's a waste of time..." argument earlier (pre-shut down.) I'd suggest "use" and "usefulness" are perhaps better ways of thinking about it.

 

Nobody (sane) wants to USE it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a use.

 

It's also important to take the whole issue within the broader context of how and why it came into being. It would be my view that it has served a valuable purpose post WWII and through the Cold War period. It started to get out of control and was curtailed by the SALT treaties which provided a kind of 'balance' between the US / USSR.

 

The question of replacement of Trident kind of transcends the political divide - it's bigger than a single party issue and bigger than a single term of government.

 

I'm kind of relieved that the decision has been made to replace - albeit (along with the carriers) at the expense of more conventional forces.

 

We live in uncertain times today and certainly don't know what the future holds. Whilst we might all desire global peace and stability, i think we are better to walk quietly and carry a big stick.

 

Chairman Corbyn's obvious and declared inability to say he would be prepared to press the button if necessary kind of undermines the usefulness of the system.

 

In my book, having it (and we are going to despite what he might want) and not being prepared to say you'd use it (even if you don't really mean it) rather undermines the usefulness and illustrates how singly out of touch with reality the man is.

 

Nobody wants it, nobody wants to use it, but it's here. Having it and telling everyone you wouldn't use it is even more insane than having it.

 

All of that said, I wish we were in a different place and we didn't have it. We're not there yet though.

 

 

Good post 👍

[s.varty]

Cheers Steve B, good call.

 

Ok where were we.......

 

Right, we have a serious threat from Islamic extremist terrorists. This would not be a good time for our Home Secretary to be Diane Abbot.

.

 

Don't matter who you vote for: that has to be one of the funniest posts ever:laugh1: