Trident
- Thread starter Warbler
- Start date
Merlin the Magician
At the Start
We need to keep a deterrent and I would say to upgrade to something better than this, so our kids! And the younger element! On here, have the knowledge that they are protected with longevity being the operative word for their future..............
BrianH
At the Start
A deterrent against whom?
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
Can we not sell ours to iraq to fund the olympics?
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Trident would have been a good name for one of those razors with the multiple blades. Gilette`s new four blader is called Fusion. I suppose Trident would be more suitable for a three blader however.
In the longer term (50 - 100 years) I'd suggest? the only country on the planet whose currently exhibiting, (and whose economic-political philosophies, allied to a ravanous appetite to consume will continue to demand that they will always do so), aspirations of a complete global dominance. :blink:
Lets not forget that their aspirations are not exactly confinmed to planet Earth either, they've ripped up the treaty that declares the moon as neutral and are increasingly hell bent on the militarisation of space.
They might very well be erstwhile allies at the moment and have been for 100 years or so on and off, and with differing degrees of resolution, but this by no means guarantees that they will remain so indefinately. A 100 years is a long period in a life time, but inconsequential in history.
As the world divides up into ever more clearly defined and intensely competitive economic trading blocks, allied with the depletition of, and therefore demand to control finite natural resources, I can certainly foresee a future scenario that sets Europe and the USA on a collision course. Indeed many of the nascent ingredients for such tensions already seem to be tentatively established in the national pysche of some of the more belligerently nationalistic European nations. The appetite for capitalism to consume and control will always be there, and democracy itself isn't necessarily the most helpful check on this, given that it operates over ludicriously short time scales in the wider picture, and thus appeases short term greed in the name of the electoral cycle. The American 'machine' feeds off the provision of a lifestyle for its electorate. In doing so it generates great wealth for its corporations, and this gives them the power to make decisions base dlargely on self preservation. By its very nature and design it needs to consume and continue to do so in order to keep running, and I doubt that anything will be allowed to compromise that momentum, regardless of historical loyalties and friendships, if a situation ever arose where by the control of means of production, or credible alternative threat to this system emerged.
Doubtless such pressures will not emerge overnight though, and a series of warning signs will lead into any such conflict (I use the word conflict loosely as it needn't infer military) and in the first case its much more likely to involve economic activity, and indeed Europe and the USA are currently embroilled in a proxy conflict regarding satelites at the moment.
To illustrate the sort of symptoms I'm alluding to though I'll describe some of the things I'd expect to see more of.
I'd expect to see countries going to war in an attempt to establish ownership and hence control of ever diminshing stocks of, and hence increasingly precious, natural resources, oil and gas being obvious ones.
I'd expect to see, the 'Alpha' economies of the respective trading blocks grafting low labour cost regions/ sub-ordinate countries, into their sphere of economic influence, in the name of maintaining global competitiveness.
I'd expect to see the reneging on treaties, an increase in defence and space research spending.
I'd expect to see also a series of seemingly innocuous fissues opening up between allies. In itself these won't be 'sea changes', but rather tantamount to an estrangement in a relationship and a greater prepardeness to act outside of the alliances that dictated C20 settlements. Organisations such as NATO, or the UN will increasingly become an anathema.
Indeed you could argue (as I'm sure you'll realise I've manipulated the argument thus) that all these pressures are indeed impacting at this very moment, and the early evidence I describe is starring at us already. Whether I'm correct in my hypothesis as to where this leads however is debatable? I do believe though, that in terms of a long term global perspective, (probably outside of my life time) the United States (or possibly China, even though despite being an ancient country they have no real history of expansion) will pose Europe first, and the UK eventually its biggest threat. This is country afterall that's only been in existance some 230 years and has risen to the top of the global apex in a remarkably short period of time when viewed in an historical context. What dow e really know about them, their aspirations and where they'll stop. 230 years is really tantamount to early/ medium life span in terms of civilisations or empires
ps
I'd add Israel to that list Overbruv and under certain retailitory circumstances I think you can add Cuba too
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
Warbler makes a good argument for politically further distancing ourselves from Europe (like Fiscal policy wasn't already good enough).
I agree with him that we don't really know about the United States, but we do know that Europe contains a dangerous combination of historical enemies and new un-trusted states - nearly all with a more than lingering undertone of Socialism just beneath the surface.
Given the amount of anti-US rhetoric we are seeing pumped out of the continent these days, it won't be difficult for the US to portray them as the aggressor. Incorporating a steadily resurgent Russia is only going to make things worse.
