Trident

[SWP's back]

Only goes to show how relevant combat submarines are becoming bar our nuclear force. Our entire army and air force can be compared similarly. Our Army strength is about 33rd by numbers, Greece and Mexico have more personnel.

By pure numbers we have less tanks, less planes, less people, less of basically anything you can name yet our military spending is 5th in the world.

Good. We may keep our noses out of other country's business a bit more now.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Only goes to show how relevant combat submarines are becoming bar our nuclear force. Our entire army and air force can be compared similarly. Our Army strength is about 33rd by numbers, Greece and Mexico have more personnel.

By pure numbers we have less tanks, less planes, less people, less of basically anything you can name yet our military spending is 5th in the world. It goes to show that we could never fight a proper war but on expertise and investment we are one of the best. It also goes to show how vulnerable we are if we did get rid of our nuclear arsenal because if we ever somehow got in a proper fist fight chances are we'd lose badly.

Depends how you look at it. If you accept that we can't easily compete on numbers anyway, because we're a small nation compared with many others, then we have to be 'smarter' or 'more capable' in some other way - most likely technology. Whether than technology is helping is another matter, because it takes decades to develop some of the technologies we are involved in (like aircraft for instance), and whilst those aircraft have amazing capabilities, can they win a war against insurgents embedded amongst civilians? or fight the terrorism war that's raising it's ugly head once again?

I've very hard to predict the future, but when we spend billions on military equipment and technology, that's what we are trying to do.

I'm also reminded of the battle of the Somme where countless soldiers died, not least because we'd equipped them with dud weaponry on a grand scale, or in more recent conflicts where amoured vehicles were incorrect, or flak jackets inadequate etc. Our military is only as strong as its weakest link and if you believe we're amongst the best trained in the world, that training is going to be severely compromised unless they're amongst the best equipped too.

It seems we're gambling on a future where physical soldiers are less needed, just at a time when Guerilla warfare might be back on the cards!

 

[smudgedj]

Only goes to show how relevant combat submarines are becoming bar our nuclear force. Our entire army and air force can be compared similarly. Our Army strength is about 33rd by numbers, Greece and Mexico have more personnel.

By pure numbers we have less tanks, less planes, less people, less of basically anything you can name yet our military spending is 5th in the world. It goes to show that we could never fight a proper war but on expertise and investment we are one of the best. It also goes to show how vulnerable we are if we did get rid of our nuclear arsenal because if we ever somehow got in a proper fist fight chances are we'd lose badly.

It's not the size of your weapon it's the strengh of your weapon.

 

[FanchesterCity]

They say it's the motion in the ocean, but since our just bumped into a fishing boat....

 

[mosssideblue]

It's far from a lack of appreciation, it's accepting that real world situations bring up surprises that no training exercise can simulate.
At the very top of the tree (in theory) is a Prime Minister who often is in place for only a few years. There is no way on earth you can vouch for their ability to deal with the stress of a nuclear attack, or how they might behave. No way on earth. They could actually be in place only a matter of days - depending on when the attack happened. There's no selection process for an appropriate PM to be commander in chief.

That's why I said there has to be a strategy in place for a PM who isn't decapitated, but panics / can't decide.

I accept your point re the PM, but do believe there to be contingency plans from within senior cabinet officials. My specific comment was aimed at those further down the food chain i.e. once the signal to fire has been sent.

 

[FanchesterCity]

I accept your point re the PM, but do believe there to be contingency plans from within senior cabinet officials. My specific comment was aimed at those further down the food chain i.e. once the signal to fire has been sent.

I wonder what would happen if the Queen said one thing and the PM said another? One for the constitution boffins there!
I'd be ever so slightly inclined to think the best course of action would be to do nothing! - here's why

1) Retaliation is only like to escalate things. There will be no less casualties as a result, only more
2) It could have been an accidental firing (however unlikely, or the result of party A's missiles being fired by hostile party B (say a terrorist plot, or a coup).
3) Anybody on that sub might, for whatever reason, be fooled into believing something had happened, when it hadn't (i.e. total comms failure and the assumption of a strike that hadn't actually happened).

A lot depends on if you think retaliation might just save the remaining UK people, or make it worse. I personally think it would probably make it worse there's 'do nothing' works for me. Obviously the enemy can never know that's your strategy.