I’m not anti-European, I am pro-democracy.

@Arthur Pewtey
They are all bad, just some are worse than others.

I’v kinda wondered about that myself………national pride aside. A question to ask may be…….were the Soviets detered by the one or at most two Polaris subs the RN may have had at sea at one time, or were they detered by the scads of minuitmen(sp), titan IIs, BUFFs, and Poseidons the US deployed? As for the present time……..I dont know whos being detered anymore.

Yes, two Polaris subs were sufficient deterrent. Relying on the US for the deterrence alone would be have been a bad idea as one does have to question whether after a nuclear strike on Europe, the US would be willing to go with mutually assured destruction on Russian cities, or just have a peace agreement with Russia and the US both staying undamaged? I’d suggest the chances are the US would go with the peace agreement. Two UK Polaris means that the Russians would get their cities wiped out by the UK (and France), and so the Russians would feel the Americans would win by proxy and hand out suitable destruction in kind. Deterrence is thereby achieved.

Seriously, if France didn’t have nukes, would the UK continue to field them?

If the US and Russia give them up, so will we.

UK finishes second from last

While we’re on the subject, hows about a referendum on EU membership?

http://www.peoplespledge.org/

@PhantomII
The police here would probably arrest you for inciting racial hatred for saying something negative about anything of Pakistani origin. We need to four ammendments quite quickly as I’ve got a brilliant idea for the fifth.

@John K
Restating your original point does not make it valid. If you want to claim the TLAM are effective, you must prove the point, and disprove my point. A submarine with 100 nuclear TLAM on it is not any cheaper than an SSBN with 14 ish SLBM on it.

So how about good ole silos ?

The UK wants a second strike capability so these have been ruled out. On a practical basis building them would be impossible as the NIMBY brigades would be out in force, and those silos would end up being in the green belt. Just look at all the problems caused by the high speed rail project, then replace train track with nuclear missile site.

@Prom
The warhead shouldn’t make any difference either way. The warheads are similar to the US ones due to extent of technology sharing across the nuclear weapons field, but they are not the same warhead. The main similarity of the British and American warheads comes from them having to fit the same re-entry vehicle! Britain currently maintains the capability to design a new warhead if needed, so that fixed cost remains regardless of the delivery system choice.

TLAM will cost a lot less than an SLBM individually, but the cost of the delivery system isn’t that significant compared to the cost of the nuclear submarines. If you’re going to go to the extent of the submarines, you might as well fit them with the better missile. Taking the Rolls Royce analogy, it would be like buying a top of the range Rolls Royce, then painting it with some blue house paint with a fat brush and fitting the seats from a Lada, because you can save a little bit by doing so.

Arthur if you want to know about UKIP policies, go read their manifesto 🙂

On the EU, my view is very clear, it should be up to the people to decide through a referendum. The decision being made by the people themselves is more important to me than getting the result I want.