I just heard a report on Radio 1 about Trident- and the only soundbite of comment came from a CND spokesperson!

The same on the TV news this morning. Why only get the views of a pressure group who are notoriously ill informed on military matters? Really, what do CND know about global politics and military affairs? They seem to be made up of simplistic and naive, but no doubt sincere, persons who object purely on a moral stance. Commendable, but it ignores the realities of world affairs.

Surely it would be more appropriate to have a balance of INFORMED opinion. The BBC reports are full of words such as "controversy", "criticised","under fire". Well we know on which side of the debate the BBC is on....

"Pale Ebeneezer thought it wrong to fight, but Roaring Bill, who killed him, thought it right"

Hilaire Belloc

Agreed. The sooner taxpayers stop funding this egregious left-wing propaganda machine the better. The moronic arguments of the CND brigade were expunged twenty years ago. It’s quite astounding that airtime is still given to people who believe that unilateral disarmament will “set a good example” to countries like Iran and North Korea.

I’ll put up with adverts if it means getting some sensible, balanced reporting. You could almost sense glee from BBC reporters when violence in Iraq continued after the death of that head-hacking bastard Al Zarqawi.

To top it all was yet more seditious crap from the BBC last night. I tuned in to a programme on the Union Flag on BBC 2, expecting a serious account of the story of our national flag. Instead, I was subjected to an hour of more modish left wing self-loathing, complete with interviews from every subversive in the country, and a sardonic Tom Baker narrative straight from “Little Britain”. The only defenders of our national flag the BBC could find included a rather eccentric member of the Flag Institute (whose eccentricity was milked to maximum effect) and the ex-leader of the National Front.

£20 billion is too much for something we may never use. its a fucking waste of money , you reallly think have a nuclear bomb is gonna matter to the like of iran??? they know we can never use it for tow reasons one its too dangerous the other being the yanks not letting us

It's the same with their coverage of Iraq, the Tories and Liverpool (where do you think you get all those stilted and incorrect notions about the place from? certainly not Liverpool TV!).... a strange triumvarite!

The BBC should be closed down

Atleast Blair is planning something now instead waiting till they are decommissioned and then planning to build more. The Aircraft carrier business is a joke and its the same with the destroyers and frigates. Only the submarines seems to be the right track. You never know whats going to happen in the future and if them £20 billion quid Subs come in useful none of you will be complaining.

£20 billion is too much for something we may never use. its a fucking waste of money , you reallly think have a nuclear bomb is gonna matter to the like of iran??? they know we can never use it for tow reasons one its too dangerous the other being the yanks not letting us


Hopefully it will never be used, thats the point, an insurance policy. and we are talking over 20 years away, who knows what threats there will be then?

The warheads are UK manufactured, so no restrictions on use, it neednt be a US delivery system-in any case "operational soverignty" can be insisted upon.

The BBC is a strange organism, and the people that work there seem stranger. Sometimes I cant bear to watch the "news" , with all the crappy "we have just told you the story so lets see someone it affects" bits. Where do they get these people? "Government bans biros"- next we see Dave from Reading in his house bemoaning the fact he cant use Biros any more! And hes always a twat! "What do people on the street think?"- one "Yes", one "No" and a "I dont know"- what a waste of airtime

Atleast Blair is planning something now instead waiting till they are decommissioned and then planning to build more. The Aircraft carrier business is a joke and its the same with the destroyers and frigates. Only the submarines seems to be the right track. You never know whats going to happen in the future and if them £20 billion quid Subs come in useful none of you will be complaining.

i rather fancy if britain were ever compelled to unleash its nuclear hellfire on the world, none of us would be around long enough to appreciate it anyway. besides, i'm not sure how much satisfaction i could derive from knowing that my imminent death would shortly thereafter be followed my millions more on 'their' side. if britain can't continue as a functioning society, i'd still be keen on the idea for humanity elsewhere to endure.

