Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ACG Scenario - Should the Royal Navy scrap Trident II and their SSBNS?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    As I posted in the other thread, I'd say yes. They are under the nuclear umbrella of the US. No use to double the effort. IIRC, they supply their own warheads but the US supplies the missiles.
    The Trident missiles were purchased by Britain, 58 of them, but the navies share a common pool.

    It would be different if they had a well rounded conventional surface fleet but they don't anymore. They need their entire complement of T26s, not some watered down T31s. They could also use 2-3 more Astutes to keep an eye on the Bear. This would also allow them to have a more robust CBG, and maybe a reasonable amount of F35Bs.
    What for though?

    Comment


    • #17
      Ok, I'm a bit biased on this one, but here's my 2p.

      I think the first thing that should be done is the removal of Trident from its current location. Everybody talks about the, "Nuclear Umbrella," but the fact remains that a nuclear attack on Faslane would render most of Scotland uninhabitable, and wipe out the bulk of our population.

      Virtually nobody in Scotland wants this thing, certainly not 20 miles from our biggest city, but What we want (98% of Scottish MPs voted AGAINST Trident renewal) doesn't matter in the UK, "Partnership of Equals."
      Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by the ace View Post
        Virtually nobody in Scotland wants this thing, certainly not 20 miles from our biggest city, but What we want (98% of Scottish MPs voted AGAINST Trident renewal) doesn't matter in the UK, "Partnership of Equals."

        "Trident, the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons system, is based in Scottish waters. Would you rather it was scrapped or maintained?"

        10 May 2016: ICM survey for Scotsman with 1000 respondents, 18 and older.

        Scrapped - 42%
        Maintained - 43%
        Don't know - 4%

        http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questi...intained#table

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by the ace View Post
          Ok, I'm a bit biased on this one, but here's my 2p.

          I think the first thing that should be done is the removal of Trident from its current location. Everybody talks about the, "Nuclear Umbrella," but the fact remains that a nuclear attack on Faslane would render most of Scotland uninhabitable, and wipe out the bulk of our population.

          Virtually nobody in Scotland wants this thing, certainly not 20 miles from our biggest city, but What we want (98% of Scottish MPs voted AGAINST Trident renewal) doesn't matter in the UK, "Partnership of Equals."

          Do you really think that you biggest city is not going to be hit if people start throwing nucís around?
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

          Comment


          • #20
            I have to wonder if this thread isn't in the wrong forum. Nuclear weapons are not military weapons in the conventional sense: they're political weapons, meant to be never used militarily, but only for political purposes. A nation's development, maintenance, and deployment of both warheads and delivery systems is that nation's statement of intent, a political statement of determination in case the sh*t ever hits the fan. The question should be, do the British people feel the need to make that political statement in today's climate? Is it worth it them culturally, environmentally, economically, politically, to continue to maintain a strategic deterrent?

            Regarding the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers: (she was in town recently, but time and circumstance did not allow me to visit her )

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa7xrooAckE

            the UK government's motive for funding and building them is entirely political: it was Gordon Brown's promise to Scotland in exchange for keeping the Jocks voting Labour instead of SNP. I am still quite unsure about the place of the QE class CVs within the context of the UK's defense priorities. The UK's nuclear deterrent makes infinitely more sense than two 60,000 ton CVs -- without battle groups, without air wings.

            There's no telling what succeeding US administrations will make of the "Special Relationship," but I can't see how counting on Washington's good graces serves the UK's strategic interests. Even though I'm nothing but a Silly Septic, I for one think that the UK will be better served maintaining her strategic deterrent than she will be foregoing it.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gooner View Post


              What for though?
              The purpose of a well rounded conventional naval deterrent is to have a fleet that nobody messes with so that you don't have to use it as often. Remember how the Argies tested you because they thought you were too cheap to keep the HMS Endurance around? Since nukes would only be used in a doomsday scenario, you get a lot better return out of buying conventional weapons. Great Britain isn't going to be nuked unless it's a worldwide war, in which case we'd be involved.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tsar View Post


                Do you really think that you biggest city is not going to be hit if people start throwing nucís around?
                I know that it WILL be - much of Scotland will be an uninhabited, radioactive wasteland if the bomb ever drops. While this would settle the independence question, I'd prefer something a little less drastic.
                Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gooner View Post


                  "Trident, the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons system, is based in Scottish waters. Would you rather it was scrapped or maintained?"

                  10 May 2016: ICM survey for Scotsman with 1000 respondents, 18 and older.

                  Scrapped - 42%
                  Maintained - 43%
                  Don't know - 4%

                  http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questi...intained#table
                  Interesting that it was a, "Scotsman," survey - a newspaper surprisingly similar to the, "Daily Telegraph," but without the charm. Readers of, "The Sun," and, "The Daily Record," wouldn't understand the question, and everybody knows how readers of, "The National," feel (if they recognise the existence of the last).
                  Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    I can only assume that you have never heard of the UN or the international pressures exerted on America to get involved in other peoples' affairs. I have nothing further to say on this subject, beyond what I said previously. Do...or don't do...but take full responsibility for your actions Frankly, the fact that you're still arguing tells me that you are not prepared to shoulder the burdens you have already accepted. You're looking to justify running away.
                    Hi MM

                    I wasn't aware we were arguing but rather discussing and airing our POV's, and certainly from my perspective giving some context to both my remarks and yours in a historical sense.

