Does the UK need its Nuclear Deterrent?

[Patroklos]

The Trident system is maintained at a US naval base in Georgia. The UK's nuclear deterrent is dependent on the US, and has been since WWII. We have a 50 year old treaty in place to that effect, and it is an integral part of our "special relationship".

They are serviced at King's Bay, but you CHOOSE to load them there. You have all the facilities to store and load the missiles at Faslane/Coulport.

This is all immaterial though, as you always have one of YOUR subs under YOUR command on patrol anyway, which means you have a nuclear detterent at YOUR disposal.

What, do you think in a nuclear war your subs are going to come back for a reload after the initial exchange? At any one time the UK has all the missiles at its disposal for a conflict as it would if the whole program were British.

As I understand it, as well as our complete reliance on the US for the upkeep of the missiles, the system used to target the missiles is the same used by the US to target theirs. We obviously didn't build our own satellite network when you guys already had one up and running.

1.) You do not rely on the US completely ofr the upkeep of the missiles, as they are loaded and maintained on your submarines by 100% UK crews.

2.) The Trident doesn't us satilites for guidence, it usies inertial guidence and star sighting. So unless the US controls the laws of motion or the placement of the stars, this is not a valid critisism.

At the end of the day, unless the US was very much on board, I highly doubt our nukes would be going anywhere.

That has absolutely has nothing to do with where your missiles come from. At the end of the day, without the US very much on board French missiles aren't going anywhere either. And that is a good thing.

 

[Abaddon]

And WWII was obviously won by the Soviets (and to a lesser extent the Chinese), not by the US as many Americans now allege.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Military deaths:

Soviet Union: 10,700,000
Germany: 5,533,000
China: 3,800,000
Japan: 2,120,000
Yugoslavia: 446,000
US: 416,800
GB: 382,700
Italy: 301,400

Erm, just because the Soviets lost a lot of men does it mean they won the war?

 

[RedRalph]

Erm, just because the Soviets lost a lot of men does it mean they won the war?

I think they caused something like 85% of German deaths too.

 

[RedRalph]

Using the casualty rolls to determine amount of war contribution is pretty silly, and you know that. If it would be so damn easy to win the war in Europe all by Stalin's lonesome, why the devil do you think he kept screaming for a second front whenever the USSR and the Western Allies got together? The revisionism that lays all the cause for victory on the Soviet Union is kind of annoying, too. The Allied strategic bombing, the introduction of Western Allied units into Western Europe, the Lend-Lease supplies...I definitely think it would have been closer than just a blithe "wasn't required", and it remains to be seen (and can never be seen) whether Stalin would have found the price of taking Berlin and Paris alone to his liking.

??? what revisionism is that? Its almost always the other way around. No one denies the western allies helped, but almost every respect the USSR took a heavier toll on the Nazis than the rest put together.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Erm, just because the Soviets lost a lot of men does it mean they won the war?

Erm. Yes it does because they died killing the vast majority of the Germans. If the US had played anything but a minor role in WWII, it would have been reflected in the number of dead because that war was fought on a fairly equal footing, unlike the massacres in Iraq.

 

[Patroklos]

Erm. Yes it does because they died killing the vast majority of the Germans.

Losing lots of your own people /= killing the vast majority of the Germans.

RRW stated 85% but I just googled and can't find any such figure (though I don't discount it is far more than 50%). In any case, it is quite obvious that without the Western allies (ie Britian at this point) holding down a hundred odd German divisions in 41 and even more in 42, Russia would have expired.

If the US had played anything but a minor role in WWII, it would have been reflected in the number of dead because that war was fought on a fairly equal footing, unlike the massacres in Iraq.

It was not fought on anything even approaching a numerical or material equal footing. Even if it was, you discount the tactical and stategic situation.

PUT THE VIDEO GAMES DOWN!

 

[Shekwan]

No idea how the argument turned to World War Two, but I think the whole "USSR won the war" argument is a bit overdone. They made the biggest impact, no doubt, but whos to say that the US and Britain didn't have the capacity to defeat the Germans single handedly? Why would they pour resources into defeating Germany to the same extent as the Russians when they didn't face nearly the same threat, and the fact that the longer the fight in the eastern front is more or less balanced, the weaker the USSR is.

I mean the goal of Overlord was to secure as much of Europe as possible before the Russians could. Only when German defeat at the hands of the USSR was imminent did the Anglo Americans get off their ass and do something. Thats not to say they didn't have the resources to act a lot earlier than they did.

 

[Patroklos]

No idea how the argument turned to World War Two, but I think the whole "USSR won the war" argument is a bit overdone. They made the biggest impact, no doubt

And thats the real crux of the arguement. Just because you made the biggest impact does not mean you would have done it alone. Just because you are 60% in a 60/20/20 split does not mean you don't still need the other 40% to get all the way there.

I mean the goal of Overlord was to secure as much of Europe as possible before the Russians could.

Ah, no. You might be able to say that for the Rhine crossings, but that was not the case for Overlord.

when German defeat at the hands of the USSR was imminent did the Anglo Americans get off their ass and do something.

Forgeting about the North African and Italian campaigns? Oh, and that minor distraction in the Pacific...

Thats not to say they didn't have the resources to act a lot earlier than they did.

Actaully, thats exactly what it says.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Just about everything you've written in this entire thread is based on a bogus premise.

Disarmament is not a deterrent.

It(not having nukes) is a deterrent to being nuked yourself and you can't prove otherwise so get lost.