To put it another way - and covering the original point about deterrents - We surely have nothing to fear militarily from the likes of France, Germany etc regardless of their proximity. But the thought of conflict against the US with only our European "Allies" for backup is not worth thinking about.
I agree with him that we don't really know about the United States, but we do know that Europe contains a dangerous combination of historical enemies and new un-trusted states - nearly all with a more than lingering undertone of Socialism just beneath the surface.
Given the amount of anti-US rhetoric we are seeing pumped out of the continent these days, it won't be difficult for the US to portray them as the aggressor. Incorporating a steadily resurgent Russia is only going to make things worse.
To put it another way - and covering the original point about deterrents - We surely have nothing to fear militarily from the likes of France, Germany etc regardless of their proximity. But the thought of conflict against the US with only our European "Allies" for backup is not worth thinking about.
History's taught that alliances, pacts and deals etc are routinely made and broken; from Ceasars crossing of the Rubicon, to Metternichs manouevrings at the Congress of Vienna, and more recent C20 examples would includeo Molotov/ Ribbentrop or Chamberlin/ Hitler etc
History has also taught us that in the name of imperialistic control and the quest for economic primacy, that capitalist countries also tend to engage in aggressive wars. The weapons and personalities of course change, but the underlying tension to control the means of production in the name of accumulation doesn't.
Now obviously it requires more than just a bit of horizon scanning and scenario building to comprehend the circumstances I allude to, but I can certainly see a situation where a Western Europe trading block, that exploits its comparatively poor Eastern satelites as a low cost centre of production in the 'global game' comes to put pressure on a United States, that is essentially doing the same to Mexico. If the European threat encompasses a resurrgent Russia (again history suggests that they periodically take up positions of looking west) then the ingredients are there. The final component of course that plays out under this scenario, is the desire/ need to control an ever diminishing supply of finite natural resources, which leads to first economic disputes and tensions, and possibly at a later date, as things become more desperate, forceful acquisition.
I'm not sure that I'm advocating a pact with either to be honest though. Just suggesting a possible answer the question of why we might need a weapon? and where a future threat is most likely to come from, through an appreciation of the tensions that I believe impact in capitalist global economies?
And just for info Overbruv I think you'll find there's a lot more countries with a nuclear weapons capacity of some degree, than is widely known.
h34r: In this case your use of the future tense, is I think you'll find, not appropriate. Where as I'm not necessarily prepared to expand on it or get dragged too far into this aspect, you might ask why with one sixth of the axis evil sitting 90 miles off the Florida Keys have the Americans not lifted a finger to threaten Cuba militarily post 1989
History has also taught us that in the name of imperialistic control and the quest for economic primacy, that capitalist countries also tend to engage in aggressive wars. The weapons and personalities of course change, but the underlying tension to control the means of production in the name of accumulation doesn't.
Now obviously it requires more than just a bit of horizon scanning and scenario building to comprehend the circumstances I allude to, but I can certainly see a situation where a Western Europe trading block, that exploits its comparatively poor Eastern satelites as a low cost centre of production in the 'global game' comes to put pressure on a United States, that is essentially doing the same to Mexico. If the European threat encompasses a resurrgent Russia (again history suggests that they periodically take up positions of looking west) then the ingredients are there. The final component of course that plays out under this scenario, is the desire/ need to control an ever diminishing supply of finite natural resources, which leads to first economic disputes and tensions, and possibly at a later date, as things become more desperate, forceful acquisition.
I'm not sure that I'm advocating a pact with either to be honest though. Just suggesting a possible answer the question of why we might need a weapon? and where a future threat is most likely to come from, through an appreciation of the tensions that I believe impact in capitalist global economies?
And just for info Overbruv I think you'll find there's a lot more countries with a nuclear weapons capacity of some degree, than is widely known.
h34r: In this case your use of the future tense, is I think you'll find, not appropriate. Where as I'm not necessarily prepared to expand on it or get dragged too far into this aspect, you might ask why with one sixth of the axis evil sitting 90 miles off the Florida Keys have the Americans not lifted a finger to threaten Cuba militarily post 1989
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
Your argument is very similar to the one made by Stalin (and for him by Molotov). Stalin predicted capitalist fratricide between the USA and Great Britain at the start of the Cold War.
In a telegram ordered by Stalin and ghost-authored by Molotov in 1946, Nikolai Novikov wrote that Anglo-American cooperation was “plagued with great internal contradictions and cannot be lasting”.
Of course 60 years later, he is still waiting.
In a telegram ordered by Stalin and ghost-authored by Molotov in 1946, Nikolai Novikov wrote that Anglo-American cooperation was “plagued with great internal contradictions and cannot be lasting”.
