# Defence Cuts



## Glider (May 23, 2010)

Like it or not (and I am sure it’s a not) these are on the way. The service chiefs of nearly all our countries are going to have to advise their political leaders as to what they should do to reduce the defence budgets.

It’s easy to sit on the outside and complain, it’s quite another to have to make the recommendations. So the question I would ask is, what would your advice be?


----------



## Colin1 (May 23, 2010)

Nuclear weapons work very well (as a deterrent) against other nations with nuclear weapons, they are of little value against an enemy that hides among us; cancel the nuclear submarine program. Give the Trident missiles back to the US who are far better financially disposed to maintain them and at least they don't need permission from themselves to fire them. 

With most of the colonies now handed back and the Falklands properly garrisoned, it's not always clear why we need two new aircraft carriers, what's the argument for UK force projection? The US already has a well defined capability in this area; trying to have the same toys as the big boys just seems to me like an expensive folly.

The Typhoon is a great aircraft that turned up for work on its first day to find its job had gone but what do you do with something that's already fielded?

The money saved could be used to upgrade existing keels for the RN and properly equip troops for the Army. The RAF's a bit of a grey area but I'd be looking to get the best out of the Tornado for the remainder of its service life for ground target support, rather than the Typhoon for air combat.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Nuclear weapons work very well (as a deterrent) against other nations with nuclear weapons, they are of little value against an enemy that hides among us; cancel the nuclear submarine program. Give the Trident missiles back to the US who are far better financially disposed to maintain them and at least they don't need permission from themselves to fire them.
> 
> With most of the colonies now handed back and the Falklands properly garrisoned, it's not always clear why we need two new aircraft carriers, what's the argument for UK force projection? The US already has a well defined capability in this area; trying to have the same toys as the big boys just seems to me like an expensive folly.
> 
> ...



Colin,

I wholeheartedly agree it's time too get rid of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent - too expensive and of no practical use. 

Re the carriers, there are a host of operartions that require air support but which, for reasons various, cannot be supported by ground-based aicraft. Non-combatant evacuation missions are a classic example. Also, just 'cos a location is garrisoned doesn't mean it can't be overrun by a determined enemy with superior numbers. Force projection remains a vital component of defence.

As an AD fighter, I agree Typhoon is expensive and largely irrelevant in the current political climate. However, a true multi-role capability would make Typhoon a much better option than keeping the Tonka alive for longer (much as I adore the GR version of The Fin).

Just my two penn'orth!

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 23, 2010)

We will going not to have that problem, the budget is already nearly zero.

Now talking seriously I think the defense cuts ( in this case Britain but could be any nother place) should be subjected tom to vote like the governorts, presidents,etc, I say this becaused ( at list in the argentine case) some short times politicians took several action to reduce military expendings without any political support of the population and caused catastrophical geopolitical consecuenses, and not only in the military terrain but also in the social one, unemployment beeing most preeminent.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (May 23, 2010)

It seems to me When it comes to defense cuts it's always OK unless the project is located in your district, then it's important to keep those jobs.


Wheels


----------



## Waynos (May 24, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Nuclear weapons work very well (as a deterrent) against other nations with nuclear weapons, they are of little value against an enemy that hides among us; cancel the nuclear submarine program. Give the Trident missiles back to the US who are far better financially disposed to maintain them and at least they don't need permission from themselves to fire them.
> 
> With most of the colonies now handed back and the Falklands properly garrisoned, it's not always clear why we need two new aircraft carriers, what's the argument for UK force projection? The US already has a well defined capability in this area; trying to have the same toys as the big boys just seems to me like an expensive folly.
> 
> ...



I completely agree re the Trident replacement, if only we can get over the the idea of France having a weapon we don't (surely our prime motivator for having nuclear weapons, whatever we might say publicly, a thousand year rivalry is not easily dropped 

The carriers are surely only there to allow us to play at being a world power still, I WANT to justify the purchase, but am struggling, its a very expensive way to reinforce the Falklands, and I will be sorely disappointed if they do get axed. They do allow us to show solidarity on our terms with our Commonwealth partners if needed so I'll go with that one.

