UK Trident
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
France, despite telling everyone that a military force should be sent to Lebanon, didn't actually want to commit any troops.
In the end, 3,700 soldiers are there. However I agree on something: Chirac's move to call for troops and at the same time saying he would send only 200 soldiers was another of his blunders.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
was another of his blunders
Still, probably not as bad as committing far more soldiers to a botched invasion, for no good reason :)
-
So if you trust the US so much, what is the point to have a nuclear deterrence? THe US nuclear umbrellla should be enough. Don't forget that the US provided intelligence to Argentina prior its invasion of Falklands (haven't the reference in minds, could provide it later if you wish), and the Monroe doctrine could have led the US to side with Argentina... US wasn't so helpful, remember?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
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.
-
Slightly OT for a moment, but I just read this on Wikipedia (so it must be true, etc.): "It has been suggested that British ballistic missile submarine patrols are coordinated with those of the French."[^] But the reference link is broken. Can you shed any light? Hey, perhaps we also need French agreement to deploy? :) :) :)
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
-
K(arl) wrote:
was another of his blunders
Still, probably not as bad as committing far more soldiers to a botched invasion, for no good reason :)
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
as bad as committing far more soldiers to a botched invasion, for no good reason
I don't get it. What invasion do you refer?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
I was referring to one of Tony Blair's more memorable blunders (not Chirac).
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
Was just wondering what others think of this issue.
I think it'd send a good message to the rest of the world if the UK agreed to nuclear disarmament. It's the only way the UK will mentioned in history books pertaining to the present day ;P
-
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
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(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.
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
-
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
-
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). :) :)
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
-
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.
-
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
-
K(arl) wrote:
Do you will learn French language?
Je ne vivrai pas là… encore. Si je, alors naturellement j'apprendrai à parler français.
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
-
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
-
K(arl) wrote:
bébé? WTF!
*cough* Guess the Google translation facilities aren't perfect yet then? :)
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?
-
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?
-
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
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.
-
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.
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
-
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
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...
-
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.
Congestion would probably be reduced as well ;P