Of course, the easiest way to solve this would be to scrap the subs completely and not have nukes, but wait! We NEED nukes for the non-existent country that will invade us if we don't!
Island country m8y, Britain was the only country in WWI that could've lost in a day and lost without having a single enemy soldier set foot on Britain. To ruin a nation such as Britain, all you'd need to do is close a few important sea lanes. One is all you really need, to be honest.
Given our position (ie as fairly long-term allies to the US) I doubt many countries would SERIOUSLY consider doing that, and if pirates did it instead, nuking them is a BIT of an overreaction.
Given our position (ie as fairly long-term allies to the US) I doubt many countries would SERIOUSLY consider invading the Falklands.
Machiavelli says that a wise prince would do well to not rest the defence of their nation on a foreign power. At best they do nothing and let you die because it does not affect them, like Poland or Ukraine, or at worst they aid you and you end up with a far worse problem, (good god those joint coalition casualties) and end up controlling your country. And if pirates did it instead, we'd need to be able to keep the Royal Navy sailing through everywhere from the English channel through to the Med through the Suez through the Red Sea through the Straits of Hormuz through to the Indian Ocean. And from there, possibly all the way to the Straits of Malacca. If any nation were to object, or even worse, any nation were to be supporting such a pirate group (because when have governments ever done that? Hell, the Brits were pioneers of that strategy) AND such a nation was a nuclear power or backed by one, you better have nukes or they just won't give a shit about your objections. It's no mistake that after the Crimean peninsula was annexed by Russia a Putin mouthpiece started casually going on about how Russia could atomize America. You don't ever use nukes. But having nukes awards power. If it came to war, no war would be declared. It wouldn't even look like a war. Someone would buy British north sea gas reserves, someone would target Qatari tankers en route to Britain; it'd be a dirty clandestine affair. The best way to win a war is to never have one, because in this day and age everyone loses and the winner is only who's lost less. Unless of course you prevent the war from beginning. Israel, Pakistan, India, China and North Korea are all nations facing credible military threats whose sovereignty are backed by nuclear weapons. No one will make any open moves against them because of it, and the only people who do are those who do not act on behalf of any states (ostensibly). Why does America acquiesce to China over Taiwan, Japan and South Korea? Guess who's got the nukes?
Of course though, what Mr Mcneilly wrote about the emergent threat of terrorism strikes a sound point. There exist irrational actors who care not for mutually assured destruction. The Falklands war is perhaps a great example for several reasons - the Argentinians even felt pride in having attacked a nuclear power. Though then again, they were also convinced that the British defence would be token and weak. But it does prove the point, in that states themselves can also be irrational actors.
Knowing this, I find the argument for disarmament weak. It is terrible in hindsight to read how those "warhawks" who proposed the British Empire remilitarize against the rising Nazi Germany were shouted down for attempting to push policies that would "provoke" the Germans. It pays to be prepared, lest you need defence and find yourself lacking. Terrorism will have to be fought through the information war, something that MI5 and MI6 are exceedingly good at. But war has not stopped existing. People genuinely did not see Russia coming because "why would they hurt their own economy?" Acceptable losses to hurt its rivals. It will continue to happen, and I don't mean any nation in specific. The weak will not control the strong, or even influence them. People only respect international law when it is enforced by force. That's why it's en
forced.
In regards to Mr. McNeilly's concern with security, sanitation and maintenance standards, it will be interesting to see how much is confirmed as true. It would suggest Trident is in desperate need of renewal, and the Navy in need of a wider pool of talent. It is disgraceful that Britain's had more citizens join ISIS than the reserves. It is also rather annoying to know that we will not get new subs until about a dozen and a bit more years from now.
I'm inclined to believe McNeilly; I just hope he's wrong.
Poll
Author
Topic: Sheb's European Megathread: Remove Feta! (Read 1782482 times)