i still think it's important for us to maintain our deterrent for precisely the reason of it being a deterrent. i'm persuaded of the notion that no-one would be stupid enough to trigger a war that would result in mutually-assured destruction...at least that is until the rise and rise of religious fanaticism.

it's easy for blair to discuss this issue because he'll be gone in a year. the billions of pounds the presiding government will need to invest in this scheme will not trouble him a single iota. additional to this, the likelihood is that to finance this initiative the government will need to raid other sources of capital, the ministry of defence being the obvious choice. the implications of this could mean no future aircraft carriers, or a substantially reduced capacity, a poorer equipped standing army (or even greater reliance on territorials), or the wholesale dismantling of the royal air force as a redundant branch of the british military infrastructure.

i don't think the bbc's coverage has been overly biased. the quality of their reporting can sometimes seem a little superficial, but then they have to cater for the great unwashed masses that constitute the bulk of the british public. they also have little to debate anyway as the politicians are too cowardly to inform us as to the decision they've probably already taken.

i did catch the tail-end of the programme last night discussing the flag, and even in those brief minutes it was easy to gauge its overall sentiment. the bbc always attempts to adopt a non-conservative stance when discussing britain...they probably feel if they didn't they'd be accused of pandering.

When it comes to nuclear technology I'm with Churchill and that is new weapons only make the rubble bounce higher.

That said I think we should go ahead with it so that we can remain on the top table of the UN and influence things from there.

I also want to see some sort of priority being put on the two new aircraft carriers, ie a committment to build them.

^^100% agree with you.

a little bit of good news...

The UK's Armed Forces will receive 70 of the highly advanced 'Future Lynx' helicopters which will be used for everything from battlefield reconnaissance, casualty evacuation and troop transport, to detecting and destroying fast naval attack craft.

Source: MOD


AgustaWestland Details Future Lynx Helicopters
AgustaWestland
Mon, 26 Jun 2006, 00:35


AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce the award of a contract by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) for 70 Future Lynx helicopters. The programme valued at just under £1 billion will provide the British Army and Royal Navy with 40 and 30 Future Lynx helicopters respectively. An option has also been placed for a further 10 aircraft split equally between the Army and Royal Navy. The contract award was announced today by Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Procurement, and is the first contract to be awarded under the Strategic Partnering Arrangement between the MoD and AgustaWestland, which was also signed today.

The contract, awarded to AgustaWestland, will see the replacement of existing Army and Royal Navy Lynx helicopters with a much more capable version incorporating advanced technology which will deliver more capability and reduce whole life costs. The Future Lynx programme will support over 800 high technology jobs across the UK.

The first flight of the first Future Lynx will take place in late 2009 with initial deliveries starting in 2011. Future Lynx will enter operational service in 2014 with the British Army and 2015 with the Royal Navy.

The Air Vehicle


Future Lynx helicopter
Future Lynx is a new air vehicle that builds on the dynamic and vehicle systems of the existing Lynx design. It also incorporates new systems developed for Super Lynx 300 and delivers enhanced systems that provide a more capable air vehicle. The British Army and Royal Navy Future Lynx will have a common fully marinised airframe with provisions for a range of mission and role equipment in support of its multi-role capability.

The aircraft has a built-in mass growth provision to allow incremental cost-effective capability upgrades from the In Service Date Maximum All Up Mass (MAUM) of 5790 kg through to an Out of Service Date MAUM of 6250 kg. The 12,000-hour fatigue life airframe also incorporates monolithic machined aluminium structural parts to reduce component count and maintenance and has improved crashworthiness features designed to meet military 90th percentile potentially survivable crash case conditions.

A new low set symmetric tailplane has been incorporated to improve flying qualities and larger cockpit doors have been designed to improve crew egress. The redesigned nose and rear fuselage give greater space and easier access to avionic units while an all new up-rated common undercarriage with strengthened attachments has been designed to meet the aircraft’s MAUM of 6,250 kg.

