Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do UK nukes make military sense?
BBC News ^ | Thursday, 22 June 2006, 14:12 GMT 15:12 UK | By Rob Watson

Posted on 06/22/2006 9:35:05 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

Do UK nukes make military sense?

By Rob Watson

Defence and security correspondent, BBC News

There is no doubt Chancellor Gordon Brown has set off a major ideological debate within his own, once avowedly, anti-nuclear Labour Party.

But what are the military arguments for and against Britain retaining an independent nuclear deterrent?

Nuclear submarines are based at Faslane on the Clyde

Perhaps the first question to consider is why this is an issue now.

At the moment Britain has 16 Trident missiles, based on four nuclear submarines, providing a total of 200 warheads.

The problem is that the missiles will reach the end of their operational life by the year 2024 and it is argued by some experts that a decision is needed now to allow enough time to replace the system, if indeed Britain is to retain a nuclear weapons capacity.

The arguments against doing so run something like this:

It is said by some critics Britain would not really have an independent nuclear deterrent because it would rely on the US for operating and maintaining any new system, just as it has with Trident.

And then there is the cost, estimated at anywhere between £12bn and £25bn, which not surprisingly some would rather see spent on things such as schools and healthcare.

The most pointed military argument against replacing Trident however is that it is hard to see Britain ever using a nuclear weapon independent from the US.

The point being that, while it is conceivable to imagine a confrontation with a nuclear-armed North Korea or Iran for example, it is very hard to imagine Britain having to go it alone without the US.

And what use would nuclear weapons be against the asymmetrical threat posed by international or domestic terrorism?

But there are also powerful arguments for it.

What many military analysts believe, including Dr Lee Willett of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), is that ultimately retaining an independent nuclear weapons system is an insurance policy against the unknown, and a reasonably priced one at that.

With countries like North Korea and Iran presumed to either have or be determined to acquire nuclear weapons and others such as Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia nursing such ambitions, Dr Willett argues this is not the time for Britain to be getting out of the nuclear game.

Then there is the political and diplomatic argument - that it is vital for Britain to maintain its big power role in the world, including its permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council and its status within the European Union and with the US.

As to the independence of the deterrent from the US, supporters say though it is true any system would likely be acquired from America, its use, like the existing Trident, would be controlled by Britain.

In many ways these are arguments that have been rehearsed over and over again since nuclear weapons were first invented and proliferated around the world.

Does the possession of a nuclear arsenal deter potential foes from attacking you or is their use so inconceivable as to make them in the end a poor deterrent?


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armsbuildup; britain; deterrent; missiles; nuclear; nukes; royalnavy; submarine; submarines; trident; tridentd5; uk; uknukes
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
1 posted on 06/22/2006 9:35:11 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Fact file: Trident missile

Trident II D5 is a submarine-launched ballistic missile system that constitutes the UK's nuclear deterrent.

Developed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin in the United States, Trident entered service with the Royal Navy in 1994, 14 years after it was selected as the replacement for the submarine-launched Polaris missile.

KEY TRIDENT FACTS
Length: 44ft (13m)
Weight: 130,000lb (58,500kg)
Diameter: 74 inches (1.9m)
Range: More than 4,600 miles (7,400km)
Power plant: Three stage solid propellant rocket
Cost: £16.8m ($29.1m) per missile
Source: Federation of American Scientists

Each Trident missile has a range of more than 4,600 miles (7,400km) and is accurate to within a few feet. Their destructive power is estimated as the equivalent of eight Hiroshimas.

The UK deploys 16 Trident missiles on each of its four Vanguard-class submarines, of which one is on patrol at all times. The fleet is based at Faslane in Scotland.

A further 70 missiles can be accessed from a communal pool at the Strategic Weapons facility in Georgia in the United States, where the missiles are also periodically serviced.

Each Trident missile is designed to carry up to 12 nuclear warheads, but the Royal Navy's are armed with three after the 1998 Strategic Defence Review imposed a limit of 48 per submarine.

All the UK's warheads are built at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, Berkshire.

Launch sequence

During a Vanguard patrol, the missile payload is carried upright in launch tubes behind the submarine fin, or conning tower.

At launch, the pressure of expanding gas in the tube forces the missile out and to the ocean surface where, once it is far enough from the submarine, the solid fuel in the first of three stage motors ignites.