I think you have misread the Typhoon though, it is equally adept at precision strikes as the F-16 and F-18 etc are and this is much more relevant to modern needs than a low fast mud mover like the Tornado, The Tornado fleet is also desperately running short of airframe hours, thanks to overuse of individual airframes brought on by previous fleet cuts. My choice for the RAF would be a force consisting of the Typhoon, Lightning II and a UCAV, possibly Taranis based, for future needs.


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2010)

I would keep Trident as its a cover that will be the ultimate deterrent for decades to come and looked at in that view is pretty good value for money.

For the RAF I would drop the F35 purchase and increase the number of Typhoons. The savings in support costs would be huge and the unit costs for the Typhoon would be reduced due to the larger number ordered. In addition it would protect the RAF against the potential increased costs of the F35 as the Typhoon is in production and the costs are known.
As everyone has commented the Typhoon is a multi role fighter and can be as accurate as any other aircraft when dropping bombs.

For the USAF the first suggestions I have are as follows. Some of these are probably underway but I am not really up to date on what the status is.

1 Get control of the purchasing process.
As I understand it Congress can force the USAF to buy aircraft that the USAF haven't asked for. Where is the logic in that?.

2 Reduce the number of types of Heavy Bomber
Do the USAF really need the B2, B1 and B52. Retire either the B1 or the B52. The B2 is unique and should be kept

3 Retire the F16 and A10

4 Merge the USN and Marine Air assets
I cannot see any situation where the Marine Air assets would go into action without the USN or USAF. A case could be made for them to retain attack and transport helicopters but not strike/fighter aircraft.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 24, 2010)

I must agree with the other Brits here that Trident needs to go - it's simply too much money for too little strategic benefit. If we still need a nuclear capability, go with cruise missiles - I'm thinking something along the lines of a nuclear-tipped Stormshadow or Tomahawk. 

The carrier program should be scrapped - we can launch S/VTOL aircraft from HMS Ocean, so why have the carriers? IMHO, both should be sold off as soon as they're completed, and we should get out of the F-35 program as it is already very late and massively over budget.

Likewise, cut back the Typhoon program, and get more out of Tornado - it's old, but it still does the job we ask of it. 

The savings made could be re-invested in the Army to ensure they have all they need for Afghanistan - I don't see us leaving any time soon (notwithstanding Liam Fox's verbal diarrhea over the weekend), so we should make sure we are kitted out for the long-haul.

The remainder of the money saved should go straight into paying down the deficit and supporting social programs like the £10000 income tax threshold - I believe that is a much better use of the money in the present circumstances.


----------



## pbfoot (May 24, 2010)

The canadian military is probably going to have to spend more now that the Ice Cap is melting and the NW Passage will become more of a reality . So we will have to focus more of our naval and land forces to the north and equip the navy most of all to deal with this threat


----------



## buffnut453 (May 24, 2010)

Glider said:


> I would keep Trident as its a cover that will be the ultimate deterrent for decades to come and looked at in that view is pretty good value for money.



'Fraid I disagree, Glider. Who's it deterring? Certainly not a terrorist organisation with a dirty bomb (and who would you retaliate against if such a weapon were employed?). Would any nation, even unstable ones, consider launching nukes in this day and age? And even if they did, would they obliterate any one nation's ability to retaliate with non-nuclear force? The entire world would be turned against the protagonists of a nuclear launch. I think there's a much stronger case for the long-time nuclear "haves" (ie US, UK, France, Russia) to agree to eradicate all nukes, take the moral high ground and eliminate nuke weapons as a symbol of national status.



