Uk's missle sub Nuc deterrant

[deziloooooo]

There is a thread on the "Political " regarding the US giving the Russians the scoop on the UK's sub based missiles..their capabilities...got me googling regarding their, UK's, missile sub capabilities.

I found out that there has been talk of merging with France and conducting joint Nuclear patrols with them to save ${lbs}..

As of now, France has three missile boats, with a new one under construction, one on patrol at all times. 16 missiles to a boat that are MIRVed, believe three war heads per missile.

England has four boats, missile types, 16 missiles and three war heads per missile and also sails one at a time as a deterrent.

It seems the idea of working together , France and the UK, is not know being considered, still mistrust that one or the other would respond to black mail or attack on the other, also , even though it's been 200 years since the UK and France were at war, mistrust still there, though it is known that a attack on British cities would also devastate the Northern areas of France with fall out. Vice versa by the way.

The reason for this consideration of working together is cost.

To maintain the current way of doing things cost over 20 million lbs per year , that they, UK, does not have or could be used in a more efficient way on conventional forces.

This article questions why have such a force anyway as it is useless because it will never be used and all know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/22/trident-nuclear-deterrence-uk-us

[billisonboard]

[shadow=red,left,300][/shadow]

This article questions why have such a force anyway as it is useless because it will never be used and all know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/....eterrence-uk-us

Because you don't get to be in the [shadow=red,left,300]cool kids club[/shadow] without nuclear weapons?

[deziloooooo]

Feb 5, 2011 17:53:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

[shadow=red,left,300][/shadow]

This article questions why have such a force anyway as it is useless because it will never be used and all know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/....eterrence-uk-us

Because you don't get to be in the [shadow=red,left,300]cool kids club[/shadow] without nuclear weapons?

What is fascinating and so disturbing and in a way ludercrouse if the topic discussed wasn't so seriouse is what those who are in charge of these thing consider and discuss , and I am sure it's done by all the parties , and they do it in all seriousness.

Regarding the Brits..there was discussion..how many casualties would be needed on the Soviets/Russians to dissuade them from using nucs in a conflict, disagreement , what ever.

Brought into it was the fact that the Russians /Soviets lost over 20 million in WW2{no mention how many lost because of Stalins policies, before and after the war, not considered as important I guess, the Gulags and camps and executions}

On the nuclear it was decided that a million would not do it, the figure they came up was 10 million..not counting destruction to cities, areas, and living casualties so that is how they come up with the # of missals and war heads...thus the one missile sub always on watch some where at the bottom of the sea..and they discuss this in all seriousness.

Not blaming the Brits..we do the same, Russia too, France and possible others who belong to the club.

" Can hear some one as they adjourne the meeting..

" Yeah , 10 million..that should give the bastards pause, think that will do it . A stop at the pub anyone before we all head home, think we deserve it after all this work, don't you?"