At the same time, an aerospike designed to reduce drag by around 50% extends from the tip of the missile.

The internal guidance system takes a reading from the stars to work out the missile's position and make any adjustments necessary to the pre-programmed route to its target area.

A second - or boost stage - rocket then fires, followed by the third stage. Within approximately two minutes from launch the missile is travelling at over 20,000ft (6,100 metres) a second.

Warhead detonation

Once in position over its targets, the missile's third motor separates from the forward section containing the warheads.

The guidance system takes another star reading to confirm its position.

Small thruster rockets then manoeuvre the forward section so each warhead can be individually released in the right place to freefall to its target, where they detonate according to one of a number of pre-set fuse options.

In the UK, the authority for a real (rather than test) Trident launch would have to come from the prime minister via a secure communications network.

Trident has a 30-year lifespan that is due to end in 2024. The UK will need to take a decision soon on whether to extend Trident's lifespan or replace it with an alternative system, which could cost an estimated £10bn.


2 posted on 06/22/2006 9:36:07 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4438392.stm


3 posted on 06/22/2006 9:37:09 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
"Do UK nukes make military sense?"
To whom? Where one stands depends on where one sits.
4 posted on 06/22/2006 9:37:57 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I think so. They can hit targets inside Russia within 15 minutes.


5 posted on 06/22/2006 9:42:40 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

In other words, opponents of UK's maintaining a nuclear arsenal are saying that as long as we keep ours, they can use our alliance as a shield.

Critics of the U.S. are also aware that if the U.S. develops and deploys a ballistic missile shield, it would cover the UK and the rest of Europe by default, over the objections of any critics. We, the U.S., will endeavor to engineer a system that would protect the EU regardless of whether or not the individual members give us permission, because our country's welfare is so closely tied to that of the welfare of Europe. Thus, we'd invest in the extra expense of shielding Europe, or in the infrastructure and technology to shield Europe regardless of their consent or lack of it.

It is said that home is where if you show up they have to take you in. In that regard, the U.S. is like everybody's home base. They curse us, call us mean names, and disparage our motives - but when it comes down to it - they're absolutely sure that we'll defend them to our last breath. And in our pride and arrogance... we will, because we're naive Americans and we actually believe our myths about freedom, liberty, and justice for all.


6 posted on 06/22/2006 9:46:13 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The United Kingdom probably does not need nuclear weapons, and could actually encourage other middle or small countries from acquiring such weaponry. Simply because the United Kingdom is currently a strong ally of the United States is not a reason for supporting them having such weapons. Nuclear weapons should be restricted to only a few countries, to decrease the probability of a weapon getting stolen and used (or a country directly using the weapon). Used when something conventional would suffice.


7 posted on 06/22/2006 9:47:59 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( www.answersingenesis.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Their sub missiles can hit Russian targets in 15 minutes and their bomber force can hit them within 30 minutes. I think that their system is to overwhelm the ABM defenses around Moscow.In other words, their missiles are to pave the way for our missiles to hit them.
8 posted on 06/22/2006 9:49:38 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
>"Do UK nukes make military sense?"

Yes!

Unless you would like to be the one taking a knife to a machinegun fight!

9 posted on 06/22/2006 9:57:48 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (I'd rather be carrying a shotgun with Dick, than riding shotgun with a Kennedyl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Remember, it takes 30 minutes for our ICBMs to reach their targets in Russia. It takes 6-12 hours for our bomber force to reach their targets in Russia. Its only logical that the British nuclear forces is to soften Russian military targets before the calvary arrives!!


10 posted on 06/22/2006 9:58:55 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker

Umm,didn't the UK give up land & airlaunched weapons like around a decade ago??They probably have a contingency plan in place,but the official word is that it's only Tridents for them,unlike the French who still retain Nuke-cruise missile & bomb capability.If the UK still had airlaunched capability,this current argument about their nukes making sense would have been muted,if non-existent,coz air-launched is more economical.

Besides what bombers does the UK have which have the range to reach Russia or any nation from homesoil????Both the EF-Typhoon & Tornado would need lots of aerial refuelling for that.


11 posted on 06/22/2006 10:02:54 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Besides what bombers does the UK have which have the range to reach Russia or any nation from homesoil????Both the EF-Typhoon & Tornado would need lots of aerial refuelling for that.