                    The US has chosen this path for better or worse, and it certainly didn't mind it when the times were good (the halcyon years after WW2 and on into the 50/60's). Yes the US can reduce its overseas commitments but it's a throw of the dice as to whether that makes the US stronger in the long-run.

                    I'm not looking to justify running away, just pointing out the potential consequences and the vastness of grey that will descend, rather than the binary black & white reality that many summise if only the US did this....whatever this actually turns out to be!

                    Anyway I'll leave it there.

                    Regards

                    Andy H

                    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                    "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by the ace View Post
                      Ok, I'm a bit biased on this one, but here's my 2p.

                      I think the first thing that should be done is the removal of Trident from its current location. Everybody talks about the, "Nuclear Umbrella," but the fact remains that a nuclear attack on Faslane would render most of Scotland uninhabitable, and wipe out the bulk of our population.

                      Virtually nobody in Scotland wants this thing, certainly not 20 miles from our biggest city, but What we want (98% of Scottish MPs voted AGAINST Trident renewal) doesn't matter in the UK, "Partnership of Equals."
                      Hi Ace

                      What sticks in my craw about that POV is that your happy to share in the non-nuclear defence spending and jobs but not the nuclear.

                      National defence is a package not a cherry picking exercise which what the SNP does all the time, on countless matters not just defence.

                      Regards

                      Andy H

                      "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                      "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gooner View Post


                        The Royal Navy's biggest current problem is recruitment and retention. The crew savings from scrapping the SSBNs would provide enough for maybe 2-3 Astutes plus a couple of Type 26s.

                        The cost of Britains nuclear deterrent is about 5-6% of Defence spending.
                        Hi Gooner

                        Agreed, I mentioned that point earlier.

                        Recruitment and retention are harder now both after the current conflicts and with the constricted size of the AF denying viable longterm career paths etc

                        Regards

                        Andy H
                        "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                        "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                          I am still quite unsure about the place of the QE class CVs within the context of the UK's defense priorities. The UK's nuclear deterrent makes infinitely more sense than two 60,000 ton CVs -- without battle groups, without air wings.
                          The UK has already received 15 of the first tranche of F35Bs and training on the QE is already underway



                          With what 14 commissioned Frigates and Destroyers forming a battle group should not be a problem, but we are also touching up Allies to contribute there.

                          "
                          The Netherlands became the first UK ally to announce it would send a warship to join the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth on her first operational deployment in 2021.
                          The announcement was made on October 24 during the visit of the King and Queen of the Netherlands to Downing Street.
                          The exact type of ship to join was not specified but the Royal Navy said the Dutch Navy ship would be part of the carrier strike group"

                          https://navaltoday.com/2018/10/25/du...al-deployment/


                          There's no telling what succeeding US administrations will make of the "Special Relationship," but I can't see how counting on Washington's good graces serves the UK's strategic interests. Even though I'm nothing but a Silly Septic, I for one think that the UK will be better served maintaining her strategic deterrent than she will be foregoing it.
                          Agreed.
                          Last edited by Gooner; 06 Nov 18, 04:13.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Andy H View Post

                            Hi Ace

                            What sticks in my craw about that POV is that your happy to share in the non-nuclear defence spending and jobs but not the nuclear.

                            National defence is a package not a cherry picking exercise which what the SNP does all the time, on countless matters not just defence.

                            Regards

                            Andy H
                            While I see your point, I'm a bit unsettled about your allegations of hypocrisy.

                            Scotland was given no choice about housing the original Polaris system under the McMillan Government, which was made for entirely political reasons (there were few Conservative voters in the area). And it's seen by many as yet another, "Them and us," scenario, where things England doesn't want are fobbed off on the Jocks.

                            Ideally, of course, I want nothing to do with UK defence spending (of which we pay more than our share, but get little in return beyond the Trident system), looking forward to the day when a conventional Scottish Defence Force, takes care of that angle.

                            In any event, Trident makes Scotland a target (name me one strategist who wouldn't be rubbing his hands in glee at taking out 75% of a potential enemy's nuclear capability with a single strike - only one of the four subs is at sea at any one time) which couldn't survive if everything kicks off, and the system is ludicrously expensive while being morally indefensible.
                            Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I thought the purpose of having the SSBNs at Faslane was so they would be nearer to deep water and the North Atlantic.
                              I don't know why a previous poster brought the US into it. This post was about what would give the UK a stronger military, given her reduced budget. I would think that a few more conventional warships would reduce the operational tempo enough to help with trained personnel retention.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                                I thought the purpose of having the SSBNs at Faslane was so they would be nearer to deep water and the North Atlantic.
                                To paraphrase the world-famous Scottish author Irvine Welsh, Scotsmen are the world's heavyweight champions of complaining.

                                Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                                I don't know why a previous poster brought the US into it.
                                Who are you talking about, Narcissus? Rimshot

                                Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                                This post was about what would give the UK a stronger military, given her reduced budget. I would think that a few more conventional warships would reduce the operational tempo enough to help with trained personnel retention.
                                Wanna know what would help retention and recruitment? A good recession. A good recession always renders the military an attractive career path. Perhaps it would be in the UK's strategic interests to undergo a good recession.
                                Last edited by slick_miester; 06 Nov 18, 14:26. Reason: I can't spell.
                                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X