Brown move to cut UK nuclear subs

I can see that terror attacks by extremists (Islamic or otherwise) are a threat, and Islamophobia is a growing problem in Britain, but what's the threa' of 'Islamification'? Surely the only people promoting that are the nutters in the BNP, and who takes them seriously?

Originally posted by Wembley I can see that terror attacks by extremists (Islamic or otherwise) are a threat, and Islamophobia is a growing problem in Britain, but what's the threa' of 'Islamification'? Surely the only people promoting that are the nutters in the BNP, and who takes them seriously?

Thanks for calling me a nutter!

I'm sorry if you think that demanding rights in our own country, stopping immigration [apart from those who are useful to us] by using the Australian points system or a blanket ban on ALL immigration is being racist, but who will stand up for the rights of the common people?

Which party will actually punish criminals and not pamper them with the internet, colour tvs, games consels and even [God forbid] toilets in their cells? The BNP have said they will.

Under the BNP, criminals will have their rights removed once convicted and will actually do 'time' not loll about in taxpayer funded lockdown hotels!

The BNP will not let GB UK's forces fight other people's wars for them, but will retain the armed forces for self defence purposes only.

The BNP would put membership of the EU to a vote - that's for you and me people. They would give US the right to say what should happen in this country!

How about a Parliament for the English [that's anybody born within the borders of England, be they muslim, jew, gentile or pink with purple spots]
to be run by the English for the good of our country. [The Scotts, Irish and Welsh have theirs!]

Or how about the restoration of the word England and English to the British language and on official government or council documentation?

All very reasonable to me. What about you lot? Is this what the other political parties are so scared of? The common people standing up for their rights for a change.

Enough! Back on topic.

In this day and age, we still need a credible nuclear deterrent. After all, when the Scottish gentleman thinks it's prudent to resort to gunboat diplomacy, one can hardly send an ocean going tug, now can one?

The thing is my friends, Labour cannot abide anything military. Their own history is littered with savage cuts after wars, when the nation should be rearming and re-equipping ready to fight the next war that they lead us in to.

You know what I mean! John Major went to war during GW 1. Along came Blair who immediately started cutting defence spending only to find out that he bestest buddy GW wanted our brave boys and girls again and oh, could we bring 2 armoured divisions along to the party?

Only we couldn't send two fully manned armoured divisions, we had to make do with a hotch-potch of armoured regiments because his SecDef had cut the armoured formations to the bone, at the behest of the current PM who was prudently pruning our forces bank roll.

So Mr Brown now decides to offer up a whole Trident submarine and the nukes she will carry, on the world's bargaining table at the UN.

Mmmmmmmmmm - I smell something fishy here. Is it me, or is Mr Brown just being a little bit canny as wee Scotts are want to do?

Is he really saying that sub is up for grabs along with all the jobs the Yanks will loose? Hell Yes! Sod the Yanks.

Let's buy British and tell everybody else where to go!

Sorry. I forgot! Can't even do that any more. Brown has sold off this once proud nation's ability to manufacture anything of any use to us. It's all owned by Johnny Foreigner, who's shutting up shop and going home - with all that tax payers lolly in his bank account.

More wishy-washy bullcrap from Brown.

There is only one submarine patrolling international waters 24/7, which makes you question just how powerful and well armed these subs are!

-4 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes
-16 × ballistic missile tubes Spearfish torpedoes
-16 × Lockheed Trident D5 SLBMs carrying up to 128 warheads!!

Wiki

Another sub is used as back-up, ready to be deployed at a moments notice and a third is used for training missions. The fourth is for redundancy, in case anything happens to the first three!

Reducing the fleet from four to three is like taking one bullet out of a magazine, whereby the equipment is still fully capable of killing.

Also, this is why Scotland will always hang on to the coat-tails of England, so they can bribe parliament for rent to keep the vanguard subs @ Faslane Naval Base, Scotland. That and oil ofcourse.

p.s. Brown is Scottish.

I dont understand why the UK doesnt use it's own nukes, I always thought the UK was one of the most technologically advanced country in the world, the actual nukes are UK nukes correct, but the missles are U.S. so why doesnt the UK design it's own Missles, or have Missile Silos like the U.S & Russia.

I cant see France reducing their arsenal much or Russia, Israel I think World War II makes these countrys realise they dont want to be messed with ever again & Nuclear weapons are a good deterrant.

i think its stupid getting rid of any because i read a while back that we needed at least 5 submarines carrying trident to be afective, we had to make do with four , all i can say is WTF to that

The world is getting more dangerous not safer and people are more desperate than ever