true and that was what churchill had just been waiting for - he’d already been trying hard to get usa to join WWII
Hi
A personal view.
We spend far too much on defence and much of it is wasted.
We spend vast amounts on the Global Britain idea, showboat projects.
We have two huge aircraft carriers, we cannot afford the planes for them.
We have Trident, which is dependant on the Americans.
There was a recent war game, the USA, the French and the UK.
The UK only lasted two days, we ran out of ammunition.
There is no point in patrolling the South China Seas if we cannot stop a dew dinghies from crossing the Channel.
I agree, at least in part.
I don’t think we spend too much on defence, in fact we spend not enough. Much of what we do spend, however, is indeed wasted.
I suppose the reason for the two aircraft carriers is our remaining responsibility for far-flung territories like the Falklands. However, you are correct: we can’t afford the required number of aircraft for them.
As for Trident, I think it is important to keep an ‘ultimate deterrent’ these days, especially now that China is flexing its muscles. If they should drop a nuclear bomb on us, could we rely on America to reciprocate on our behalf? I think not! I suspect that they’d think twice because that would invite a nuclear bomb arriving on their own country. However, we should develop and install our own missiles (we have our own warheads); I believe we still have the knowledge of how to do that. We’ve done it before!
I didn’t know that we ‘ran out of ammunition’. I suspect that our glorious leaders probably told the servicemen involved not to use too much! I suppose they’re worried about being unable to afford the enormous amounts they spend on ‘foreign aid’ and ‘feeding the world’. Shame about our own needy people, of course.
And you’re right about the South China Sea. Our influence there is negligible and, as I’ve said before, we should learn to keep our noses out of things that don’t concern us. I think that some of our leaders still think we’re the ‘world’s policeman’!
Hi
JBR, we have no need of Trident and as I continually try to explain, we cannot fire the missiles as the USA can block the codes.
We have our hunter killer nuclear subs with long range, very effective cruise missiles.
They can jink all over the place and are very difficult to stop.
We have our own nuclear warheads, we could fit them to these.
Then we would have our own independent nuclear deterrent.
Hang on a tic. The UK was virtually out of supplies and cash. Uboats were blockading our every move. We couldn’t get supplies to our troops and we desperately needed help. We asked the US to help us - and they agreed…BUT insisted they were paid BEFORE giving ANY assistance. We had to pay them in gold…which we had to get from South America (I think!!) AND deliver it to the US before they did anything at all! We also paid them by allowing them sovereignty over allocated areas all over the UK. America did NOT get involved in WW2 until the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour! America did NOT win the war - they did NOT give the UK ANYTHING - they were PAID!
2 Likes
Sorry, I must have missed this post, but I’d like to reply now.
My first question is do you have any evidence to support your statement that we cannot fire our Trident missiles? As I understand it, the procedure is as follows:
On board the submarines there is a locked safe containing firing codes. Only the captain and his first officer have keys to it, worn around their necks. Upon receipt of a ‘fire’ message from the UK, which would confirm a coded message to ensure that the message received is genuine, both officers would turn their keys to open the safe. Inside, there is another code which should match that sent from the UK. If it matches, the message is genuine and the missiles are fired by pressing a button (actually, by pulling a trigger). If the codes don’t match, either the message is not genuine or, as happens regularly, it is a practice message. In either case, if the two officers should decide to do it regardless of the message, they could press the button anyway. In other words, we could fire the missiles!
The remaining question is, does the PM have to send a message to the US President in order to send the ‘fire code’? In the lack of any such reply could the PM send the fire code anyway, especially if we have actually come under a nuclear attack? I maintain that we are free to do so.
To add confirmation to my assertion, in a nuclear exchange it is inevitable that communications would break down, between us and America and indeed between the UK and our Trident submarines. For that very reason, the provision is there for the submarine commander to fire his missiles without any instruction or confirmation from the UK. In fact, if the routine messages are NOT received, the missiles could be fired. In fact, I believe that in such a case, as a confirmatory safeguard, the submarine commander would listen out for, believe it or not, a regular routine BBC radio transmission (which channel I don’t know). These go out 24/7 and a sudden end would confirm what could have happened.
Moving on. Yes, we have our own nuclear warheads. I believe they number between 200 and 300 and yes, they could be fitted to Tomahawk cruise missiles which do have a long range, I believe well over 1000 miles. However, they are much easier to shoot down than a ballistic missile. Additionally, our nuclear warheads could equally be fitted to some of our aircraft, but they too are easier to shoot down than a ballistic missile.
So yes, we do still have our own independent nuclear deterrent, however it is delivered. The best means is Trident and I believe we do have the right and the ability to launch it without first asking the Americans’ permission.
As far as I’m aware, the only component of the system which isn’t ours are the missiles themselves, which are manufactured in America and periodically exchanged with them, presumably for checking or possibly improvements. Whether they are launched or not is up to the submarines carrying them.
1 Like
Yes, I believe you’re right.
Of course, what gold we had left, that nice Mr Brown gave away much later on!
The moral: don’t trust anyone!
True, until 1941 when lend lease act came in, then you got it effectively free until 1945.
You wouldn’t expect a neutral government to disobey their own laws over a European squabble would you? There was no appetite to get involved, perhaps if you think of your attitude toward involvement in the Middle East squabbles you might get the idea.
I think you’ve missed the point of the Lend Lease Act. It applied only to nations deemed VITAL to the defence of the United States. It’s certainly a good job that the US saved Australia in their contretemps with Japan.
As for Afghanistan - this was direct retaliation after the 9.11 attacks in the US but both Australian and British troops were involved. Hopefully we will also be ready to help you when your little issues with China escalate.
