It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Absolute waste of money

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Harlequin,

What made you think I was not aware of the differing tasking of the various components of the US nuclear arsenal?

I am not being facetious I am simply wondering how you came to that conclusion.

Cheers

BHR




posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Do you live in round house because due to your logic it appears that you like going in round in circles.

No its a cubiod..welll not really but that will do....to you my logic seems to be going round in circles...which funnly enough the who world is based on this idea..



The US Army has no strategic nuclear capability, neither do the Marines or the Coastguard. Does that mean they are down by 3/5ths?

I believed they did have one I must be mistaken...
Technically the marines do because they are a department of the navy...
The coast gaurd is not an armed service and does not get taken by the USN with a task force to help in wartime situations..


If you are that concerned about us not having enough nukes, should we build more SSBNs or should we install some ICBM fields in Stirlingshire?

Let me put it this way....If we were going to defend ourselves with nuclear weapons would you use only 4 submariens?
Also we dont need to install ICBM's in stirlingshire since the home of the ICBM's is only several miles west of stirlingshire.
Cheers



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
It is suprising how few people know the GR1/4 is capable of carrying nuclear weapons!

[edit on 6-4-2005 by paperplane_uk]

Yeah but is the GR1/4 going to go intercontinental with it?



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
It is suprising how few people know the GR1/4 is capable of carrying nuclear weapons!

[edit on 6-4-2005 by paperplane_uk]

Yeah but is the GR1/4 going to go intercontinental with it?


I said it is capable of using them, but at the moment they are 'officially' retired. They are freefall bombs not missiles



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
I said it is capable of using them, but at the moment they are 'officially' retired. They are freefall bombs not missiles

Yeah they are capable of using them but just not on long range missions...although the tornado is a great craft...and a damm good alarm clock!



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
I said it is capable of using them, but at the moment they are 'officially' retired. They are freefall bombs not missiles

Yeah they are capable of using them but just not on long range missions...although the tornado is a great craft...and a damm good alarm clock!


didnt for a second say that they could. The country has little long range offensive air capability.

You are right about the alarm clock though.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
didnt for a second say that they could. They country has little long range offensive air capability.

Yeah thats the point I was trying to stress..


You are right about the alarm clock though.

Woke me up when they decided to do a flyover of our campsite...echo'd all the way down the valley...



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
think yourself lucky, i grew up 3 miles from a bombing range and right under the flight line. low level f-15s are worse though



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
think yourself lucky, i grew up 3 miles from a bombing range and right under the flight line. low level f-15s are worse though

**Thinks about it..*** "ouch...well I guess you guys didnt need to spend too much money on bonfire night huh?"



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
When we don't need to go round nuking the Soviet Union, we don't really need strategic bombers such as the V force. We keep the Trident boats so we our not entirely reliant on US nuclear power for deterrence. One could argue that without the USSR we don't need that either; but it must be remebered it is a deterrent to absolutely anyone who may feel like attacking us.

A more serious defece issue than our lack of strategic bombers is our general defence cuts and the air defence gap. The governement's ideology used to be to have the UK able to engage in two full scale campaigns, going it alone, simultaneously. It seems this has been forgotten, though, and we find ourselves ever more reliant on US support.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Still haveing the navy the only nuclear force does seem risky...
Have you read the "fleet assesment" from last year?
"the RN must be able to operate efficiantly and cost effectively in a co-alition..."



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   
DW,

I would not be surprised to see the V class boats being the last of the line.

Then again who knows where we will be in geo-political terms 30 years from now.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   
30 years??? the V boats are due to retire from 2020, they are already talking about designing replacements.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Paper,

I will take your word for it.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   
they are just talking at the moment, but if they dont start putting money into it soon, there are going to be delays (AGAIN)



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Paper,

I know that Vanguard is in re-fit at the moment but my understanding was that this was part of a Life Extension Programme, which the rest of the boats will undergo.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Paper,

I know that Vanguard is in re-fit at the moment but my understanding was that this was part of a Life Extension Programme, which the rest of the boats will undergo.

Cheers

BHR


Is their mid life update and refuel, the earliest one is 13yrs old already

[edit on 7-4-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Paper,

I thought they were now calling the LEP refits. Life Extension Programme.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
as far as i know they changed the name cos they updated what they were putting into the boats (long life eninge core) they are also upgrading the computer systems and a few other toys. The total upgrade is taking about 2 years.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Paper,

I believe that further to my previous post, Vanguard has finished hers and it is now Victorious which is undergoing the refit.

Sorry for the previous incorrect info.

Cheers

BHR




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join