Future Lynx will be powered by two LHTEC CTS800 engines each rated at 1015 kW (1361 shp) which give the aircraft greatly improved hot and high performance and single engine performance over existing Army and Royal Navy Lynx helicopters. The CTS800 engines provide 36% greater power than the Gem engines used in current MoD Lynx helicopters for very similar fuel consumption.

Future Lynx with its CTS800 engines will have an endurance of approximately 3 hours with standard fuel and 4.5 hours with auxiliary fuel while being able to carry half as much again as current Lynx helicopters.

The existing composite main rotor blades will be used and married with an all new 4-blade tail rotor to give improved yaw control at high weights and a new common undercarriage with improved crashworthiness has been designed.

Future Lynx will also feature a range of equipment to enhance its survivability including crashworthy/armoured crew seating, crashworthy passenger seating, ‘role fit’ armoured cabin floor, Wire Strike Protection System, a proven Integrated Defensive Aids Suite and an engine Infra-Red Suppression (IRS) system on the Army aircraft.

Future Lynx will also be equipped with an Integrated Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) to improve safety and reduce cost of ownership.

Mission Capability

Future Lynx will have a comprehensive and highly capable integrated avionics suite that enables and supports all aspects of the Army and Royal Navy missions. The basic aircraft avionics suite, consisting of navigation and communication systems, is controlled and managed by twin Control Display and Navigation Units (CDNU). Display of primary flight information is via four Smiths Industries 10”x8” Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD) Integrated Display Units (IDU). This suite is designed to achieve high levels of availability, flexibility, redundancy and safety. It provides excellent navigation and communication facilities to enable maximum performance from the associated mission sensor suite.

Mission systems are managed by a Tactical Processor (TP) jointly developed by General Dynamics (UK) and AgustaWestland. Display and management of tactical views and control of the sensor suite is via the Integrated Display Units and a Cursor Control Device. Human Machine Interface (HMI) issues have been, and will continue to be, designed to minimize crew workload through extensive simulation and trials with Army and Royal Navy operators and MoD subject matter experts.

Prior to commencement of a mission, the Mission Planning System (MPS) can receive and process relevant mission information, including Mission Orders, Tactical Airspace Information, Meteorological and Geographical Data. This enables missions to be planned for multiple platforms. These plans can be rehearsed in either 2D or 3D and replanned to suit.
Accurate position Information is obtained from the navigation suite, which is based around an Integrated Global Positioning System (GPS) Inertial system, providing highly accurate and reliable data to support pilotage and mission sensor performance.

Both Army and Royal Navy variants are able to visually detect distant targets in a variety of demanding meteorological conditions using a stabilised Electro-Optic Device (EOD). The Royal Navy variant has a 360° scanning digital colour radar system designed to enable it to meet its Maritime Surveillance role.

Offensive capability and self protection are provided on both variants via role fit of a pintle mounted General Purpose Machine Gun or M3M Heavy Machine Guns (HMG). The ability to conduct third party designation of targets, particularly for Apache AH Mk1, is enabled by using the role-fit Laser Target Designator and Range Finder fitted within the EOD.

The Royal Navy variant retains the Sting Ray torpedoes from Lynx Mk8, and will be fitted with a new Stores Management System, carrier and launcher. This is in order to deploy a new missile or rocket system that will replace the Sea Skua as part of the Future Air to Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW) programme.

Future Lynx is fitted with a communications suite based upon the Thales Avionics Secure Communications Control System developed for the Mk8 Lynx. Plain and secure voice communication is provided via the V/UHF SATURN and HF radios. BOWMAN radio functionality is also provided, giving the Army variant the ability to interact within the BOWMAN network, exchanging secure voice and data communications. The Naval variant will have an ESM and data link capability.

New technology onboard will also mean reductions to support and maintenance costs over the life of the aircraft which will stay in service for thirty years. An integrated operational support package and training programme is currently being developed with the MoD in order to meet entry into service and through life requirements.

The current Lynx entered service with the Royal Navy and the Army in the mid-1970s in anti-submarine and utility roles. Since then the aircraft has taken on an increasingly wide range of roles including: anti-surface warfare, battlefield reconnaissance, casualty evacuation, airborne command post, logistical support and tactical troop transport. Future Lynx will help preserve and extend this operational capability for the Royal Navy and the Army.

Background Information and Notes:

A successful Assessment phase, which was completed earlier this year, demonstrated that Future Lynx met the required BRH and SCMR requirements within the cost, time and performance targets set by the UK MoD. In April 2005 the UK Government announced the selection of Future Lynx for the British Army’s and Royal Navy’s requirements with detailed technical and commercial discussions subsequently taking place leading to contract award in June 2006.

AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is one of the largest helicopter companies in the world. The company offers an unrivalled range of helicopters, training and support solutions to satisfy the requirements of civil and military customers. AgustaWestland has its primary operations in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.





Source(©): AgustaWestland

Great, still no news on the new carriers or extra the 6 extra destroyers we need though.

Here is a good article about what happened "last time", ie CVA 01, parrelells are there!

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm

I really dont see the second batch of Darings being built

a little bit of good news...

The UK's Armed Forces will receive 70 of the highly advanced 'Future Lynx' helicopters which will be used for everything from battlefield reconnaissance, casualty evacuation and troop transport, to detecting and destroying fast naval attack craft.

Source: MOD

And how many current helicopters are those 70 replacing?

Probably more than 70 I'll bet.

One of the primary roles of the RN is our nuclear deterrent. That's all it is designed for, a deterrent. Tridents have a good few years left in them, do not think they will be replaced in the next 10-15 years.

As for the carriers, it is a joke. We have just lost one of our three, which were never designed to be aircraft carriers in the first place. The new replacements have had more cuts, have been delayed further, and made so short that the aircraft we have ordered will not be able to take off on them.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200603270008

Trident: we've been conned again
Cover story
Dan Plesch
Monday 27th March 2006
The government says we need to update our "independent deterrent". Fresh evidence shows, however, that it isn't independent at all. By Dan Plesch
The independent British nuclear deterrent is a myth - whatever else it may be, it is not independent. That reality, laid bare as never before in US presidential directives published on our website, renders meaningless the government's suggestion that it is time to renew "our" nuclear arsenal.

For decades, American presidents have been authorising US weapons-makers to ship vital bomb components to Britain. George Bush Sr was one of them: in July 1991, for example, he signed a five-year directive ordering the United States department of energy to "produce additional nuclear weapons parts as necessary for transfer to the United Kingdom".

These are the final pieces in a jigsaw which exposes simple facts that British leaders have long known but a generation of Thatcherite consensus has obscured: we cannot and do not make our own nuclear weapons; we are not a true nuclear power; we are mere clients of the US.

Our present Trident submarine-launched nuclear missile system reaches the end of its shelf-life in the 2020s and we are told that, if it is to be replaced, work has to start soon. As the debate begins, supporters of a new generation of British weapons of mass destruction say we must have a bomb of our own so that we will always be equipped to face a crisis such as that of 1940. "Something nasty may turn up," is their bottom line.

We now know, however, that British weapons are so dependent on the US that this 1940 argument is a nonsense. In that year, we stood alone and the United States remained neutral. We would not have had a bomb in our arsenal because the Americans would have refused to help us make it, and would certainly not have given us one there and then. The truth behind the pro-renewal argument is that our defence in any future 1940 scenario depends not on us having a nuclear deterrent with a Union Jack on it, but on us having the US on our side.

The declassified National Security directives uncovered in the archives of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr leave no doubt about this dependency. The most recent available instruction is Bush's, quoted above, but the names of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski appear on earlier versions of this annual update to the US nuclear stockpile plan.