And you're talking about military disarmament? Why? (dont get lost just yet)

 

[Alpine Trooper]

What, do you mean specifics Canada did, or thinking that Canada didn't help? The former is perfectly understandable considering the average bloke in the street will have problems with the specifics of what Britain did .

I find it totally understandable that most British don't know their history. It's a bit unacceptable that they just assume everything American is Canadian however. That makes me want to kill the British with a baseball bat.

As to the other, maybe you're accent 'naturally' sounds rather American (especially if you do something bewilderingly American like use 'fags' as a slur ),

This is the internet. I couldn't even begin to use the amount of swear words at my disposal as a Canadian. Again you have no concept of what is Canadian or American. You just assume. Just like you assumed about the word FAG and probably reported me for it.

Moderator Action: Removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

and you could pleasantly correct them instead of exploding like in this demented post.

I am not on an internet crusade to save anyone or change anything. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[Disenfrancised]

I find it totally understandable that most British don't know their history. It's a bit unacceptable that they just assume everything American is Canadian however. That makes me want to kill the British with a baseball bat.

Well mixing the two is understandable, as British Media rarely bothers to tag things specifically 'American' or 'Canadian', so you average man in the street doesn't have much of a reference frame.

cliche internet tough-guy act

*Sigh* I was conjecturing as to the apparent bad interactions with RL Britons you fume about may be due to accent, not mistaking you for one on the internets. I wouldn't report you for 'fag' as to me it implies your calling someone a cigarette, which is just, as I said, bewildering. If you can't follow the arguement you probably shouldn't reply angrily...

 

[Patroklos]

It(not having nukes) is a deterrent to being nuked yourself and you can't prove otherwise so get lost.

Tell that to the several dozen non nuclear nations that would have been nuked to oblivion in the 80s.

The simple fact is that if you are going to go nuclear in a major exchange, go nuclear. That means taking out all your enemies allies regardless of their nuclear status.

Britain (and France, and Germany, and Italy, etc.) will be nuked just as much in an all out war with a major nuclear power (ie Russia) today as they would have been in 1985.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Well mixing the two is understandable, as British Media rarely bothers to tag things specifically 'American' or 'Canadian', so you average man in the street doesn't have much of a reference frame.

See next reply.

*Sigh* I was conjecturing as to the apparent bad interactions with RL Britons you fume about may be due to accent, not mistaking you for one on the internets.

What? I don't interact with the British in real life. If you can't follow the arguement you probably shouldn't reply...

I[/i] wouldn't report you for 'fag' as to me it implies your calling someone a cigarette, which is just, as I said, bewildering. If you can't follow the arguement you probably shouldn't reply angrily...

I think it would be funnier if I was calling someone a cigarette.

It started here:

are you seriously for real

ww1 the americans came in near the end maybe helped us defeat germany 6 months earlier, and britain itself was never really threatened in that war

ww2 you came in a bit earlier did make a sizeable contribution but all 3 of the major western allies were necessary to defeat germany so saying it was all america is stupid really

Dosed, despite my avatar being a Canadian flag, assumed Americans and Canadians were the same in WW1 and 2.

Moderator Action: Removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[GinandTonic]

The homophobic stereotype that I can see in this thread is the hissy-fit. I keep reading certain posts as having the voice of Jack from Will and Grace.

 

[dosed150]

See next reply.



What? I don't interact with the British in real life. If you can't follow the arguement you probably shouldn't reply...




I think it would be funnier if I was calling someone a cigarette.

It started here:



Dosed, despite my avatar being a Canadian flag, assumed Americans and Canadians were the same in WW1 and 2.

I said that's a typical response from the uneducated masses of Britian, who I collectively refer to as stupid tea drinking fags. I don't think that's so harsh, after all you admit most British are stupid, they drink tea, and the rest of the world sees them as pretty gay people. I am not angry, I am factual. Goodday!

it was actually the way you talked and the fact that your avatar is upside down made me think you were some canada and britain hating sarah palin loving type american, i know the contributions canada made in both wars a lot of troops and all the material support, things could have got pretty bad for britain in 1940 without canada

 

[jessiecat]

it was actually the way you talked and the fact that your avatar is upside down made me think you were some canada and britain hating sarah palin loving type american, i know the contributions canada made in both wars a lot of troops and all the material support, things could have got pretty bad for britain in 1940 without canada

Thanks for that. As a Canadian who's lived in Britain for half of my life (before many of you were born), I don't understand AT's problem. The British I know realize full well that Canadians are not American and appreciate them all the more for it. Most of my family fought and some died in both world wars serving in the Canadian Army and none of them would have expressed the ignorant hatred and disrespect AT has for the British people. The guy seems to have a lot of deep personality issues which cloud his judgement and warp his mind. The upside-down flag says all I really want to know about his immature self-loathing.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Thanks for that. As a Canadian who's lived in Britain for half of my life (before many of you were born), I don't understand AT's problem.

You want to speak on behalf of Canadians, okay.

And whats my problem? Isn't the onus on you to tell me?

I think you're the one with the problem sir.

The British I know realize full well that Canadians are not American and appreciate them all the more for it.

Good for them. Your anecdotal evidence is not better than mine jessiecat.

Most of my family fought and some died in both world wars serving in the Canadian Army and none of them would have expressed the ignorant hatred and disrespect AT has for the British people.

Now I've insulted the war dead!

The guy seems to have a lot of deep personality issues which cloud his judgement and warp his mind.

Yawn. My speech has words you don't like and there are alternatives to reading it.

The upside-down flag says all I really want to know about his immature self-loathing.

Wow you're a true Sherlock Holmes.