Of course 60 years later, he is still waiting.
Not sure that Stalin was one of Communism's greatest thinkers. :lol: In fairness I believe his fundamental diagnosis does have some merit, (but its hardly his anyway). What he failed to realise was the nature of the capitalist competition that existed post 1945.
Britain like all of the Western European capitalist powers emerged from WWII with a massive debt, a war ravaged economy, and its infrastructure in tatters. I seem to think it was the mid 50's before rationing ended.
Therefore the conditions for destructive capitalist competition barely existed, any more than the appetite did either. In essence the relationship was based very much on sub-ordination and capture, rather than the pursuit of seperate nationalist interests. In many respects its probably best epitomised by the concept of the often cited phrase "51st state". Britain likes to call it a 'special relationship' but I believe it says much of the relationship that its only the Brits who use this phrase. American politicians occasionally acquiesce to do so when the British press corps are gathered and our PM needs a bit of publicity and reflected kudos.
In short I'd suggest therefore, that Britain like all the other Western democracies was in no position to flex against an all dominant United States, and as such America could pretty well sub-ordinate everyone of them. At the time of course, it would have been in all their collective self interests too, with the spectre of the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Their economy was even more devasted, but in a curious way, they too had emerged from WWII as a fragile, but credible super power, under written by a philosophy and alternative governmental model that would have global appeal in certain impoverished countries.
This status quo was fine so long as the European powers acted unilaterally as none were remotely close to being able to challenge American hegonomy in isolation. Here in however, I believe lies the rub. Perhaps not surprisingly, its something that the PNAC pick up on too, as they recognise the potential danger that a unified and co-ordinated trading block operating for all intents and purposes as a 'United States of Europe' could pose at some point in the future. In essence the nature of the competition is changing, (you might suggest has changed) and Europe looks likely to function in a more co-ordinated fashion in the future. It offers to become an increasingly uneasy co-existance (imo) but is still a long way away from war. The Americnas (according to the PNAC) view the UK as a potential saboteur/ Trojan horse, who can apply a break on European aspirations, and we ourselves have been happy to accpet, (nay crerate) the tag of 'Atlantic Bridge'.
As is the TH tradition, we/ I might be warbling off message again?
I think the initial post to do with Trident probably invited Brian's response of who is a foreseeable threat to us? and I believe this to be a correct position to start appraising it from. I too couldn't foresee any immediate soverign country, that would justify the huge expenditure, and maintenance, when so many other areas of both military and civil priorities seem chronically under funded. Even if a threat was to emerge, its not as if we're devoid of the capacity to bolt a weapon together in matter of weeks anyway.
So this set me scratching my head for candidates. I'm not up to date regarding the Argentinian programme, but it wasn't an ICBM capability any way I seem to recall. I duly went through the usual suspects and then engaged in a bit of scenario building. It was only then that I hit on the idea that the threat might conceivably come form an all powerful all consuming United States?
Britain like all of the Western European capitalist powers emerged from WWII with a massive debt, a war ravaged economy, and its infrastructure in tatters. I seem to think it was the mid 50's before rationing ended.
Therefore the conditions for destructive capitalist competition barely existed, any more than the appetite did either. In essence the relationship was based very much on sub-ordination and capture, rather than the pursuit of seperate nationalist interests. In many respects its probably best epitomised by the concept of the often cited phrase "51st state". Britain likes to call it a 'special relationship' but I believe it says much of the relationship that its only the Brits who use this phrase. American politicians occasionally acquiesce to do so when the British press corps are gathered and our PM needs a bit of publicity and reflected kudos.
In short I'd suggest therefore, that Britain like all the other Western democracies was in no position to flex against an all dominant United States, and as such America could pretty well sub-ordinate everyone of them. At the time of course, it would have been in all their collective self interests too, with the spectre of the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Their economy was even more devasted, but in a curious way, they too had emerged from WWII as a fragile, but credible super power, under written by a philosophy and alternative governmental model that would have global appeal in certain impoverished countries.
This status quo was fine so long as the European powers acted unilaterally as none were remotely close to being able to challenge American hegonomy in isolation. Here in however, I believe lies the rub. Perhaps not surprisingly, its something that the PNAC pick up on too, as they recognise the potential danger that a unified and co-ordinated trading block operating for all intents and purposes as a 'United States of Europe' could pose at some point in the future. In essence the nature of the competition is changing, (you might suggest has changed) and Europe looks likely to function in a more co-ordinated fashion in the future. It offers to become an increasingly uneasy co-existance (imo) but is still a long way away from war. The Americnas (according to the PNAC) view the UK as a potential saboteur/ Trojan horse, who can apply a break on European aspirations, and we ourselves have been happy to accpet, (nay crerate) the tag of 'Atlantic Bridge'.
As is the TH tradition, we/ I might be warbling off message again?
I think the initial post to do with Trident probably invited Brian's response of who is a foreseeable threat to us? and I believe this to be a correct position to start appraising it from. I too couldn't foresee any immediate soverign country, that would justify the huge expenditure, and maintenance, when so many other areas of both military and civil priorities seem chronically under funded. Even if a threat was to emerge, its not as if we're devoid of the capacity to bolt a weapon together in matter of weeks anyway.
So this set me scratching my head for candidates. I'm not up to date regarding the Argentinian programme, but it wasn't an ICBM capability any way I seem to recall. I duly went through the usual suspects and then engaged in a bit of scenario building. It was only then that I hit on the idea that the threat might conceivably come form an all powerful all consuming United States?
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
On a practical level I always see the "special relationship" as something that grew out the different intelligence skills that both sides have historically possessed. The Brits being able to provide the Americans with the HUMINT that they lacked the skills to acquire for themselves, and in return having access to the SIGINT that only the Americans could afford to research and deliver.
I think that the deterioration of the relationship can be tracked down to the Brits being less able to provide the Americans with the HUMINT that they need as a direct result of the Americans a) waging wars outside of spheres where we have a particularly strong influence and B) waging those wars in a manner that destroys the covert work that we do so well. The result is that we are becoming superfluous to the American mechanics of intelligence and security - regardless of whether that is of their own doing. Of course we have seen Mr Blair fulfilling a slightly different role in serving a political purpose to the White House administration but this is without the practical grounding needed to deflect some of the criticism.
The success of the relationship in the future appears to me to very much depend on the path that the American's take to address the "intelligence failures" that have dogged their international efforts over the previous decade. If they decide that more robust HUMINT is required (and we are able to put back in place the processes to provide it) then I see the relationship strengthening again. If however, they determine that the problem can be tackled by throwing more money at improving the gathering of intelligence through technical means that the opposite may be true.
I think that your idea that long term the Americans can become a threat to us is certainly not without merit, but personally I would have them behind the Russians in any pecking order. I don’t know whether that is just my natural suspicion, but there is too much instability in a country that for so long regarded itself as the number one world superpower for me to be comfortable. Throw in the natural resources that they have available and any return to economical strength would leave the “old west” vulnerable to any political upheaval that could occur.
So I guess for arguments sake, lets keep the nukes!
I think that the deterioration of the relationship can be tracked down to the Brits being less able to provide the Americans with the HUMINT that they need as a direct result of the Americans a) waging wars outside of spheres where we have a particularly strong influence and B) waging those wars in a manner that destroys the covert work that we do so well. The result is that we are becoming superfluous to the American mechanics of intelligence and security - regardless of whether that is of their own doing. Of course we have seen Mr Blair fulfilling a slightly different role in serving a political purpose to the White House administration but this is without the practical grounding needed to deflect some of the criticism.
The success of the relationship in the future appears to me to very much depend on the path that the American's take to address the "intelligence failures" that have dogged their international efforts over the previous decade. If they decide that more robust HUMINT is required (and we are able to put back in place the processes to provide it) then I see the relationship strengthening again. If however, they determine that the problem can be tackled by throwing more money at improving the gathering of intelligence through technical means that the opposite may be true.
I think that your idea that long term the Americans can become a threat to us is certainly not without merit, but personally I would have them behind the Russians in any pecking order. I don’t know whether that is just my natural suspicion, but there is too much instability in a country that for so long regarded itself as the number one world superpower for me to be comfortable. Throw in the natural resources that they have available and any return to economical strength would leave the “old west” vulnerable to any political upheaval that could occur.
So I guess for arguments sake, lets keep the nukes!
Warbler - if I am not being too intrusive, may I ask you a question? Judging by your posts you seem to be well connected with matters of intelligence and foreign policy.
Who do you think added the condiment to that Russian guy's sushi, and why?
Who do you think added the condiment to that Russian guy's sushi, and why?
Don't know. But could hazard an educated guess as to how it's likely to be resolved. If I'm right that will suggest who might have been involved. Otherwise I'm for Delia Smith, in the cloakroom, with the rolling pin.
What I think is amusing though is how the British Government are telling anyone whose worried to contact NHS Direct :lol: I think you can read a bit into that
What I think is amusing though is how the British Government are telling anyone whose worried to contact NHS Direct :lol: I think you can read a bit into that