You think? Perhaps that was why they called it An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States do you reckon?
You’re a bit late to this party all this stuff has been previously remarked on.
I think it would be wise to remember that each Country teaches it’s own history.
A couple of word changes, modified war tales, maybe even the punctuation, and the story can start to look more attractive, to the politician, as he convinces his electorate that his team won the game.
My father, a RN officer in WW2, went over to bring back one of the lease lend vessels. He told us that some of the stuff was, literally, unseaworthy.
But we were grateful.
As with large virus attacks, in modern times, we have to be grateful for what we get, some get nothing.
Hi
In response to JBR.
The Government do not advertise this, the same as they are coy about many things.
The original agreement was for Polaris.
Note the caveats as to use.
Trident is a carry over, but with changes to the restricted Caveats.
The Trident programme is here.
We do not own the missiles or the fire control systems, which are serviced by the Americans.
We cannot put our warheads on free fall bombs, we would have to design new ones.
The Americans are not idiots, they do not allow us to access the full military capacity of their GPS, they share it if it is in their interests.
They retain the ability, what is known, as kill switches, to destroy the missiles before they reach their target, they would be stupid not to.
The USA Government looks after the interests of the USA, we are secondary.
I was taught this on training courses.
The government do not publicise this.
It would upset the public.
There are many misconceptions.
Fylingdales on the Yorkshire Coast is an example, minimal use to protect the UK, we do not have a comprehensive Anti Ballistic Missile System.
1 Like
Thank you for this additional information.
I confess that my information was, I believe, current whilst Russia was the USSR and was seen as a direct threat, but of course things have changed now.
Yes, we have been rather foolish to follow and give in to the whims of the US. Yes, I know about Skybolt and its cancellation. As always, America changes its mind and we meekly do whatever they demand! I find it quite embarrassing. Prior to that we actually had our own ballistic missiles: Thor. I say our own - they even had RAF roundels, but they were American. Not much use, though: 1,500 miles range and took ages to prepare for launch.
The only long range nuclear deterrent we ever had, and which we developed ourselves, was the trio of V-bombers. Funnily enough, at the time they surpassed the equivalents that the Americans had. In that respect, we HAVE put our nuclear warheads on free-fall bombs and also Blue Steel, a stand-off bomb, again of our own design.
As for today’s situation regarding Trident, I’ll take your word for it as it does sound perfectly typical of our ‘allies’! I agree about Fylingdales too, now you mention it. It is one of three such installations, the other two being in Greenland and Alaska. All three providing a continuous coverage to the north of America for the appearance of any ICBM launched from Russia. Yes, it does give us pre-warning too, but Fylingdales is yet again primarily for America’s benefit.
I hate to say it, but in a way I envy the Frogs. Unlike us, they have their own ICBM or SLBM system which, I believe, is under their own control and no-one else’s. Damn it, even India and Pakistan have their own versions (land-based, I believe). If all of these countries can do this, why can’t we?
Why? I’ll tell you why. Weak politicians who would rather we hide behind the American skirts, and even then we can’t trust them!
You are quite right, as is Ted of course, that the Americans give nothing much away and it’s always part of some sort of deal to benefit themselves. Not, in my opinion, an ideal ally!
Hi
Thank you for that JBR, you are a gent to debate with and I always follow your threads.
Yes, you are right, we do have the capacity to develop and fit our own nuclear warheads to free fall bombs and stand off missiles, but we need the planes and missiles to deliver them.
We have some amazing nuclear warhead technology, we can wind the output up or down even in flight.
A small tactical bunker buster warhead can become a full strategic warhead in a few seconds.
It will take a least a decade to have the same capability as the French, I find this a huge fault of our Politicians, of both sides.
The French have another advantage, they are totally unpredictable.
In the Falklands War the USA refused to supply us with their satellite imagery of Argentine Warplanes taking off, which could have saved many UK Lives, part of their don’t get involved policy.
The French went one further, the missiles used against our ships were French, Exocets, they could have turned them off, they didn’t, they wanted to see how effective they where.
1 Like
Absolutely. Who can we trust?
The answer is, no-one. Certainly not the EU as is evident by their continued behaviour since the end of last year.
As I have said before, I believe we should stop trying to act like we are a world power, which we are not especially thanks to the continued cuts to our defence capabilities over the years.
I believe we should take the same stance as Israel. Stop trying to go all over the world and putting the world to rights. We should concentrate on ourselves alone, keep ourselves to ourselves and defend our own country. Although we don’t have large defence forces any more, like Israel, those we do have are some of the best in the world certainly for their size.
Certainly, no more being dragged into foreign conflicts by America. As we have just seen, we can’t rely on them to think of anyone but themselves.
Incidentally, I have just received a message from OFF:
“You’ve posted more than 20% of the replies here, is there anyone else you would like to hear from?”
I’ll take that to mean, “Stop posting. You’ve said too much.” Hardly encouraging.
Sounds like the Bot, JBR, alias the robot set up to suggest standards.
I had one, a day or two back, which said something like “you and one other are making most of the posts, here, would it be better using a MSG?”
If we want Lithium, Gas, Oil, and various other products we have very little of, we will have to keep cosying up to those who have them.
Yes. Perhaps I should stop posting for a few days. To be honest, I don’t feel much up to it right now anyway. I just had another fit this morning.
Russia?!
It was a program designed to protect the USA in their capacity as supplier to the UK, Free France, China, Soviet Union and all other allied nations with food, oil and other material between 1941 and 1945.
I’m glad to hear that your previous erroneous comments have been pointed out to you by others as well as myself. It’ll be good to know you’ll learn from them!