BombTaxi said:


> The carrier program should be scrapped - we can launch S/VTOL aircraft from HMS Ocean, so why have the carriers? IMHO, both should be sold off as soon as they're completed, and we should get out of the F-35 program as it is already very late and massively over budget.
> 
> Likewise, cut back the Typhoon program, and get more out of Tornado - it's old, but it still does the job we ask of it.



BombTaxi,

Unfortunately, you can't sustain air operations from Ocean. She just isn't equipped. If you're talking about providing air superiority over a hostile area while extracting Brit and other foreign nationals, then you need sustainable air power for which you need either a land-based runway or a carrier. If the former isn't available and we scrap the carriers then we have to go cap in hand to the US or (egads!) the French for the latter. Now, I would recommend taking a long hard look at the carrier requirements - fit them with catapults and purchase only the CTOL version of the F-35 (the Harrier Mafia has driven requirements that are simply no longer affordable) - we'd get more capability (longer range, greater weapon load) and reduce much of the structural complexity of the current carrier design.

Per my previous post, Typhoon actually makes much more sense in the long-run rather than the dear old Tonka. The Tiffie can provide air superiority and ground attack, it's a generation newer platform and so has a longer operational life ahead of it. Finally, it doesn't have a naggivator so you have a 50% reducion in aircrew costs per squadron.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2010)

Glider said:


> IFor the USAF the first suggestions I have are as follows. Some of these are probably underway but I am not really up to date on what the status is.
> 
> 1 Get control of the purchasing process.
> As I understand it Congress can force the USAF to buy aircraft that the USAF haven't asked for. Where is the logic in that?.
> ...



Almost agree...

Congress can force the USAF to buy equipment it doesn't need but these days those in congress doing that are under a lot more scrutiny. Additionally those in the USAF have no problem "parking" new hardware saying that there was never a budget to operate these aircraft. Again it falls back on the politicians who try to make decisions for the military. the media is all over that.

Agree about the B-52. The B-1 can be configured to carry a heavier bomb load than the B-52. I'd retire the F-16 and the A-10 as the F-35 comes on line, but I would also examine the need for a close air support aircraft like the A-10 as it is being phased out, and that would depend on world events.

As far as merging USN and USMC air assets - technically they already are - well sought of.

The difference is the mission. Even if you merged the air assets you would just navy personnel supporting USMC personnel on the ground. Money wise it comes out to the same thing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2010)

Glider said:


> 3 Retire the F16 and A10



I would not want to get rid of either of those. Why would you want to retire them?


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2010)

I agree Adler. But with a caveat. Wait for F-35 to establish itself before retiring F-16. But keep the production lines open for foreign sales. But keep the A-10 in the C configuration and use F-35 as mini-AWACS to feed them. I see the A-10 as one of our more pertinent platforms in these changing times.

With respect to UK, what is the %GDP spent on military? As I recall, it is in the 5% arena... not outrageous by any stretch. How quickly we forget 1939 and preparedness. Things could get ugly with all of our nations socially spending ourselves into crisis. What happens if the Germans get fed up bailing out EU nations? You've seen a peek of what happens in Greece. Spain is next. What happens if US collapses? Not likely, but possible if we don't get our act together.

I would say dump the A400M. Make do with C-130Js, C-17s or leased An-124s. Keep your Typhoon and upgrade to Tranche III. If you are giving up force projection then I Hate to say it, but dump your F-35s. If you don't have carriers, you better damn well have some good attack submarines. Hell even Italy has a carriers. You woefully lack helicopter assets though.

So in a nutshell, cut social programs.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 24, 2010)

If somebody has spare A-10 of F-16 ...well think down south .



> Hell even Italy has a carriers. You woefully lack helicopter assets though



It does, the Garibaldi and Conde Di Cavour, the Cavour is quite impressive actually, a beautiful ship.
Apparently it was made bigger because the chianti store in the Garibaldi was woefully small 

By the way I read somewhere that the decomission of the ark royal in 1978 was a big mistake (according to some british authors the presence of that ship would deter any argentine invasion in 1982)


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2010)

Yeah, CB. Me thinks my Brit friends are looking to cut their budget in the wrong places. She is a huge island, you know.