The British since the 1950-1984 used the V-Bomber wich carried the free fall Blue Danube atomic bomb.The V-Bomber was originally supposed to carry the Skybolt missile before that program was cancelled. I am thinking of the British Jaguar bomber. The Israelis upgraded them to carry atomic bombs.

MPs question 'nuclear upgrade' of Israel's Jaguar bombers
24-04-2002
By Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian
MPs are demanding an explanation after Israel upgraded British Jaguar bombers made by India under licence and potentially capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

But Moscow is still a target by the British:

Moscow criterion

The former Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Michael Quinlan, has indicated that British targeting has moved away from the plans described above. In discussing the ethics of nuclear weapons he talks about "final-sanction nuclear- strike" plans and says -

"The central idea in such plans would be to inflict disabling damage upon the aggressor state as a state, so as to remove or emasculate its ability and disposition to persist as an evil force against others, while keeping as low as possible (appallingly grave though that would probably still be) the harm done to innocent citizens. There is little doubt that in the earlier days of the nuclear age strategic targeting was not generally shaped in this way; but as time went on both US and UK planning options - French, Soviet, and now Russian ones may be a different matter - moved significantly in this direction "

What appears to have happened is that the focus of British targeting shifted from choosing a large number of cities on the basis of their population, to focusing on the Soviet and Russian command and control structure. 20 The centralisation of the old Soviet regime was such that this command and control system was and is heavily concentrated around Moscow. Field Marshall Nigel Bagnall, Chief of General Staff 1985-88, has said of the targeting of Trident "It is more than just the destruction of Moscow, it is the destruction of their command and control system".

If we look at past US nuclear planning, Soviet "leadership" targets were a special category. The ability to launch an attack on this command structure was regarded as crucial and as the last option in a nuclear exchange.22 In its independent plans Britain probably has this command structure as the main focus for its targeting. Quinlan would no doubt argue that launching a nuclear attack on this command structure is not the same as aiming to destroy Moscow, but it would, nonetheless, turn the city into a radioactive desert.

It is clear that the ability to launch an attack on the Moscow area has been the key factor determining the nature of British strategic nuclear forces since the mid 1970s. At this time the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) system around the city was enhanced. Military planners in Britain calculated that this ABM system would prevent Britain from launching a nuclear attack. So a new British system, Chevaline, was designed specifically to overcome these ABMs. Chevaline was in service from 1982 to 1996 . The missiles were armed with decoys as well as warheads. The plan was to launched all 16 missiles from the submarine on patrol at Moscow as quickly as possible. The missile trajectories were adjusted so that all the warheads and decoys would land at around the same time and swamp the ABM defences.

Admiral Lord Lewin played a key role in the decision to build Trident. He has stressed the importance of the Moscow Criterion. He said: "Moscow was at the core of the Russian pysche, if you wiped out Moscow you destroyed the Soviet Unions will to succeed."
12 posted on 06/22/2006 10:20:23 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Ro3.2 Moscow criterion om - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Besides what bombers does the UK have which have the range to reach Russia or any nation from homesoil????Both the EF-Typhoon & Tornado would need lots of aerial refuelling for that.

The SEPECAT Jaguar
13 posted on 06/22/2006 10:42:29 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Ro3.2 Moscow criterion om - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

By the end of the Century Britain will be a majority-Muslim nation. Do we want the Ayatollah Londoni, the head of the Islamic Republic of Britain to have an independent nuclear force come then?


14 posted on 06/22/2006 10:45:08 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker

Well,the V-series hit the muesum long time ago.About Jaguars,the RAF is already cutting it's fleet of such jets & If im not mistaken,all of them would be axed by 2010.They are good low level attack jets,with decent range,but will be shredded in aerial combat.The Israelis never operated Jags-the article you are referring to is about Israel upgrading India's fleet.If one were to go only by what is written on paper,India's Jags are probably the most sophisticated of the type in the world,but even those won't have role beyond hitting Pakistani armour formations or Chinese bases in Tibet.

The UK does have a few options though.It can develop a N-variant of it's Storm Shadow cruise missile,which will give enhanced teeth to any carrier like the F-35 or EF-2000.The RAF is looking at an enhanced Storm Shadow,in the category of the US 'JASSM-ER',with a range of around 500 miles.


