Has there ever been a U.S.S. Nat Turner?
Frogwatch
better Americans than JImmy Carter?
Dennis
> If not, why not?
Probably the same reason there aren't many ships named Bounty
anymore.
Dennis
dott.Piergiorgio
I seem to remember an USS Richmond K. Turner (a DD/DDG/DLG of 1950s or
1960s vintage, I think) perhaps frogwatch has mixed up somewhat....
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Ray OHara
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:gw5Hn.177623$813.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Nat Turner was a slave who led a bloody uprising in Virginia in 1831.
Dave is being funny, Nat was a freedom fighter who was opposing oppression.
Jack Linthicum
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
> messagenews:gw5Hn.177623$813.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> > Il 14/05/2010 03:56, Dennis ha scritto:
> >> Frogwatch wrote:
>
> >>> If not, why not?
>
> >> Probably the same reason there aren't many ships named Bounty
> >> anymore.
>
> > I seem to remember an USS Richmond K. Turner (a DD/DDG/DLG of 1950s or
> > 1960s vintage, I think) perhaps frogwatch has mixed up somewhat....
>
> > Best regards from Italy,
> > dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> Nat Turner was a slave who led a bloody uprising in Virginia in 1831.
>
> Dave is being funny, Nat was a freedom fighter who was opposing oppression.
Oh, then how about HMS Wat Tyler?
Andrew Robert Breen
NOt been doene - it would amost certainly have been "Tyler" - surname only
- if used. IIRC the only cases of forname+surname being used in RN ship
names were the group of WW1 trawlers named for the crew of Victory at
Trafalgar.
OTOH the RN /has/ had several examples of HMS Glendower, and you don'y get
much more of a notable "rebel" than the good lord Owain.
Oops. Another case of forename+surname: there was an early 19th century
frigate _Owen Glendower_.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Owen_Glendower_(1808)
Had an example of HMS Cromwell, too.
http://www.oldships.org.uk/SHIPS/SHIP_DETAILS/CROMWELL_DETAIL.htm
There'd been a series of earlier attempts to name ships for him, all seen
off by KG5, but their lordships got their way in the end.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Jack Linthicum
> In article <ffbc8a89-a3f4-4ee3-94cb-86b6a822e...@t15g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On May 14, 10:23 am, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Nat Turner was a slave who led a bloody uprising in Virginia in 1831.
>
> >> Dave is being funny, Nat was a freedom fighter who was opposing oppression.
>
> >Oh, then how about HMS Wat Tyler?
>
> NOt been doene - it would amost certainly have been "Tyler" - surname only
> - if used. IIRC the only cases of forname+surname being used in RN ship
> names were the group of WW1 trawlers named for the crew of Victory at
> Trafalgar.
>
> OTOH the RN /has/ had several examples of HMS Glendower, and you don'y get
> much more of a notable "rebel" than the good lord Owain.
>
> Oops. Another case of forename+surname: there was an early 19th century
> frigate _Owen Glendower_.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Owen_Glendower_(1808)
>
> There'd been a series of earlier attempts to name ships for him, all seen
> off by KG5, but their lordships got their way in the end.
>
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
> Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
> money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
One of the "T" class submarines?
Frogwatch
wrote:
I am not being funny but am completely serious. Nat Turner was a true
freedom fighter who gave his life for trying to make his people
free.. I see him as a far better namesake for a US vessel than Jimmy
Carter or even Ronald Reagan.
Consideration of this arose from a discussion with a teacher friend
over Black History month where I said that true black heroes are
hidden by the schools because of liberals fear of outraged black men
with guns. It is ok to teach about Martin Luther King but young men
are more likely to relate to a man of direct action like Turner or
Vesey or Cudjoe or Cinque, etc. I believe it is wrong to present
blacks as passive victims when in reality they actively fought against
oppression. There is a rich history of black men taking up arms
against slavery and this should be taught and celebrated in spite of
liberals fears. Quite a few black freedom fighters were inspired due
to their being educated and being able to read writings about rights
of man, yet education is presented to young black men today as simply
enabling them to fit into the bureacracy, is it any wonder they reject
education?
William Black
There have been three named 'HMS Blake', one HMS Cromwell and even an
HMS Fairfax, but that was a Commonwealth ship that retained her name...
--
William Black
These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> On 14/05/10 15:27, Jack Linthicum wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 10:23 am, "Ray OHara"<raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "dott.Piergiorgio"<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
> >> messagenews:gw5Hn.177623$813.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> >>> Il 14/05/2010 03:56, Dennis ha scritto:
> >>>> Frogwatch wrote:
>
> >>>>> If not, why not?
>
> >>>> Probably the same reason there aren't many ships named Bounty
> >>>> anymore.
>
> >>> I seem to remember an USS Richmond K. Turner (a DD/DDG/DLG of 1950s or
> >>> 1960s vintage, I think) perhaps frogwatch has mixed up somewhat....
>
> >>> Best regards from Italy,
> >>> dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> >> Nat Turner was a slave who led a bloody uprising in Virginia in 1831.
>
> >> Dave is being funny, Nat was a freedom fighter who was opposing oppression.
>
> > Oh, then how about HMS Wat Tyler?
>
> There have been three named 'HMS Blake', one HMS Cromwell and even an
> HMS Fairfax, but that was a Commonwealth ship that retained her name...
HMS Bligh?
deem...@aol.com
I don't think liberals "fear" that at all. There is so much
glossed over, that liberals have been content with getting a few
Blacks mentioned who are seen as good role models.....Douglass,
Washington, Carver, Dubois, King, etc.
Turner is at least mentioned....he might have lost a few points
when he, or his followers, slaughtered women and children.
Jack Linthicum
Nat Turner has no constituency in Congress, both Carter and Reagan
did.
Try some of these
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/prs-tpic/af-amer/afa-ship.htm
Jack Linthicum
deem...@aol.com
I know, that's why I brought it up.
Ray OHara
"Frogwatch" <ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:f00ae111-d869-48b8...@h9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
=====================================================================================
As the Texas schools history text scandals show,
Histories used in schools are writtrn by conservatives.
Ray OHara
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hsjpc7$1jk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 14/05/10 15:27, Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> On May 14, 10:23 am, "Ray OHara"<raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "dott.Piergiorgio"<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
>>> messagenews:gw5Hn.177623$813.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>>>
>>>> Il 14/05/2010 03:56, Dennis ha scritto:
>>>>> Frogwatch wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If not, why not?
>>>
>>>>> Probably the same reason there aren't many ships named Bounty
>>>>> anymore.
>>>
>>>> I seem to remember an USS Richmond K. Turner (a DD/DDG/DLG of 1950s or
>>>> 1960s vintage, I think) perhaps frogwatch has mixed up somewhat....
>>>
>>>> Best regards from Italy,
>>>> dott. Piergiorgio.
>>>
>>> Nat Turner was a slave who led a bloody uprising in Virginia in 1831.
>>>
>>> Dave is being funny, Nat was a freedom fighter who was opposing
>>> oppression.
>>
>> Oh, then how about HMS Wat Tyler?
>
> There have been three named 'HMS Blake', one HMS Cromwell and even an HMS
> Fairfax, but that was a Commonwealth ship that retained her name...
>
> --
> William Black
and well there was a Cromwell. he was a severe guy who didn't take any back
talk but he was your guy and he got things organized and set the home
foundation that was able to later support an empire.
I find it ironic that in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda there is a statue of
R.E.Lee.
and there is a statue of Washington in London.
deem...@aol.com
> "Frogwatch" <ohara...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> As the Texas schools history text scandals show,
> Histories used in schools are writtrn by conservatives.
Sometimes. They're definitely written as blandly as possible....not
to mention without much fact checking.