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would not want to get rid of either of those. Why would you want to retire them?



Want isn't the correct phrase. The idea is that defence cuts are coming and if you have to make tough choices then that is an option.


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> By the way I read somewhere that the decomission of the ark royal in 1978 was a big mistake (according to some british authors the presence of that ship would deter any argentine invasion in 1982)



The decommisioning of the Ark Royal wasn't a mistake. I was on her for a short time in 1974 and she was pretty well clapped out then. The mistake was losing her capability.

The Ark Royal would have deterred an attack for a number of reasons including:-

1) she had the ability to strike against the mainland
2) AEW aircraft were on board
3) The F4 would have dominated the airspace.

There is one caviet and its a big one. All Argentina needed to do was wait for the Ark to go say three months into a major refit and then attack.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 25, 2010)

Glider said:


> All Argentina needed to do was wait for the Ark to go say three months into a major refit and then attack.



Which is precisely why we need 2 carriers - one vessel just isn't enough to maintain presence or threat. Either that or the UK gives up the whole idea and ceases ship-based air combat operations. This latter course of action would not be a good thing, in my view!


----------



## Waynos (May 25, 2010)

If we were to take that course we may as well give up the Navy itself IMO, but maybe I'm being a bit extreme 

I wonder why it is that almost every independant observer/internet expert etc thinks, as I do, that we would be better off buying the F-35C, except for the MoD who are adamant that we buy the shorter ranged, more expensive and less capable version? Both carriers are already being built to be able to handle this model, plus the Rafale's and Super Hornets of friendly navies, so whats the problem?

Oh yes, the UK's STOVL legacy, which is not actually utilised on the F-35B at all.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 25, 2010)

Waynos,

Why the F-35B? Two words of explanation - "Harrier" and "Mafia". 

The FAA hasn't had a conventional fixed wing combat aircraft since the days of the old Ark (all together now "We are sailing...We are SAILING etc etc) while a large proportion of senior RAF leadership have a strong affinity for the plastic-puffer-jet. 

F-35B proponents argue that "We need the STOVL F-35 'cos we need to replace what we've got" but they disregard the fact that the operational role for which the Harrier was designed disappeared 20 years ago with the break-up of the Warsaw Pact. No more threat of 3rd Shock Army charging across the Inner German Border ('cos there wasn't an IGB any more!) so no need to hide aircraft in the woods. 

Don't get me wrong - I really like the Harrier. I think it's a marvellous design which does something no other combat aircraft has achieved (sorry but the Yak FORGER just isn't in the same class). However, its days are gone - time to let go of the Harrier legacy and recognise that we need more capability and less complexity.

I'll get off my soapbox now!!!

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Waynos (May 25, 2010)

I agree completely, and thats from someone who wished that they at least _tried_ to fly the P.1154


----------



## buffnut453 (May 25, 2010)

Waynos said:


> I agree completely, and thats from someone who wished that they at least _tried_ to fly the P.1154



Me too! Imagine those flying over the Falklands!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> I agree Adler. But with a caveat. Wait for F-35 to establish itself before retiring F-16. But keep the production lines open for foreign sales. But keep the A-10 in the C configuration and use F-35 as mini-AWACS to feed them. I see the A-10 as one of our more pertinent platforms in these changing times.



I agree. I think the F-16 is eventually replaceable, but I think the A-10 is perfectly suited for today's environments and battlefield.


----------



## Colin1 (May 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree. I think the F-16 is eventually replaceable, but I think the A-10 is perfectly suited for today's environments and battlefield.


I do too
one of the biggest challenges facing the free world is how to target a shapeless enemy like terrorism. The upside is that it's terrorism's very shapelessness that precludes it from possessing tangible battlefield assets - the F-16 won't fly over terrorist battlespace and have to compete with anything in the air; in my own opinion, the obsolescence of the F-16 and other same-generation platforms has been stretched to the right a bit.