15 posted on 06/22/2006 10:45:48 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
The UK does have a few options though.It can develop a N-variant of it's Storm Shadow cruise missile,which will give enhanced teeth to any carrier like the F-35 or EF-2000.The RAF is looking at an enhanced Storm Shadow,in the category of the US 'JASSM-ER',with a range of around 500 miles.

I do agree with the assesment. But overwhemling Moscow's air defenses are the key priority by the Tridents to pave the way for our missiles.
16 posted on 06/22/2006 10:52:37 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Ro3.2 Moscow criterion om - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker

Ping


17 posted on 06/22/2006 10:54:32 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

And where do you get that bizarre statistic, old bean?


18 posted on 06/23/2006 12:14:22 AM PDT by propertius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
The UK, like France, will retain its nuclear arsenal, if only for prestige reasons. The nuclear club is very small: USA, Russia, China, France, UK. The World War II Big Five. Then there's Pakistan, India and Israel all of which are nuclear club powers.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

19 posted on 06/23/2006 12:22:57 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: propertius
And where do you get that bizarre statistic, old bean?


20 posted on 06/23/2006 12:36:18 AM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

"The United Kingdom probably does not need nuclear weapons, and could actually encourage other middle or small countries from acquiring such weaponry. Simply because the United Kingdom is currently a strong ally of the United States is not a reason for supporting them having such weapons."

Kind of like the same thing the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (of whom Blair was a member back then)was saying around 1984 when it was advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament (along with the Labour party at the time;one of the reasons it was kept out of power for 18 years): if we give up everyone else will.


21 posted on 06/23/2006 12:36:35 AM PDT by Mac1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

We'll have to wait and see won't we? The past is not necessarily a guide to the future. I do know we've just let in over 300000 Polish/Eastern Europeans in which people on here view as a positive (well, maybe not the unpronouncable surnames!)


22 posted on 06/23/2006 12:55:46 AM PDT by Mac1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Whenever this subject comes up in the news (whether we should have them/replace them, whatever) all the people against our nuclear deterrent come out with some reason or other such as there is no threat (the Soviets were supposed to be no threat in the early Reagan/Thatcher years), there's no threat now etc. The antis are against them full stop. I am surprised the BBC showed an opposing viewpoint in favour of them on this occasion though.


23 posted on 06/23/2006 1:00:46 AM PDT by Mac1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

That's pretty.

How about a source?

But even by this rather dubious graph of yours, it doesn't back up your claim that Muslims will be in the majority by the end of the century.

Population growth among minorities tends to start to mirror the rest of the country much sooner than you think.

Remember the similar extrapolations in the early 1990s projecting similar extrapolations on AIDS statistics. They just weren't borne out...


24 posted on 06/23/2006 1:17:15 AM PDT by propertius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
The United Kingdom probably does not need nuclear weapons, and could actually encourage other middle or small countries from acquiring such weaponry. Simply because the United Kingdom is currently a strong ally of the United States is not a reason for supporting them having such weapons. Nuclear weapons should be restricted to only a few countries, to decrease the probability of a weapon getting stolen and used (or a country directly using the weapon). Used when something conventional would suffice.

Some of us remember that the United Kingdom was the dominant naval power on earth as recently as 70 years ago. We are still talking about a first world country with dependencies around the world. The UK is the only competent expiditionary ally we have in NATO. We damn well should support them keeping weapons.
I don't want the US to be in a position of being the worlds policeman.

If the UK gives up nukes, that does not change the desires of Iran. The only nation, which may pay attention is Brazil. However, I would note that North Korea ploughed ahead with its program despite South Africa and many ex-Soviet countries giving up nukes.

25 posted on 06/23/2006 1:24:44 AM PDT by rmlew (Sedition and Treason are both crimes, not free speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

You could sling a few Tomahawks on a Nimrod.


26 posted on 06/23/2006 1:27:35 AM PDT by rmlew (Sedition and Treason are both crimes, not free speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

I think the RAF is planning to modify their Nimrods to deploy Storm Shadows.Air Launched Tomahawks are not in use by anyone.


27 posted on 06/23/2006 1:31:07 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

'Unless you would like to be the one taking a knife to a machinegun fight!'

In the assault on Port Stanley during the Falklands War, the Scots Guards took a bayonet charge to an Argentine machine gun fight and won. . . . . :D


28 posted on 06/23/2006 3:17:36 AM PDT by Vectorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

'By the end of the Century Britain will be a majority-Muslim nation. Do we want the Ayatollah Londoni, the head of the Islamic Republic of Britain to have an independent nuclear force come then?'

