Originally Posted by j2k4
Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....
Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....
en(un)lightened
Dad?
Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Yes son?Dad?
Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....
Come to the darkside......
en(un)lightened
That's where I'm posting from, or so they say...Yes son?
Dad?
Come to the darkside......
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
re-member
BT Rep: +1
Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....
Damn, you beat me to it j2k4
en(un)lightened
It's a habit.
Of course its our fault... There was no terrorism before we started this. And the ME was a fun health lively place of culture and free thinking.....
Damn, you beat me to it j2k4
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
We should have nuclear weapons as long as Canadia keeps her stocks.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Broken
If its a deterant, then we only need to have them.
Why replace them with things that make a bigger bang, when the ones we have make huge bangs already? Are they suddenly too small to be a deterant because the size ofthe planet grew while i wasnt looking?
Upgrade em and maintain em... lots cheaper, just as good for deterent purposes.
But im with JP... as long as Canadia and the Maldives have them, we need them.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
.
Why would we need to replace them?
Because, as with everything, the suppliers will say they have gone past their useful life and are too expensive to maintain. Of course, that assumes that they have been maintained at their original specification, but with nuclear weapons the likelihood is that they will have been upgraded regularly. The real reason will be that the supplier is unwilling to maintain the items since they can make a good profit by supplying new goods.
The question (as implied in the original post) is not whether we need to upgrade, but whether we still need a submarine based nuclear weapons system. If we need it, then we have to upgrade.
However, consider the purpose of these submarines. Generally they would lie off the coast of the target, so the range would be comparitively small. The main reason is that it does not give the enemy time to respond before the target is hit; by definition this implies first strike. The alternative reason is for a retaliatory strike, but in this case time to target is less important.
With the alternative weapon systems available we should assume that first strike by this method is not a credible argument, particularly when you consider that in any case they would be held back for second/third strike. Given that other submarine launched delivery systems are available (eg cruise missiles) which could hit most significant targets from an offshore attack position, it seems unlikely that the UK would have (or currently has) a requirement for expensive submarine launched ballistic missiles such as Trident or its replacement.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
It also has to do with the weapon itself. The actual warheads are not what are being upgraded. It;s the delivery systems and target aquisition systems. Because of stealth, radar and anti missle technology these systems are upgraded to stay above the curve for delivery. The bang doesn't neccesarily get bigger it just gets more accurate and more dependable. Plus upkeep costs of older systems probably cost more to maintain. And then the inevitable money to be made comes into effect
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks