成人快手

IS OBAMA MORPHING INTO HOMER SIMPSON?

When BO declared that other nations 'can no longer stand by and wait for America to SOLVE the world's problems', I saw 成人快手r telling Flanders he would no longer 'come to his rescue' if Flanders got into a scrape.

I was under the impression that being rescued by America is something most people hope will not happen?

I AM CONSIDERING SELLING ONE OF MY TWO BICYCLES - I LIVE ALONE

By selling one of my two bicycles I will pose less of a threat to the pedestrians of Newbury - I am clear about that.

I hope this helps to illustrate the style of thinking that is unique to Jimmie Brown. He will, of course, count the one sub three times, yielding a 50% reduction in our nuclear 'defence' capability. This is known as 'mansematics' in ecclesiastical circles (circles which, any fule kno, have 1080 degrees in them). It must be Hell in that head.

'But what are we to make of Gordon Brown's [insert, well, just about anything here]..?'

Was there ever a lemming that thought 'hold on, the lot in front leading are deranged and the bunch behind pushing me haven't figured it out yet', tried to stop, but was carried over the cliff anyway?

Ably reported on by a select group who, uniquely, seem to have found themselves for once, though still profitably, on top of a rock.

This is Gordon Brown trying to brown nose the international community by presenting established government policy as his own idea.

Gordon Brown said "In line with maintaining our nuclear deterrent I have asked our national security committee to report to me on the potential future reduction of our nuclear weapon submarines from 4 to 3."

The Defence White Paper "The Future of the United Kingdom鈥檚 Nuclear Deterrent", published in December 2006, says: "We will investigate fully whether there is scope to make sufficiently radical changes to the design of the new submarines, and their operating, manning, training and support arrangements, to enable us to maintain these continuous deterrent patrols with a fleet of only three submarines. A final decision on whether we require three or four submarines will be taken when we know more about their detailed design."

I am stunned that the UN could fall for a childish stunt like this.

Buy four and lose one, now do it again...and agin...and again and ...whatever

Britain is now a second rate power.

She has few friends internationally. The IMF and others now rightly question our credit-worthiness as the country is mortgaged to the hilt, and the Bank of England is now allowing the bottom to fall out of the pound exchange rate.

So why keep ANY nuclear deterrent ?

By all means use deterrent reduction as a bargaining chip, but we should have two aims always in mind:

1. NOT to replace Trident, and
2. to phase out our military nuclear capability by a definate date.

This will do two things.

Britain will be able to
1. take a less prominent role in international military matters, and
2. our ecomonic health will recover somewhat, when the nuclear
haemorraging has stopped.

Gone are the days of Empire. The Commonwealth exists in name only.
We should embrace the political realities of the 21st century.

Only then will we gain friends on the world stage because of our empathy with other countries on an equal footing.

4 'TRIDENT MISSILE-CARRYING' 'VANGUARD SUBMARINE REPLACEMENTS' WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO 3 OF TODAY'S VANGUARDS IN TERMS OF TOTAL NUMBERS OF MISSILE TUBES, SO WHAT IS TO BE GAINED- UK SECURITY OR INDUSTRY WISE- BY ONLY BUILDING 3??

THE PM's INTELLECTUALLY-DISHONEST, SCANDALOUSLY-RISKY PROPOSITION OUGHT TO BE DEBATED AND REPORTED AS WHAT IT PLAINLY IS: A CHEAP, KNEE-JERK ATTEMPT* TO SWINDLE ATTENTION FROM INADEQUATELY INFORMED NEWS-MEDIA AND IMPROPERLY MANIPULATE VOTERS!!

* BY 'PROSTITUTING' A BACKDROP (UN) WHERE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST NEWS MEDIA CORPORATIONS ARE TEMPORARILY ASSEMBLED & FOCUSED EN-MASS.

The United Kingdom reducing its "nuclear warhead delivery system(s)"- IE: reducing nuclear warhead-carrying submarines from 4 to 3- is not equivalent to the UK making cuts in the country's nuclear arsenal...

As long as the UK has nuclear weapons and policies authorizing their conditional use, it's a fools logic to suggest that it would be prudent or functionally sensible for the country to not also possess reliable system(s)- with substantial built-in systems' redundancies- for delivering these weapons...

