Article

2006-12-04 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-12-04 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 They'll be down to the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch before long.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2006-12-04 00:10|| http://www.nuclearspace.com]">[http://www.nuclearspace.com] 2006-12-04 00:10|| Front Page Top

#2 Various mil forums/blogs are also reporting that the Euros are quarreling over the costs of their CVF carrier project, espec whom will pay what???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-12-04 00:15|| 2006-12-04 00:15|| Front Page Top

#3 They'll just stash the Trident rounds at Kingsbay, do we maintain their warheads too?

Posted by Shipman 2006-12-04 01:08|| 2006-12-04 01:08|| Front Page Top

#4 See also NAVY TIMES > US House Armed Services Cmte Members WANTS NEW CONGRESS TO BUILD MORE SHIPS, ESPEC NUKE-POWERED CGN's =CGN(X)'s. America's ACHILLES HEEL = FUEL, thus desire for nuke power. ZEE NEWS > CHINA [pro-Chicom Nations/Neutral Trading Partners]SHAPE MARITIME BATTLEFIELD [in ASIA-PACIFIC]; + CHINA WILL NOT ENGAGE IN ARMS RACE WITH USA > Xperts claim will put a drag on China's pace of national-econ development and modernization. SUNDAYTIMES.UK > Proposal for Britain's TRIDENT Subs to Be built overseas [i.e. SSSSSSSHHHHH, in America?].

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-12-04 01:33|| 2006-12-04 01:33|| Front Page Top

#5 In a way, this is a welcome development. With little indication that they intend to resist being conquered by their Islamist "guests," I'm no longer real comfortable with France and Britain being nuclear powers (the only two in Europe, no less).

Even in a worst-case scenario, I'm sure that getting operational control over a Trident sub armed with nuclear missiles would have to be accomplished over the crew's dead bodies. However, generally speaking, if European leaders aren't gonna get off the dime and fight for what's theirs, reducing the loot is the next best option. I'd appreciate it if they'd at least make sure they don't take the rest of us down with 'em.

Posted by exJAG 2006-12-04 02:43|| 2006-12-04 02:43|| Front Page Top

#6 The BBC and the TRNAZIs that it represents are hammer and tongs agaist anything nuclear, weapons, power, whatever. The Trident program is a hard thing to sell due to the fifth column of the BBC and "new labor" back benchers of Blair's own party.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-12-04 04:45|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com] 2006-12-04 04:45|| Front Page Top

#7 Does anyone else get the feeling that, in the midst of Iran trying to come online with nuclear bombs, such a roll-back in atomic weapons inventory is nothing short of silly?

I agree with exJAG that, so long as Europe is acting like they're going to roll over for their Islamic colonizers, a reduction in whatever arms that can fall into Muslim hands can only be a good thing. Still, the timing seems a little off.

It's pretty damn clear that the free world is heading into a perfect storm. With Russia and China (not to mention France) colluding with Islam and triangulating against Western interests at every turn, keeping whatever existing nuclear weapons inventories functional without any voluntary reduction in head-count would certainly seem like the wisest option.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-04 05:38|| 2006-12-04 05:38|| Front Page Top

#8 Do you think France collaborating will work as "well" as it did last time?

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-12-04 05:54|| 2006-12-04 05:54|| Front Page Top

#9 Does anyone else get the feeling that, in the midst of Iran trying to come online with nuclear bombs, such a roll-back in atomic weapons inventory is nothing short of silly?

Not here. What good do nukes do Britain? It's not as if Britain will launch a nuclear attack and the U. S. won't. And if the U. S. does any UK nukes would probably only contribute to fratricide.

And in order to use them, you have to have the will to use them. Britain clearly does not. I'd rather see the budget used to properly equip the squaddies so that they can fight on the same battlefield as the Americans rather than squandered on systems that will never be used.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-12-04 07:19|| 2006-12-04 07:19|| Front Page Top

#10 For your collection, AC...

Posted by .com 2006-12-04 10:11|| 2006-12-04 10:11|| Front Page Top

#11 While I sympathize with Nimble Spemble I feel obligated to point out these weapons are and always have been intended as a deterrent to France. The need for such deterrence is greater than ever.

Posted by Excalibur 2006-12-04 10:13|| 2006-12-04 10:13|| Front Page Top

#12 ...Five is right out...

Posted by badanov 2006-12-04 10:15|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2006-12-04 10:15|| Front Page Top

#13 British conventional forces aren't doing so hot, either.

Posted by mrp 2006-12-04 10:20|| 2006-12-04 10:20|| Front Page Top

#14 Interesting point, Excalibur. So France and Britain have invested all these decades in the grand project of European integration ("ever closer union") . . . yet still need a nuclear deterrent against each other.

Like the historically bitter rivals, Texas and North Dakota. ;)

Posted by exJAG 2006-12-04 10:29|| 2006-12-04 10:29|| Front Page Top

#15 lol@this thread ...

Posted by MacNails 2006-12-04 11:22|| 2006-12-04 11:22|| Front Page Top

#16 That's right, Mac. Only at the 'burg could you discuss the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch in the same serious discussions of nuclear diarmament, lol!

Posted by BA 2006-12-04 11:51|| 2006-12-04 11:51|| Front Page Top

#17 Why cut at all? The British Tridents are already way underarmed (3x100kT warheads, US 8x475kT). The US is upgrading Trident missile guidance systems and extending it's service life. I suspect the British will get those for free or little money because all the Tridents come from a common pool. If the British really want to save money, instead of being no nukes ninnies, they should buy into the successor of the Ohio class and build it in their shipyards if they choose.

Posted by ed 2006-12-04 13:19|| 2006-12-04 13:19|| Front Page Top

#18 What good do nukes do Britain? It's not as if Britain will launch a nuclear attack and the U. S. won't. And if the U. S. does any UK nukes would probably only contribute to fratricide.

The same good they've always done her. I also think that any launch would be sufficiently coordinated whereby there would be staggered arrival of inbound vehicles to avoid fratricide. It would be a critical message for Europe to send by launching a first wave of retaliation for any nuclear assault from the MME (Muslim Middle East). It is also of great importance that the best of our allies not huddle beneath America's nuclear umbrella. They must be seen as having strength of their own so as to distribute the threat of deterrence and maintain a significantly wide dispersion of weapons basing. To do otherwise would focus undue attention solely upon America and is most definitely NOT in our national interest.

these weapons are and always have been intended as a deterrent to France. The need for such deterrence is greater than ever.

Not so. The placement of nuclear weapons in Britain was always, first and foremost, a Cold War deterrent. By comparison, France was much further down the list. However, it is agreed that their continued need for the purposes of deterrence remains unchanged.

And yes, exJAG, it bodes not at all well for the nascent EU that one member might actually require a nuclear deterrent against another. Then again, France is rapidly assuming the proportions of a special case due to its EAD (European-Arab Dialogue) and quantity of Muslim colonizers.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-04 14:12|| 2006-12-04 14:12|| Front Page Top

#19 ...Five is right out...

One of the finest lines in the entire movie along with, "You've got to know these things when you're King."

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-04 14:15|| 2006-12-04 14:15|| Front Page Top

#20 I would expect to see the UK navy come to Canada or the United States if the muzzies ever took control in Great Britain. I doubt the subbies would allow those weapons to fall into islamic hands. As for replacing their existing Trident subs, I think we have a few older boats we could refurbish and sell them, cheap, and then recondition their existing vessels while they're using the replacements for "deterrence". I would love to see a British/Canadian/US consortium building much of Britain's future warfighting equipment. Canada NEEDS a couple of Arleigh Burke class DDs, and the Brits might like to buy the JFK when it's retired. Saves a bundle building a new ship.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-12-04 14:25|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-12-04 14:25|| Front Page Top

23:54 .com
23:48 Zenster
23:40 Zenster
23:30 Anonymoose
23:12 ed
23:07 ex-lib
23:06 KBK
23:03 ed
23:02 .com
22:57 Zenster
22:56 trailing wife
22:55 49 Pan
22:52 Zenster
22:50 ex-lib
22:48 Zenster
22:46 ex-lib
22:45 .com
22:44 ed
22:43 Laurence of the Rats
22:42 BA
22:41 Zenster
22:39 ed
22:38 .com
22:33 gromgoru