Governments here, however, have always stressed that the bombs on top of the Trident missiles were truly British - their answer to the criticism that Trident, as Denis Healey once put it, was a "rent-a-rocket, Moss Bros missile". Yet even when Healey spoke, more than 20 years ago, there was no shortage of evidence to contradict the official line. The Conservative government itself had to admit that there were never any "identifiably British" Trident missiles in the US navy store where British submarines loaded up. The words "Royal Navy" were only painted on the missiles for test-firing, to make good publicity pictures.

Documents obtained by the Natural Resources Defence Council, a non-governmental organisation in the US, show that for 45 years the UK has been given blueprints of many US weapons to help build bombs for Royal Navy missile submarines and RAF bombers. For decades, too, all Brit-ish nuclear testing was done in the US, and access to the Nevada test site is still essential to the UK programme.

Today the factory at Aldermaston in Berkshire that makes the bombs - and uses US equipment to do so - is actually co-managed by the Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, Maryland, while the submarine maintenance base in Plymouth is largely the property of Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton.

The transatlantic links date back at least to 1958, when a "mutual defence agreement" between Dwight Eisenhower and Harold Macmillan allowed the US to send Britain everything except complete nuclear weapons. Even in the years 1946 to 1958, when US nuclear support for Britain was supposedly cut off by Congress, the British were trading uranium ore for details of how to build factories to make nuclear weapons.

In 1962, as Macmillan set off to accept John F Kennedy's offer of Polaris missiles, the chief of Britain's nuclear bomber force wrote that the prime minister was travelling to "defend a myth". Macmillan's Sir Humphrey, Robert Scott, wrote that the deal would put Britain in America's pocket for a decade. His words were echoed four decades later when Admiral Raymond Lygo, the former head of nuclear programmes for the Royal Navy and chairman of British Aerospace, explained last year that any successor to Trident would "continue to tie the UK to US policy".

This past week, along with other experts, I gave evidence to the Commons defence committee on the issue of replacing Trident. I heard Sir Michael Quinlan, now retired from the civil service but widely regarded as the doyen of British nuclear strategists, say there were two issues at stake: independence of procurement and independence of operation. He argued that, although we had no independence of procurement, we could use the weapons independently.

This is moving the goalposts. For generations governments have tried to prevent the public knowing how much nuclear weapons kit the UK gets from the US, so that they could sustain the myth that our deterrent was home-made. Now, suddenly, it doesn't matter if the missiles aren't British. Take a step back. Imagine for a moment that France imported its nuclear missiles from China. Who would then believe in French independence?



So, what about independence of operation? Could Britain fire Trident if the US objected? In 1962 the then US defence secretary, Robert McNamara, said that the British nuclear bomber force did not operate independently. Writing in 1980, Air Vice-Marshal Stewart Menaul said it definitely could not be used without US authorisation. Today former naval officers say it would be extremely difficult. The many computer software programs, the fuse, the trigger, the guidance system as well as the missiles are all made in America.

Let us say that Britain wanted to fire Trident and the United States opposed this. What would happen? For one, the entire US navy would be deployed to hunt down Red-White-and-Blue October; it would know roughly where to look, starting from the last position notified to the US and Nato while on normal patrol. Meanwhile, the prime minister would be trying to find a radio that was not jammed, hoping that none of the software had a worm and that the US navy wouldn't shoot the missiles down with either its Aegis anti-missile system or the self-destruct radio signal that is used when missiles are test-fired.

From the moment of a breach with Washington, moreover, every Trident submarine sailing down the Clyde would find a waiting US escort. In months the software would be out of date, Lockheed Martin and Halliburton would fly home, taking much equipment with them, and no spare parts would be available. As Quinlan put it: "We would be in shtook."

The British people believe that an independent bomb exists. They don't know that this insurance policy is valid only when Washington feels like it. And the premiums are high: in return for this dodgy insurance, Britain must follow the US line.

Did Britain have to invade Iraq? No, but if we had not, when the Mutual Defence Agreement came up for renewal in 2004 would John Bolton have recommended to his president that Britain was worthy of another ten years of nuclear supplies "in light of our previous close co-operation"?

