Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. UK Trident

UK Trident

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
57 Posts 10 Posters 4 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • K KaRl

    Never heard about such an agreement. IMHO, it's highly doubtful because it would mean part of the French nuclear deterrence lies on British submarines, which is in opposition with the concept of 'national independence' which led to develop a french nuclear force. After some googling, I've seen a French deputy proposing such a coordination, so I suppose it does not exist yet. On non-nuclear aspects, British-French military collaboration is vital if we want some day have an European Defence. France and UK are the two countries with the biggest capacities, it's a shame they don't cooperate more. Such a cooperaton could also help to reduce costs. For instance, 'we' both need a new aircraft carrier. Instead of building two we could build only one we would share.


    The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Lost User
    wrote on last edited by
    #44

    So Anglo-US military links = Pah! I laugh in the face of your inferior deterrent! Anglo-French military links = Magnifique! Plus fort ensemble! he he he. :) How would we share an aircraft carrier? How about Britain has it every other week and for two weeks during the summer holidays? :) OT again: My in-laws just made an offer on a house South-West of Bergerac. Looks like I will visiting your side of the Channel a lot... every summer in fact. And Christmas. And Easter. etc. etc. (my wife and her parents are very close, and flights from Southampton are very cheap). :) :)

    K 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • L Lost User

      K(arl) wrote:

      THe US nuclear umbrellla should be enough.

      A few people here agree with that assessment actually!

      K(arl) wrote:

      US wasn't so helpful, remember?

      Actually, this isn't the case Karl. The US supplied us with Sidewinder missiles for our Harriers, which were crucial in defeating the Argentine airforce. In fact, without them, we might of been scuppered. More info on this here[^]. Also, the Trident missiles used by the UK/US are regularly "swapped out" (with missiles from British subs going to the US Navy) - so I simply don't buy the idea that the US will give away it's own nuclear delivery system secrets to a UK enemy. Shooting themselves in the foot like that? Sorry, but this is pure fantasy.

      K Offline
      K Offline
      KaRl
      wrote on last edited by
      #45

      I found claims UK already owned AIM-9L[^] prior the invasion. I've got the feeling this story was spinned to counterbalance US 'inactivity' at the beginning of the conflict. Can't prove it for now, that's just a prejudice.

      Rob Caldecott wrote:

      he Trident missiles used by the UK/US are regularly "swapped out

      What's the point?


      The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

      L 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • K KaRl

        I found claims UK already owned AIM-9L[^] prior the invasion. I've got the feeling this story was spinned to counterbalance US 'inactivity' at the beginning of the conflict. Can't prove it for now, that's just a prejudice.

        Rob Caldecott wrote:

        he Trident missiles used by the UK/US are regularly "swapped out

        What's the point?


        The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

        L Offline
        L Offline
        Lost User
        wrote on last edited by
        #46

        K(arl) wrote:

        Can't prove it for now, that's just a prejudice.

        Vous l'avez dit bébé!

        K(arl) wrote:

        What's the point?

        The point is that the US is hardly likely to give secrets about a weapon it also uses to a UK enemy.

        K 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • L Lost User

          So Anglo-US military links = Pah! I laugh in the face of your inferior deterrent! Anglo-French military links = Magnifique! Plus fort ensemble! he he he. :) How would we share an aircraft carrier? How about Britain has it every other week and for two weeks during the summer holidays? :) OT again: My in-laws just made an offer on a house South-West of Bergerac. Looks like I will visiting your side of the Channel a lot... every summer in fact. And Christmas. And Easter. etc. etc. (my wife and her parents are very close, and flights from Southampton are very cheap). :) :)

          K Offline
          K Offline
          KaRl
          wrote on last edited by
          #47

          Rob Caldecott wrote:

          Anglo-French military links

          non nuclear military links :)

          Rob Caldecott wrote:

          How about Britain has it every other week and for two weeks during the summer holidays?

          Not quite, but not that far. 'We' need an aircraft carrier when the Charles De Gaulle[^] is under maintenance. If the Royal Navy wants to keep an aeronaval capacity, it needs two aircrafts carriers to have one constantly at sea. The second one could be shared.

          Rob Caldecott wrote:

          South-West of Bergerac

          A lovely place. Perigord is such a beautiful country - Do you will learn French language?


          The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • L Lost User

            K(arl) wrote:

            Can't prove it for now, that's just a prejudice.

            Vous l'avez dit bébé!

            K(arl) wrote:

            What's the point?

            The point is that the US is hardly likely to give secrets about a weapon it also uses to a UK enemy.

            K Offline
            K Offline
            KaRl
            wrote on last edited by
            #48

            bébé? WTF! I meant 'what's the point to swap missiles?'


            The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

            L D 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • K KaRl

              Rob Caldecott wrote:

              Anglo-French military links

              non nuclear military links :)

              Rob Caldecott wrote:

              How about Britain has it every other week and for two weeks during the summer holidays?