The A-10 is as important now as it was during the Cold War, impressive loiter time, a truckload of varied ordnance strapped to its pylons and a target area cruise speed that gives the pilot a chance to eyeball any target foolish enough to pop his head up. The F-16 driver has a smaller chance of seeing those.


----------



## timshatz (May 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> but I think the A-10 is perfectly suited for today's environments and battlefield.



Also agree. The A10 is the like the A-1. One of those birds that doesn't get retired until it falls apart from useage. Miss it when it's gone type of bird. 

When you think of the history of small wars, the A-1/A-10 type of bird is perfect (hence the reason why SOCOM is looking into getting a similar bird). As Colin noted, it's loiter time, load capability and surviveability make it the top of the line and best bird for the situation. When you are chasing around some dudes in the mountains, having a bird like that around is mobile firepower/friend in need type of support that often times is the crucial factor. 

F16, so-so. It's got the F22 and F35 coming up as (almost) direct replacements. Great bird. But....

Another point about the A10 versus the F35. A bullet through the A-10 is a patch job. A bullet through the F35 (if it gets that low, low enough to intimidate) is probably a several million dollar fix job.


----------



## Colin1 (May 26, 2010)

timshatz said:


> ...When you are chasing around some dudes in the mountains...


Yep
was thinking Tora Bora/Afghanistan/Pakistani border-type scenarios when I posted


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Another point about the A10 versus the F35. A bullet through the A-10 is a patch job. A bullet through the F35 (if it gets that low, low enough to intimidate) is probably a several million dollar fix job.


It's more costly to fix an F-35 in that comparison but not that much...


----------



## red admiral (May 27, 2010)

Waynos said:


> I wonder why it is that almost every independant observer/internet expert etc thinks, as I do, that we would be better off buying the F-35C, except for the MoD who are adamant that we buy the shorter ranged, more expensive and less capable version?



That's not really true.

The real decision on the carriers for STOVL vs conventional was taken about 15 years ago. STOVL performance looked promising and came out with a cheaper ship. There are also a couple of other ship basing factors in favour of STOVL like sortie count and heavy weather operations. The UK chose JSF, got tied into a STOVL carrier but are left at the end of development with a much less capable aircraft (and a need to procure STOVL AEW and transport aircraft). Changing CVF over to conventional now would cost a lot. Timing also comes into it, as if we change to conventional now, we're left with steam cats and a delay into service. If we delay into service even longer (say 2020+) cost spirals, but we are able to get a much more usable EMALs onto the ship.

It all comes down to cost now. Conventional is cheaper in the long run, but costs more now, and we can't afford more now.

I'm not sure about the anti-Typhoon sentiment. It's a far better strike aircraft than Harrier or Tornado but can do air-to-air as well. Cancelling Tranche 3 wouldn't give much in the way of cost savings due to the political agreements. The best result would be having India or Japan purchase significant quantities which would give emphasis for proper upgrades (CAESAR, bigger tanks and EJ270 would be my picks)


----------



## BombTaxi (May 27, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> So in a nutshell, cut social programs.



Sorry to go way back through the thread, but I just have one observation to make.

The UK's terrorist experience is in some ways different to the US's. We have a proportionally much greater chunk of our population susceptible to radicalism, and they're smart and well-organised. Tridents, Typhoons and even good old boots on the ground are no use against these guys unless we declare martial law for the whole country. Our only hope is to stop them being radicalised in the first place. This means better policing, better education and bettersocial integration, plus co-operating with the Pakistani govt to shut down the training camps, and trying to cut off funding wherever we can find it. 

Apart from shutting down the training camps, none of this can be done by the armed forces. It has to be done at home, every day, every where. That means social spending. Social spending aimed at preventing radicalisation isn't a luxury nor a fault of our welfare state. It's a vital weapon and we need to keep using it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 27, 2010)

> The decommisioning of the Ark Royal wasn't a mistake. I was on her for a short time in 1974 and she was pretty well clapped out then. The mistake was losing her capability.
> 
> The Ark Royal would have deterred an attack for a number of reasons including:-
> 
> ...



