£7.2bn on the dockside

nickyboy

Norven Mankey
I'm trying to think why it's a bad thing to have influence.
I'm not saying that the Government should not use our money to buy international influence. But to dress up spending £7.2bn as required to protect and defend UK's sovereignty is not right. A few nuclear submarines would act as sufficient deterrent. Having aircraft carriers that could join a coalition force gives political influence but that's all
 

Joey Shabadoo

My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
I'm not saying that the Government should not use our money to buy international influence. But to dress up spending £7.2bn as required to protect and defend UK's sovereignty is not right. A few nuclear submarines would act as sufficient deterrent. Having aircraft carriers that could join a coalition force gives political influence but that's all
You'll only get 2 Astutes for the price of a carrier. If by "a few" you mean 3 or 4, you spend the same money.
I don't think the carriers are particularly for political influence either. As I posted before, there's something like 40+ carriers being built worldwide. They have a military use first and foremost.
 

HMS_Dave

Grand Old Lady
Location
Midlands
I'm not saying that the Government should not use our money to buy international influence. But to dress up spending £7.2bn as required to protect and defend UK's sovereignty is not right. A few nuclear submarines would act as sufficient deterrent. Having aircraft carriers that could join a coalition force gives political influence but that's all
£7.2bn is not at all a bad investment, especially as this is spread over nearly two decades. These are military assets first and foremost. They serve a practical purpose. But yes, they do aid also in stretching out our influence. A number of our Battleships would do this in the interwar period, any of our ships can fulfill this role influentially, but the grander and more impressive can't help but raise attention... Having such assets helps in keeping peace. If our allies are seen to be training and exercising with them it can be seen also as a conventional deterrent which helps shape foreign policy around the globe.
 

nickyboy

Norven Mankey
£7.2bn is not at all a bad investment, especially as this is spread over nearly two decades. These are military assets first and foremost. They serve a practical purpose. But yes, they do aid also in stretching out our influence. A number of our Battleships would do this in the interwar period, any of our ships can fulfill this role influentially, but the grander and more impressive can't help but raise attention... Having such assets helps in keeping peace. If our allies are seen to be training and exercising with them it can be seen also as a conventional deterrent which helps shape foreign policy around the globe.
Let's put it this way.....

I'd prefer my £200 to be spent on something else. Like paying nurses more or providing free school meals
 

Joey Shabadoo

My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
Let's put it this way.....

I'd prefer my £200 to be spent on something else. Like paying nurses more or providing free school meals
Well vote Tory and they'll never get built.

Your £200 will go in their pockets or their mate's pockets but hey-ho.
 

HMS_Dave

Grand Old Lady
Location
Midlands
Let's put it this way.....

I'd prefer my £200 to be spent on something else. Like paying nurses more or providing free school meals
I respect your opinion. I will add that of course you already do pay for nurses and free school meals, which is still a thing for low income families right? but for me personally, I'm happy only too happy to ensure we have the best possible equipment for those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our ability to even have this conversation.
 
What would have happened if we didn’t have six jets to warn it off? Are they only testing our forces because they see the U.K. as a threat? Do they play similar games with Ireland?
The Russians have been testing the RAF's response for the last 50+ years. That's not the same as saying that they plan to infringe UK airspace.
 

CanucksTraveller

Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Location
Hertfordshire
Are you saying that they test Ireland’s defences in the same way as those of the U.K.? Wikipedia suggests that the Irish have no fast jets, so what happens?
The UK and Irish governments have a standing agreement that the RAF protect Irish airspace.
Intercepts take place in Irish airspace fairly frequently, though not as frequently as in UK airspace.
 

HMS_Dave

Grand Old Lady
Location
Midlands
Are you saying that they test Ireland’s defences in the same way as those of the U.K.? Wikipedia suggests that the Irish have no fast jets, so what happens?
This was recently discussed and pops up from time to time in the Irish politics the idea of relying on the UK for its air defence. They may well be testing the UK response but also probing for weakness. Russian submarines routinely do the same thing in the North Sea, North Atlantic and even have been spotted near Faslane and Moray Firth and who knows where else. At the end of the day whoever is in charge of Irish air space, Russians will still probe it, as they do regularly with Norway, Germany, Denmark Baltic states etc... Ireland would be a strategic capture as pointed out here. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-are-russian-bombers-doing-in-irish-airspace-1.4197785
 
Top Bottom