Won't be a problem because by then the Mexicans will have taken over the US and will get along just fine with the muslims.


29 posted on 06/23/2006 3:20:01 AM PDT by Vectorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

LOL - you should see the same made up graph for the US - Spanish willbe the official language by 2024!


30 posted on 06/23/2006 3:23:34 AM PDT by Vectorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker

Cavalry. Calvary is a hill of some note. Cavalry are mounted soldiers.


31 posted on 06/23/2006 3:27:55 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mac1

You need to buy them some vowels.


32 posted on 06/23/2006 3:29:01 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: propertius

'But even by this rather dubious graph of yours, it doesn't back up your claim that Muslims will be in the majority by the end of the century. '

I wouldn't worry Propertius - the CIA Factbook shows the UK to be 92.1% white anglo-saxon and celtic, the US figure is in the high 60's with latinos making up most of the rest. The US will disappear culturally and politically a long time before Britain does. Tenga un día agradable!


33 posted on 06/23/2006 3:29:07 AM PDT by Vectorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Absolute nonsense


34 posted on 06/23/2006 4:01:49 AM PDT by weegie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Just because you give up the SSBNs doesn't mean giving up nukes. Instead of replacing them the money might be better spent on SSNs with nuclear tipped cruise missiles. That would give them more flexibility.


35 posted on 06/23/2006 4:08:02 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Actually one of the options for Trident replacement is pretty much like what you said!!It involves modifying soon to be built Astute Class SSNs with a small VLS section to carry N-tipped cruise missiles or the new IRBM which the USN appears interested in.


36 posted on 06/23/2006 6:22:50 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vectorian
>"In the assault on Port Stanley during the Falklands War, the Scots Guards took a bayonet charge to an Argentine machine gun fight and won."

Why??? Were they starving to death?
Couldn't they wait till somebody with some ammo showed up?
Were the Argentinians blind stinking drunk?

37 posted on 06/23/2006 7:01:11 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist (I'd rather be carrying a shotgun with Dick, than riding shotgun with a Kennedyl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
>Do UK nukes make military sense>

Oh-oh. If Brits have
Emma Peel and nukes Limeys
might conquer the world!




38 posted on 06/23/2006 7:28:18 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vectorian
Won't be a problem because by then the Mexicans will have taken over the US and will get along just fine with the muslims.

LOL! Good point.

39 posted on 06/23/2006 10:05:15 AM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Cavalry are mounted soldiers.

Have you heard of an an analogy?
40 posted on 06/23/2006 11:58:17 AM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker

Ummm, yeah. Right. Nice try.


41 posted on 06/23/2006 2:42:05 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Cavalry are mounted soldiers

This calvary is the men and women of Strategic Air Command.
42 posted on 06/23/2006 2:43:31 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
As an American, I really don't have a dog in that hunt.

If I were a Brit, I'd sure as heck want to keep nukes. Pooty-poot is intent on resurrecting the soviet empire. Home grown British crazies are allied with Middle East crazies. Can the Brits rely on the U.S. nuke deterrent instead of their own if Tehran slips a suitcase nuke to some nutburgers in London??

43 posted on 06/23/2006 2:47:29 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i295/garbageseeker/PbSmoky3.jpg


44 posted on 06/23/2006 9:09:26 PM PDT by garbageseeker (Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room - Dr. Strangelove)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss

We already did, remember?


45 posted on 06/24/2006 3:19:04 AM PDT by English Nationalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: English Nationalist
>Oh-oh. If Brits have Emma Peel and nukes Limeys might conquer the world!
>>We already did, remember?

Well, according to
the movies Britain did kill
a lot of Zulus,

but when up against
tough, First World folks like Germans
you had to call us!

Be reasonable --
India gave you the boot
and Kingsley didn't

even have to call
Steven Seagal for advice!
Other than that thing

where Britain beat up
on China (to sell them drugs!)
Britain's claim to fame

for their "warfare" skills
was a constant, smoldering
draw with tough-guy [!] France . . .

46 posted on 06/24/2006 7:24:18 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
Britain's claim to fame for their "warfare" skills was a constant, smoldering draw with tough-guy [!] France . .

How's Vietnam these days?
47 posted on 06/24/2006 7:56:05 AM PDT by English Nationalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson