Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I think that even if you take the position that a country needs a strong military, strategic submarines are of questionable value.

If the goal is to kill lots of people, silly things like poisoned water or interrupted food supply chain or disrupted energy delivery are much cheaper--although admittedly not as dramatic.

Britain should take the money budgeted for Vanguard submarine replacement and spend it on sustainable energy, the lack of which is much more likely to be a problem in the 21st century than an invasion by France.

by asdf on Tue Jul 14th, 2009 at 10:19:26 PM EST
asdf:
sustainable energy, the lack of which is much more likely to be a problem in the 21st century than an invasion by France.
Or Russia. Always remember the British Foreign Office bureaucracy is still locked in an 1850's "great game" worldview.

I mean, why would anyone want to invade Britain? It has no natural resources and invading it destroys its capital (human, physical and financial).

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 15th, 2009 at 04:28:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that even if you take the position that a country needs a strong military, strategic submarines are of questionable value.

Missile submarines are, unlike say carriers, not really military tools, in that you only ever need use them after your fatherland has been turned into an radioactive ashpile. They are not expeditionary, they are not tools of power projections. They are tools which make it impossible for any opponent to pull out the nuclear card, ever. Hence, they are the ultimate diplomatic tool. Ultima ratio regum, except it's not hyperbole.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Jul 15th, 2009 at 07:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series