Running the UK's main pillar of national defence and international power (and status) projection on an 'absolute minimum' standard- as represented by a 3-boat Trident system- would prompt questions among potential adversaries and existing/potential trading partners as to "why is the UK doing this- and asking for catastrophe- when, considering the relatively puny numbers of nuclear warheads possessed by the UK compared to the world's total- about 1 and a 1/4 percent of world's total in 2009- the potential effects on the rest of the world would be negligible?"...

Considering that each of the Royal Navy's 4 current Vanguard nuclear missile (Trident) submarines has 16 missile tubes, equaling 64 missile tubes in total, and recognizing that Premier Brown has recently 'decreed' that the submarines which are built to replace Vanguards will only have 12 missile tubes-



.... even if 4 Vanguard replacements are built (rather than 3) their total number of missile tubes will be only 48 (4 X 12) which equals the total number of missile tubes of 3 of today's Vanguards: 3 X 16= 48...

So, what is the point??

Achieving the PM's alleged 'reduction in the UK's nuclear missile launch capabilities' objectives doesn't require building only 3 new subs to replace today's 4 Vanguards since the new subs- at least today- are intended to each have 25% less missile carrying capacity than Vanguards (12 versus 16)...

4 of the (undergoing functional-design) new Trident missile-carrying subs are currently planned to have (only), in total, the same number of missile tubes as 3 of today's Trident missile-carrying Vanguards (48)....

Better for the UK to formally work with the United States in their nascent project to replace the US Navy's existing 18 Ohio class Trident nuclear missile-carrying submarines, and build at least 4 Vanguard-replacements for the Royal Navy- each one with capacities for 24 missile tube slots (similar to today's Ohio's capacities, and the planned capacities of Ohio replacements), and if- for periods during the lifespan of the new subs- it was adjudged that all 24 missile tubes on each new sub were not needed, then not-required missile tubes could be used for something else:

- swapped out for conventional warhead cruise missiles;

- unmanned underwater vehichles;

- special forces' deployment pods;

and the like...

Several Ohio's have had this done during 1996-2007, and as a result ceased being Trident nuclear ballistic missile carrying subs and now are usefully deployed as conventional warhead Tomahawk cruise missile-carrying/special forces' units-carrying subs

For over 2-years, the UK has been working with the US in the design and construction of vital components to be used in both countries' new-nuclear-submarine programmes, such as a 'common missile compartment':



So, why not build the UK's new subs the same size- with space for 24 Trident missile tubes each- rather than half this size as the PM recently 'decreed'?

As noted above- if all 4 Vanguard replacement submarines' missile tubes were adjudged to not be needed for new-Trident missiles- some of their tubes could be quickly swapped out for other purposes/functions...

If, in the future, an international crisis was brewing or the UK had reason to believe that it needed to deploy its 'in storage' new-Trident missiles, the reverse could occur rapidly- an option that would not be available to the UK if it goes ahead with the current cabinet-imposed directives to dramatically under-size the country's new, Vanguard replacement submarines, and especially if only 3 are built rather than 4!!

It's a widely accepted human behaviour precept that a persons- or country's- 'stature', 'profile' and 'posture' can do far more to disincentiveize potential adversaries from attempting mischief or aggression than verbal discourse, logic or diplomacy...

All major UK political parties ought to be energetically strategizing how, over the coming decades, the UK's 'stature', 'profile' and 'posture' world-wide* can be maintained and enhanced- not grievously and unessesarily diminished- as would be the result of further reducing the Royal Navy's capabilities and the country's nuclear deterrent

(* militarily, politically, economically & through news, information and entertainment types of media)

CONTINUED


_________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

PART 2:

THE UK FURTHER* HUGELY REDUCING ITS NUCLEAR DETERRENT- AS THE PRIME MINISTER HAS PROPOSED- WOULD BE A ONE-WAY TICKET OFF OF THE UN's SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE UK (AS 1 OF ITS 5 PERMANENT MEMBERS), AND WOULD IMMEASURABLY DAMAGE THE COUNTRY'S STANDING IN THE WORLD, BOTH POLITICALLY AND IN TRADE TERMS :

* Since 2001 the UK has reduced its deployable nuclear warheads by over 50% (over 300 to under 160), and has the least nuclear weapons of all the 'world's 5 major nuclear powers', IE- the USA, Russia, China, France and the UK:

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

The present Royal Navy Vanguard submarine based UK nuclear deterrent consists of 4 Vanguard submarines, with each submarine having 16 missile tubes- each missile tube capable of launching 1 Trident nuclear missile...

