Defence of the Realm ?

[AlfredJPruffock]

When you consider that the Government still wants to waste massive amounts of money on the Trident upgrade proream - which clearly amounts to a massive trough-feed for the US millit-indusrtrial complex at the expense of UK taxpayers - look at the effect of the reductions of slashing RAF spending is impacting the UKs defence capability ...


The supersonic Blackjack changed course 20 miles from UK airspace, it has been reported.

The jet was picked up on RAF radars but only after it had turned back.

Critics of the Government’s cuts in defence spending say that they have left the country at risk. Four years ago four squadrons of Jaguar and Tornado F3 fighters were slashed from the RAF’s books.

In January it emerged that the Ministry of Defence will have to cut its budget by an extra £1.5 billion a year over the next three years, leaving the three armed forces vying with each other for the money.

The RAF is also expected to lose two of its frontline Tornado GR4 ground attack squadrons as part of cuts to existing forces.

A senior RAF pilot said : “The Russians made us look helpless. The Blackjack could have got even closer. It was a disaster — it basically gave the Russians the green light to fly wherever they want.”

Ministry of Defence officials confirmed the incident, but said the RAF had a “multilayered” approach to detecting and deterring enemy jets.

[AtW]

The supersonic Blackjack changed course 20 miles from UK airspace, it has been reported.

That's why Trident is necessary. The situation is that UK can be nuked very easily before any ground forces have any chance of response. That's why it needs effective nuclear deterrent that is underwater and ready to strike back. If you don't nuclear deterrent then consider the possibility that USA might not engage in nuclear strike in response but preferring to deal with the situation as mistake or anything as it was not their land that was destroyed.

[expat]

consider the possibility that USA might not engage in nuclear strike in response but preferring to deal with the situation as mistake or anything as it was not their land that was destroyed.

I think that is very likely.

[AtW]

I think that is very likely.

That is a certainty - most realistic scenario of WW3 with USSR was that Europe will get mildly nuked and USA will refrain from full scale nuclear retaliation preferring to settle the issue. Whoever gets nuked won't exactly have many voices left to object such settlement. That's why EU countries have to have nukes. And it has to be submarine based missiles as everything else is too vulnerable to the first strike. Maybe UK should use whatever the French are using for their own submarines - the price of those might be a lot cheaper, however fundamentally UK needs its own nuclear arsenal.

Granted this also means RAF should intercept those airplanes way earlier than they do now and no cuts to RAF should be allowed.

[The Lone Gunman]

I think that is very likely.

NATO pact says otherwise. We may never find out.
An attack on one member state must be treated as an attack on all states.
The ONLY time this has ever been invoked was in favour of the US after 911.

[AlfredJPruffock]

That's why Trident is necessary. The situation is that UK can be nuked very easily before any ground forces have any chance of response. That's why it needs effective nuclear deterrent that is underwater and ready to strike back. If you don't nuclear deterrent then consider the possibility that USA might not engage in nuclear strike in response but preferring to deal with the situation as mistake or anything as it was not their land that was destroyed.

We already have Trident - its the upgrade which I am objecting to.

[AtW]

NATO pact says otherwise.

It does not say anything about nukes. Yes they would enter "war" and quickly negotiate it down to reduce possibility of total nuclear war.

The best one could have expected from USA is to use tactical nukes in Europe in case the war broke out, however USA in my view would never use nuclear arsenal on USSR unless they themselves received nuclear strike.

[AtW]

We already have Trident - its the upgrade which I am objecting to.

Do you object to upgrades of your PC? Do you still run IBM PC/AT 286? If anything nukes should be upgraded to ensure they are safe - the upgrade plan will actually help them being useful against countries like Iran.

[Cyberman]

That's why Trident is necessary. The situation is that UK can be nuked very easily before any ground forces have any chance of response. That's why it needs effective nuclear deterrent that is underwater and ready to strike back. If you don't nuclear deterrent then consider the possibility that USA might not engage in nuclear strike in response but preferring to deal with the situation as mistake or anything as it was not their land that was destroyed.

Why don't we save the money on Trident and just publicise that our current nuclear arms still work. Surely, that is still a deterrent. Therefore, I do not see that Trident is necessary.

[AtW]

Why don't we save the money on Trident and just publicise that our current nuclear arms still work. Surely, that is still a deterrent.

The main issue with Trident as I see it now is not just the age of current nukes, but the fact that they were meant against USSR, where as current nuclear deterrent should also take into account possibility of having to do nuclear strike against country like Iran. The difference is that in this case you'd want low yield nukes just to show you are serious first. I think new Tridends will have variable yield selector so that same nuke can deter big countries (Russia) and small (Iran).

All in all the choice the UK has is either upgrade Trident or go beg the French to share their missiles (which apparently are pretty good). Maybe the latter option is better long term thinking.