Hehe, I was accurate in a 50%, thank for the reply Glider.



> It seems to me When it comes to defense cuts it's always OK unless the project is located in your district, then it's important to keep those jobs.
> 
> 
> Wheels



Sorry I ovelooked your post, my reply to that is Hell yea, I prefer an defebse expenditure than a cut to use that in some obscure social welfare program. At list the defense jobs are quality jobs, and we have in our province the state military factories working at an pitiful 10 % of his capability.


----------



## Matt308 (May 27, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> Apart from shutting down the training camps, none of this can be done by the armed forces. It has to be done at home, every day, every where. That means social spending. Social spending aimed at preventing radicalisation isn't a luxury nor a fault of our welfare state. It's a vital weapon and we need to keep using it.



Yeah but you can't have it both ways because it is a zero sum game. If social spending to prevent radicalism is a necessary defence of the nation state, then you MUST cut other areas of your social spending agenda. Surely you don't advocate spending the same or more in our current budgetary climate.

I don't wish for this discussion to get derailed into politics, nor will the mods allow it. But one must approach budgetary cuts from a holistic perspective. Unless the premise of the discussion is that all budgetary line items must take an X% cut, then there will always be give and takes. It is a foolish gov't to make cuts based upon departments/agencies/adminstrations. Rather the gov't must priorities goals/objectives, prioritize them based upon necessity for their realization (near-/mid-/far-term), determine existing gov't spending that supports thos goals/objectives and only THEN make cuts.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 27, 2010)

Cutting social programmes is always hard because people start to rely (lean on) on what become national institutions. Ask anyone on a UK street if they want to move from the NHS to the US model where individuals must personally fund health insurance to the tune of thousands of pounds per year and the answer will be a resounding "no". The new UK Government is making noises about doing something about reducing social programmes, like making it profitable for people to work rather than receive the dole and hence get roughly 1 million people back to work who've been essentially living off the state for the past 9 years (according to one set of stats published by the Beeb). Other sacred cows are harder to sacrifice but, in the current economic climate, tough decisions need to be made by all governments across all branches.


----------



## parsifal (May 29, 2010)

The problem with Naval cuts and the big ticket items like aircraft is that it takes at least ten years to replace them, and in the case of specialised skills like carrier aviation, once you have lost it, it takes the better part of twenty years to get it back. In a future conflict, I doubt any country has the forecasting skills to see that far into the future. 

For Britain, her number one priorities have to be :

1) Protection of British sovereignty and territory
2) Protectiion of British seaborne trade and maritime interests
3) Force projection and intervention capability on the continent
4) Contribution to international obligations such as Iraq and Afhanistan
5) Internal security and protection from terrorist threats and civil unrest

....in roughly that order

The nuclear threats are a success and a good investment for precisely the reasons they are being attacked now. They succeed in their primary mission if they are never used. People often forget that. 

The maintenance of the carrier capability are essential (still) to achieving objectives 2, 3, and 4, and probably serve as a deterrent against possible incursion (objective 1). If history teaches us anything, its that apparent periods of peace and stability can transform very rapidly. It would not take much, for example, for the Russians to go feral and impose a "blockade" on Britain to achieve or support some political agenda they might have. It would not be difficult to see the US retreating to n isolationist standpoint if therir economy keeps copping it the way that it has....if the US suffers a nuclear strike from a terrorist group with demands along the lines...."retreat to your own country" a weak administration might just do that.

I believe that Britains force structure should identify its missions and craft its force capabilities to be well rounded cadres as has always been British policy. In terms of strategic deterrents, and for the capabilities like naval power that require long lead times, the Brits have to maintain a ready use capability....they cannot afford to let those capabilities slip away


----------



## Matt308 (May 29, 2010)

parsifal said:


> For Britain, her number one priorities have to be :
> 
> 1) Protection of British sovereignty and territory
> 2) Protectiion of British seaborne trade and maritime interests
> ...



Now we are talking. You don't have to agree with Parsifal's conclusions, but his methodologies make resounding sense. Strategic planning is imperative in establishing defence budgetary priorities.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 30, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Now we are talking. You don't have to agree with Parsifal's conclusions, but his methodologies make resounding sense. Strategic planning is imperative in establishing defence budgetary priorities.



And therein lies the problem - the strategic aspirations inevitably outstrip the available funding resources. Historically, this has meant shaving capability from across numerous programmes rather than taking hard choices and eliminating one or two high-profile but expensive/high-risk procurement efforts.

Again, the UK's strategic deterrent was useful as part of concerted, NATO-centric effort to prevent what was perceived as the direct threat from the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Now that we are no longer in a bi-polar political world, exactly who is the UK's independent nuclear deterrent deterring?


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2010)

... perhaps a rogue nation state with a weapon of mass destructino, perhaps an current EU partner who becomes panicked with it's economic state or perhaps a well secured EU partner who is fed up with those in the union who refuse to balance their budgets. I don't profess to be a world defense analyst by any stretch, but I would never vote to give up my nations one strategic deterent that puts the fear of god in my rational enemies.


----------



## Waynos (May 31, 2010)

Whenever I hear the argument about the UK needing to have nukes as they are a deterrent, and one that has worked for 60 years and so must be kept, I think about all those other poor countries that have never had them and which are constantly under attack, like Poland, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, ........er, hang on? 

The UK will never be in a position to fire off any nukes (see quote below), so we may as well spend the money on stuff we CAN use, like the majority of our allies do. We are not the world police any more and we are crippling ourselves trying to be. Stop it!

While there is a point that the USA should not shoulder the burden of looking after everyone else, I feel that 'our' contribution to the nuclear deterrent is too small to be of any value at all. How many times do you need to be able to blow up the world? The US already has that covered many times over and I think we would make a better contribution, and also reduce America's burden, by investing in better conventional forces. The way we are going at the moment we will end up with the nukes and nothing else.

No offence to any nationalities reading this, I'm just using past examples, but Argentina, for instance, is not deterred at all by Trident. They know as well as us we wouldn't use them under any circumstances against them, however the carriers, in a better equipped navy supported by a better equipped air force and a better equipped army would be a real concern. Enough even to deter an attack on Sovereign territory perhaps.

Instead of British soldiers being blown up in Land Rovers while nuclear submarines pointlessly fly the ensign, they might be ferried to the combat zone in helicopters and do the job with a higher survival rate?

I am reminded of this exchange on Trident from 'Yes Prime Minister' between Jim Hacker (the PM) and his Permanent Sectretary, Sir Humphrey Appleby 



> Jim: It's a bluff, I probably wouldn't use it.
> Sir Humphrey: Yes but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
> Jim: They probably do.
> Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know you probably wouldn't but they can't be certain.
> ...


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2010)

Uncle. God save the Queen.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 31, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> ... perhaps a rogue nation state with a weapon of mass destructino, perhaps an current EU partner who becomes panicked with it's economic state or perhaps a well secured EU partner who is fed up with those in the union who refuse to balance their budgets. I don't profess to be a world defense analyst by any stretch, but I would never vote to give up my nations one strategic deterent that puts the fear of god in my rational enemies.



But you fail to identify how the UK having nukes would deter any of these potentialities. A rogue state, if truly rogue, would still use nukes whether or not the other si de had them - the key question is whether the UK would ever use nukes. If not, then they aren't much of a deterrent because Threat = Capability + Intent. I just don't see any circumstance in which a Western nation would resort to a nuclear response. Far better to maintain the moral high ground, obtain the necessary UN approvals, then shwack the offending nation with overwhelming coalition-based conventional firepower.


----------