In other words- IN THEORY*- the UK's total nuclear deterrent today in 2009 is 64 submarine launched nuclear missiles...

* IN THEORY because: of the RN's four Vanguard class Trident-nuclear missile submarines- on any given day as (for over 1/2 a decade) regularly as few as only one of these 4 integral-to-the-country's defence and 'world-profile' vessels is operational-

:

"The Royal Navy is cannibalizing parts from various ships and (Trident nuclear missile/Vanguard) submarines to keep other vessels afloat and operational it has emerged..."

"... The revelation that the (present Trident/Vanguard submarine) nuclear deterrent is being gutted for parts is particularly worrisome. If there was a national or international emergency some of the Vanguard class submarines would most likely have to be left in the docks since they would most likely be missing parts crucial to the sub鈥檚 operations...."

:

"Some commanders may feel uneasy about (reducing Trident carrying subs from 4 to 3) given the fact that recently two of the (present Vanguard)submarines were out of service due to major repairs. In the future a similar scenario could leave Britain with one or zero active nuclear deterrent submarines..."

Prime minister Brown recently 'decreed' that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines' 24-

:

"The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have 12 missile tubes rather than the 16 aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines"

3 new Vanguard-successor submarines X 12 missile tubes each= 36 missile tubes...

64 missile tubes with the present 4 Vanguard submarines-based Trident system

vs

only 36 missile tubes with the apparent Labour & MoD toadies' preferred system: 3 Vanguard-successor submarines/& their new Trident missiles->>

= almost a 50% reduction in the UK's nuclear deterent, and all without a parliamentary or public debate or public consultation/advisement...

This big and far-reaching a decision should not be in the arbitrary hands of only one politician!!!

And certainly should not be made without Parliament facilitating an extensive public consultation... AND NOT UNTILL AFTER A GENERAL ELECTION OCCURS!!!

The UK govt using the always controversial nuclear disarmament topic to distract UK voters from Labour's egregious policy errors- & to simultaneously arbitrarily reduce the UK's relatively tiny nuclear deterent- rather than enabling an informed public discussion regarding the size and shape of the country's future nuclear forces is gross hypocrisy...

It also ignores contemporary facts, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THAT THE UK HAS REDUCED THE SIZE OF ITS NUCLEAR DETERRENT BY OVER 50% DURING THE LAST 10-YEARS!!!

If the Vanguard submarine replacement/Trident Replacement programme goes ahead as presently Labour-rigged, its outcome would result in a hugely more reduced UK nuclear deterrent than today's already substantially diminished UK capabilities..

1) "Red alert - China modernises its nuclear missile force"

Beijing is now deploying or developing up to five intercontinental nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in what amounts to China's most ambitious increase in intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability since the late 1980s... :



2) Russia is rearming itself and selling masses of hardware/warships to countries like India, Brazil & China...



Not to mention comparitively huge sales of advanced submarines, Frigates and similar vessels by France and Germany to many non-NATO nations... such as India, Singapore, Vietnam and many Persian Gulf countries...

3) Russia is reactivating two of its retired Typhoon SSBNs:



4) Russia Might Complete Bulava Flight Tests in 2009:



5) Russia Set to Build New Nuclear-Armed Submarine:



6) Russia to build eight nuclear submarines:



7) President Medvedev visited Sevmash, inspected 鈥漎ury Dolgoruky鈥�:



8) State-of-the-art nuclear submarines to the Russian Navy:



9) Russia to lay down 2nd Graney class nuclear sub in July:



"...Under the Russian State Arms Procurement Program for 2007-2015, the Navy will receive several dozen surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955 Borey nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines equipped with new Bulava ballistic missiles, two Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines, six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines, three Project 22350 frigates and five Project 20380 corvettes."

10) Russia may export up to 40 diesel submarines by 2015 :




CONTINUED



Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
-------------------------
-------------------------

THE UK HUGELY REDUCING ITS NUCLEAR DETERRENT- AS THE PRIME MINISTER HAS PROPOSED- WOULD BE A ONE-WAY TICKET OFF OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE UK, AND WOULD IMMEASURABLY DAMAGE THE COUNTRY'S STANDING IN THE WORLD, BOTH POLITICALLY AND IN TRADE TERMS!!

PART 3:


At the risk of being too repetative- Prime minister Brown 'decreed' several months ago that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines' 24-

The missile compartments used in the US Navy's Ohio class Trident-missile carrying submarines are, in effect, modular, coming in '6-pack' (6-Trident-missile-tube modules).