Forty years ago Peter Cook lampooned Macmillan's pretence at an independent bomb. Harold Wilson argued before, during and after he left office that Britain's nuclear weapons were not independent. Recently Robin Cook, previewing my own work in what was his last article, affirmed that all aspects of Trident are dependent upon the US. Yet academics, journalists and politicians still use the words "independent nuclear deterrent" with gravitas rather than derision.

Confidence tricks work best on people who want to believe in them, and the British elite and much of the public are desperate to believe that Britain's bomb gives them great-power status. Instead Britain gets the worst of all worlds: weapons that can't be used when the chips are down and a US-led policy that rejects disarmament in favour of pre-emptive war. And now, with Trident becoming obsolete, the government wants to renew the deal - behind the old, dishonest mask of independent deterrence.

At the Commons defence hearing, MPs voiced the opinion that voters wanted a British bomb for the simple reason that the French had one. Informed that ever since Charles de Gaulle the French have regarded Britain as a US vassal because of our nuclear dependence, they were unmoved. The voters would not see it that way, protested one MP. Well, perhaps it is time the voters were told the truth.

I saw a Trident boat steaming down the Clyde at the weekend: such beautiful things! It was being chased by lots of Greenpeace craft though: nothing a few torpedoes would not have sorted out.

Unfortunately there are still many loony-left refuseniks who wring their hands in dismay (like the article above) at the fact that we have a weapon that has guaranteed our security for many decades. It must really irk them that we are one of an exclusive club of nuclear powers with a military of global reach, and a seat on the Security Council. The whole nuclear debate must stoke the fires in their hearts at the one remaining aspect of our nationhood that prevents us from becoming the weak multilateralist, socialist and mediocre “European State” that they so aspire to be.

Fortunately for us though, many of those former CND supporting; red flag waving; “let’s unilaterally disarm during the cold war and throw our hands in the air” types have seen sense since they have found themselves in the responsible job of Government. Like the sailors in HMS Vanguard, at least there are still some people left in this country who will stand up for ourselves, and not roll over like spineless chumps. Hats off to them! Thank God we had Churchill in the summer of 1940, and not Polly Toynbee.

God Save the Queen; Rule Britannia and so forth.

I saw a Trident boat steaming down the Clyde at the weekend: such beautiful things! It was being chased by lots of Greenpeace craft though: nothing a few torpedoes would not have sorted out.

Unfortunately there are still many loony-left refuseniks who wring their hands in dismay (like the article above) at the fact that we have a weapon that has guaranteed our security for many decades. It must really irk them that we are one of an exclusive club of nuclear powers with a military of global reach, and a seat on the Security Council. The whole nuclear debate must stoke the fires in their hearts at the one remaining aspect of our nationhood that prevents us from becoming the weak multilateralist, socialist and mediocre “European State” that they so aspire to be.

Fortunately for us though, many of those former CND supporting; red flag waving; “let’s unilaterally disarm during the cold war and throw our hands in the air” types have seen sense since they have found themselves in the responsible job of Government. Like the sailors in HMS Vanguard, at least there are still some people left in this country who will stand up for ourselves, and not roll over like spineless chumps. Hats off to them! Thank God we had Churchill in the summer of 1940, and not Polly Toynbee.

God Save the Queen; Rule Britannia and so forth.

:applause:

Well said.

Polly Toynbee would probably have said lets stop being little Englanders and work with Mr Hitler :)

I saw a Trident boat steaming down the Clyde at the weekend: such beautiful things! It was being chased by lots of Greenpeace craft though: nothing a few torpedoes would not have sorted out.

Unfortunately there are still many loony-left refuseniks who wring their hands in dismay (like the article above) at the fact that we have a weapon that has guaranteed our security for many decades. It must really irk them that we are one of an exclusive club of nuclear powers with a military of global reach, and a seat on the Security Council. The whole nuclear debate must stoke the fires in their hearts at the one remaining aspect of our nationhood that prevents us from becoming the weak multilateralist, socialist and mediocre “European State” that they so aspire to be.

