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.
  • 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