These '6-pack Trident-missile-type modules' are easily swappable with tactical-weapons/versatile modules that, rather than dedicated to only launching ICBM (Trident) nuclear missiles can instead be used to launch conventional, tactical weapons- such as Tomahawk cruise missiles...

These tactical-weapons/versatile modules can also be used for launching unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV's), unmanned air vehicles (UAV's), special forces units such as Special Boat Service; US Navy Seals, etc...

The US Navy's Ohio class successor submarines- when built- are intended to use similar tactical-weapons/versatile modules...

Why is this relevant to Gordon Brown's recent apparent unilateral decision to substantially under-size the design of the Royal Navy's Vanguard submarine replacements?

Because if these new vessels are constructed- as the PM has recently decreed- at only 1/2 the size of the US Navy's current Trident carrying Ohio class submarines- they will be needlessly and counterproductively greatly limited in the types of future roles/missions they can be assigned...

In other words, rather than having the UK's Vanguard successor submarines limited to only being assignable to carrying nuclear missiles- because with their 12 missile tubes each- and consequently very limited on-board space for hardware, armaments, etc- they are only able to be assigned to carrying Trident missiles.... wouldn't it make more sense to have these vessels built large enough so each vessel had space for 24 missile tubes each- and, if circumstances allowed or demanded- use 1/2 (12) for Trident missiles, and the other 1/2 (12) for conventional weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles, UUV's, UAV's, delivery of special forces to missions overseas, etc??

The UK public deserve considered, open & properly-informed debate among their MP's and representatives regarding the form, capabilities and levels of the country's future nuclear deterrent and its related hardware/subsystems, etc...

The UK's armed forces and its defense-related research and development industries need reasonable increases in long-term funding, not intellectually dishonest cop-outs...

A UK general election is needed now, in part so that hugely long-reaching decisions- that would be very difficult to reverse- regarding the UK's future defence capabilities are not made by a govt- and a small subgroup of govt- whose priorities are its/their survival rather than the country's long-term interests...

A general election is needed now- before Labour arbitrarily sacrifice the country's future to their apparent self-interest motivated re-election objectives...



__________________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada

The answer to the question, do we need a four boat Trident fleet, rests on a gamble on what the world will be like in forty years.
if all we face are a number rogue states, then a smaller fleet or a different Delivery system could suffice, such as Air-launched cruise missles. But if we face a active threat from a "First Tier" Nuclear State, then a advanced SLBM system is a must and as it would need to be on station at all times, four boats would be required.

As our present leaders don't possess "second sight". it would in my opinion be better not to gamble, but maintain a upgraded four boat SLBM system for the forseeable future.

THE UK HUGELY REDUCING ITS NUCLEAR DETERRENT- AS THE PRIME MINISTER HAS PROPOSED- WOULD BE A ONE-WAY TICKET OFF OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE UK, AND WOULD IMMEASURABLY DAMAGE THE COUNTRY'S STANDING IN THE WORLD, BOTH POLITICALLY AND IN TRADE TERMS!!

PART 4:


Again, rather than having the UK's Vanguard-successor submarines limited to only being assignable to carrying nuclear missiles- because with their 12 missile tubes each- and consequently very limited on-board space for hardware, armaments, etc- they are only able to be assigned to carrying Trident missiles.... wouldn't it make more sense to have these vessels built large enough so each vessel had space for 24 missile tubes each- and, if circumstances allowed or demanded- use 1/2 (12) for Trident missiles, and the other 1/2 (12) for conventional weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles, UUV's, UAV's, delivery of special forces to missions overseas, etc??

Or build 6 or 7 with each vessel having space for 24 missile tubes, and use three as tactical-weapons' subs (that could be quickly and cheaply converted back to nuclear weapons Trident subs, if the need arose?:



__________________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Yep ! Oor Gordon came out of the blue with this "four becomes three" announcement.

So to my mind it cannot be hypothetical.

What's more on the Andrew Marr show a week ago, he talked of his Government's commitment to reducing our nuclear subs from 4 to 3.

Nothing hypothetical there !

Lets just go the low tech route with our deterrent. Just copy the current phase of 'enemy' and train up a few public school types to be a suicide nuclear delivery platform.
Very cheap and would still place the UK on the world stage.
I cannot see it happening soon though