Fortunately for us though, many of those former CND supporting; red flag waving; “let’s unilaterally disarm during the cold war and throw our hands in the air” types have seen sense since they have found themselves in the responsible job of Government. Like the sailors in HMS Vanguard, at least there are still some people left in this country who will stand up for ourselves, and not roll over like spineless chumps. Hats off to them! Thank God we had Churchill in the summer of 1940, and not Polly Toynbee.

God Save the Queen; Rule Britannia and so forth.


Did you need a lie down after that? If you read the article rather than just running away hiding under your daily mail when you see the words new and statesman next to each other you'd find that it doesn't actually mention disarmament, only that our deterrent if we want one should be truly independent. There are plenty of right wing commentators who have said the same.

I am too annoyed by the BBC's report on this issue. let's be frank, it would be mad to even think of giving up Britain's nuclear weapons!! sure they won't be used, cos all our civilised countries know that the moment the next nuke bomb is dropped will be the moment the WW3 starts. But the fact is those evil countries i.e. Iran, N Korea won't hesitate to use nukes if they are capable, so we need to be sure... it's like hiding a loaded shotgun in the cupboard, and put a sign on the frond door 'intruders: enter, you WILL die!!'.. without that shotgun, you don't dare to say that, do you? :gunz:
Living in this crazy world, PROTECTION IS EVERYTHING!
I do agree though.. this system needs to be independent.. that means you decide when to press that red button without having to get permission from the 'big brother'! you control your fate :) :guns1:

Long

I am too annoyed by the BBC's report on this issue. let's be frank, it would be mad to even think of giving up Britain's nuclear weapons!! sure they won't be used, cos all our civilised countries know that the moment the next nuke bomb is dropped will be the moment the WW3 starts. But the fact is those evil countries i.e. Iran, N Korea won't hesitate to use nukes if they are capable, so we need to be sure... it's like hiding a loaded shotgun in the cupboard, and put a sign on the frond door 'intruders: enter, you WILL die!!'.. without that shotgun, you don't dare to say that, do you? :gunz:
Living in this crazy world, PROTECTION IS EVERYTHING!
I do agree though.. this system needs to be independent.. that means you decide when to press that red button without having to get permission from the 'big brother'! you control your fate :) :guns1:

Long

I agree, but then I can perfectly understand why the North Korean or Iranian regime wants to get nukes too. If countries like the US and UK who have them are saying they think NK is'evil' and have shown that they are happy to invade others they categorise as such then I would want nukes too for self-preservation if I was Kim-Jong-il or Mr Ahmedinejad.

Also while our nukes are an effective deterrent against a nation attacking us, i'm not convinced that they would deter any terorist who wanted to use nukes against us.

If we nuked Tehran for example because a terrorist nuked us and we had a suspicion based on intelligence that the material or know-how for that bomb came from Iran then we would be rightly made into a pariah state by the international community. The terrorists know we'd never use these weapons without being 100% sure where we were being attacked from.

Did you need a lie down after that?

Not really.

If you read the article rather than just running away hiding under your daily mail when you see the words new and statesman next to each other you'd find that it doesn't actually mention disarmament, only that our deterrent if we want one should be truly independent. There are plenty of right wing commentators who have said the same.

Hmm, I've never read the Daily Mail actually, but if it has the same opinion of unwashed CND activist that I do, I may peruse it out of interest, although I am not predisposed to reading tabloid newspapers of any variety.

However, I digress. I did indeed read the article and I understand the sentiments perfectly. My statements were aimed primarily at nuclear detractors, rather than the journalists. After all, I regularly drive past the “peace camp” outside Faslane, where hoards of welfare jockeys camp permanently outside protesting at these weapons of murder, despite the fact that a Trident missile has never killed anyone. They would do well to relocate outside of any one of the licensed manufactures of Kalashnikov AK-47s, as they have killed possibly hundreds of thousands of people during its 50 years of use. However, I digress once again.