              Not quite, but not that far. 'We' need an aircraft carrier when the Charles De Gaulle[^] is under maintenance. If the Royal Navy wants to keep an aeronaval capacity, it needs two aircrafts carriers to have one constantly at sea. The second one could be shared.

              Rob Caldecott wrote:

              South-West of Bergerac

              A lovely place. Perigord is such a beautiful country - Do you will learn French language?


              The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

              L Offline
              L Offline
              Lost User
              wrote on last edited by
              #49

              K(arl) wrote:

              Do you will learn French language?

              Je ne vivrai pas là… encore. Si je, alors naturellement j'apprendrai à parler français.

              K 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • L Lost User

                K(arl) wrote:

                Do you will learn French language?

                Je ne vivrai pas là… encore. Si je, alors naturellement j'apprendrai à parler français.

                K Offline
                K Offline
                KaRl
                wrote on last edited by
                #50

                Not bad! :) Even if you won't live there, you will have to interact with indigens. So if you can use their language to communicate, they will be much warmer to you... even if you are english ;)


                The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

                S 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • K KaRl

                  bébé? WTF! I meant 'what's the point to swap missiles?'


                  The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

                  L Offline
                  L Offline
                  Lost User
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #51

                  K(arl) wrote:

                  bébé? WTF!

                  *cough* Guess the Google translation facilities aren't perfect yet then? :)

                  K 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • L Lost User

                    K(arl) wrote:

                    bébé? WTF!

                    *cough* Guess the Google translation facilities aren't perfect yet then? :)

                    K Offline
                    K Offline
                    KaRl
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #52

                    The translation is good, but the usage is not. "bébé" could possibly used as a "tender word", a nickname you would use for your beloved one (even if I would hate to be reduced to some immature forl of life unable to survive by itself - I'm not a kid, and my beloved one is not my mother, dammit!) So as long as our relationship is epistolary , I find the use of such words a little bit premature :-D;)


                    Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?

                    Fold with us! ¤ flickr

                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • K KaRl

                      The translation is good, but the usage is not. "bébé" could possibly used as a "tender word", a nickname you would use for your beloved one (even if I would hate to be reduced to some immature forl of life unable to survive by itself - I'm not a kid, and my beloved one is not my mother, dammit!) So as long as our relationship is epistolary , I find the use of such words a little bit premature :-D;)


                      Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?

                      Fold with us! ¤ flickr

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Lost User
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #53

                      K(arl) wrote:

                      epistolary

                      I had to look that up. The shame. Par ailleurs, ma fille apprend le français à l'école maternelle. Elle est trois années!

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • K KaRl

                        bébé? WTF! I meant 'what's the point to swap missiles?'


                        The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

                        D Offline
                        D Offline
                        Dan Neely
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #54

                        At a guess it's part of a unified maintenance/refurbishment process, with both US and UK missiles going in one end of the queue, and the ships immediately reloading with the ones just coming out instead of standing idle while their entire load is being overhauled. Pluses for both sides would be it's cheaper than maintaining separate overhaul facilities and a full subs worth of spares, and for the UK that they're getting the exact same model as the US not a neutered export model.

                        -- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.

                        K 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • D Dan Neely

                          At a guess it's part of a unified maintenance/refurbishment process, with both US and UK missiles going in one end of the queue, and the ships immediately reloading with the ones just coming out instead of standing idle while their entire load is being overhauled. Pluses for both sides would be it's cheaper than maintaining separate overhaul facilities and a full subs worth of spares, and for the UK that they're getting the exact same model as the US not a neutered export model.

                          -- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.

                          K Offline
                          K Offline
                          KaRl
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #55

                          Then there 's no absolute certainty for UK that their missiles can not be controled one way or another by the US. So if it requires so much confidence in each others, I don't see why UK doesn't entirely rely on the US nuclear umbrella.


                          The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • K KaRl

                            Not bad! :) Even if you won't live there, you will have to interact with indigens. So if you can use their language to communicate, they will be much warmer to you... even if you are english ;)


                            The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr

                            S Offline
                            S Offline
                            Stuart Dootson
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #56

                            K(arl) wrote:

                            if you can use their language to communicate, they will be much warmer to you

                            Totally agree with you there - I can't stand the standard English approach of talking LOUDER and S L O W E R...

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • D Dan Neely

                              if you're going down that road, a 1MT nuke over downtown London would kill ~20% of the population in the greater metro area but only destroy ~5% of the infrastructure. Which means the survivors would be richer after the strike than before. Nukes really are that surreal. :wtf:

                              -- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.

                              S Offline
                              S Offline
                              Stuart Dootson
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #57

                              Congestion would probably be reduced as well ;P

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              Reply
                              • Reply as topic
                              Log in to reply
                              • Oldest to Newest
                              • Newest to Oldest
                              • Most Votes


                              • Login

                              • Don't have an account? Register

                              • Login or register to search.
                              • First post
                                Last post
                              0
                              • Categories
                              • Recent
                              • Tags
                              • Popular
                              • World
                              • Users
                              • Groups