Whether or not we have an "independent" nuclear deterrent is debatable, and very much depends on your definition of independent. Yes, all missile maintenance is performed in the US, but the firing capability is in the hands of our Government. As the missiles themselves use the stars for navigation, I doubt that there is any question of US commanders pushing a button; thus making our missiles fizzle out and fall mysteriously to Earth. Therefore we have operational sovereignty if not technical sovereignty over the missiles. I’m sceptical of the article’s presumption that (a) the US would hunt down a British submarine that launched an “unathorised” missile (unless it was fired at them) and (b) that they would have any effective method of bringing it down (I doubt Aegis would cope with the multiple independent re-entry vehicles of Trident). The radio signal option is interesting, and perhaps plausible given the pernicious rate of European defence integration that seems to be happening that is undermining the US-UK alliance.

The point the article is making (if between the lines) is that we should disarm unless we have a truly indigenous missile system. Then again, the New Statesmen would be the first magazine to complain if we spent the additional billions necessary to develop such a system, as they would no doubt point out that there are countless schools’n’hospitals to throw the money at instead. If the journalist is indeed advocating that the Trident replacement should be a completely home grown ballistic missile system (which I doubt), then I agree 100%. I for one have no problem with the cost. We currently spend £3 Billion pounds a year on overseas aid, and about £8 billion pounds a year on the European Union (after Tony Blair’s budget “deal”), for which we receive nothing. Therefore, about five years of reassessed spending priorities would pay for such a system. Then we would have the reassurance that no mad Iranian mullah or any North Korean gangster will threaten us in the future. For that security, it is a price worth paying.

Rebellious Scots to Crush and so forth.

I'm glad that you know your place, Airedale.

I'm glad that you know your place, Airedale.

Eh?

Oh, you're referring to one of the verses of the National Anthem; the one about the Jacobite rebellion, which was absolutely nothing to do with an England-Scotland battle, but rather the issue of legitimate accession to the throne. As many Scots fought against the jacobites, who is to know where my place would have been?

After all, I regularly drive past the “peace camp” outside Faslane, where hoards of welfare jockeys camp permanently outside protesting at these weapons of murder, despite the fact that a Trident missile has never killed anyone. They would do well to relocate outside of any one of the licensed manufactures of Kalashnikov AK-47s, as they have killed possibly hundreds of thousands of people during its 50 years of use. However, I digress once again.



:cheers:

Ah, but the AK is a weapon used in the global armed struggle by the dispossed...

The previous attempts at a home grown weapon was the Blue Streak missile, which unfortunatley was cancelled in favour of Skybolt (!). It did in a modified (Black Prince) form send a satellite into space, from the test facility at Woomera. The commercial applications werent explored further due to government interference (cancellation). Another wasted opportunity!

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6133/bluestreak.html

The previous attempts at a home grown weapon was the Blue Streak missile, which unfortunatley was cancelled in favour of Skybolt (!). It did in a modified (Black Prince) form send a satellite into space, from the test facility at Woomera. The commercial applications werent explored further due to government interference (cancellation). Another wasted opportunity!

Indeed, it's a crying shame. I believe that the Prospero satellite that was launched by Black Arrow is still in orbit, long after our rocket programme was killed off: another one of Edward Heath's illustrious achievements.

have just looked at CND site via a BBC weblink (!!) - their "nuclear Britain" map shows Marham and Honington as nuclear bases! They ceased to be so with the withdrawl of WE177 5 years ago! Misinformed idiots, they probably thought the map didnt look sinister enough

have just looked at CND site via a BBC weblink (!!) - their "nuclear Britain" map shows Marham and Honington as nuclear bases! They ceased to be so with the withdrawl of WE177 5 years ago! Misinformed idiots, they probably thought the map didnt look sinister enough

I had a look at that map. It seems that they want to disarm us of power stations too!