There's a local lawsuit about a text which refers to Creationism as
a myth. I don't know for sure, but I'm betting your garden variety neo-
con didn't write it.
William Black
Of course, the man was a hero.
A WWII Captain class frigate.
Andrew Robert Breen
Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On May 14, 11:05�am, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>>
>> NOt been doene - it would amost certainly have been "Tyler" - surname only
>> - if used. IIRC the only cases of forname+surname being used in RN ship
>> names were the group of WW1 trawlers named for the crew of Victory at
>> Trafalgar.
>
Fine by me :)
Actually, a quick search reveals one HMS Tyler to date - Captain class
frigate in the last Big Mistake. Named for one of Nelson's captains
rather than the great and glorious Wat (officially, anyway: one never
knows why the ship-namers pick some names and not others...), of
course, but I think we can count this as an acceptable precedent.
Andrew Robert Breen
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/05/10 15:27, Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>
>> Oh, then how about HMS Wat Tyler?
>
>There have been three named 'HMS Blake', one HMS Cromwell and even an
>HMS Fairfax, but that was a Commonwealth ship that retained her name...
Add, for that matter, HMS Atheling and HMS Warbeck - both names
associated with notorious rebels... (at least, the names match).
Andrew Robert Breen
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/05/10 16:15, deem...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> HMS Bligh?
>>
>
>Of course, the man was a hero.
>
>A WWII Captain class frigate.
All of which were named for Nelson's captains - of which company Bligh
was a particularly distinguished member. You're not doubting Nelson as
a judge of a fighting captain, surely?
Andrew Robert Breen
Ray OHara <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> Fairfax, but that was a Commonwealth ship that retained her name...
>
>any back
>talk but he was your guy and he got things organized and set the home
>foundation that was able to later support an empire.
>
>I find it ironic that in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda there is a statue of
>R.E.Lee.
>and there is a statue of Washington in London.
There's a statue of Buddig in London too, and her contribution to the
place was to kill everyone in it and burn the place flat...
Ray OHara
"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7ap0c7x...@news.aber.ac.uk...
> In article <hsjpc7$1jk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 14/05/10 15:27, Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, then how about HMS Wat Tyler?
>>
>>There have been three named 'HMS Blake', one HMS Cromwell and even an
>>HMS Fairfax, but that was a Commonwealth ship that retained her name...
>
> Add, for that matter, HMS Atheling and HMS Warbeck - both names
> associated with notorious rebels... (at least, the names match).
wasn't there a HMS Hotspur?
Jack Linthicum
> "Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:7ap0c7x...@news.aber.ac.uk...
>
> > William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>On 14/05/10 15:27, Jack Linthicum wrote:
>
> >>> Oh, then how about HMS Wat Tyler?
>
> >>There have been three named 'HMS Blake', one HMS Cromwell and even an
> >>HMS Fairfax, but that was a Commonwealth ship that retained her name...
>
> > Add, for that matter, HMS Atheling and HMS Warbeck - both names
> > associated with notorious rebels... (at least, the names match).
>
> wasn't there a HMS Hotspur?
Always remember the Hood, movie coming about him
Peter Skelton
Breen) wrote:
>In article <hsk0fc$m8d$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 14/05/10 16:15, deem...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> HMS Bligh?
>>>
>>
>>Of course, the man was a hero.
>>
>>A WWII Captain class frigate.
>
>All of which were named for Nelson's captains - of which company Bligh
>was a particularly distinguished member. You're not doubting Nelson as
>a judge of a fighting captain, surely?
His positive judgements were sound, his negative ones not always
very good.
Peter Skelton
Alan Lothian
<a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <hsjpc7$1jk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 14/05/10 15:27, Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, then how about HMS Wat Tyler?
> >
> >There have been three named 'HMS Blake', one HMS Cromwell and even an
> >HMS Fairfax, but that was a Commonwealth ship that retained her name...
>
> Add, for that matter, HMS Atheling and HMS Warbeck - both names
> associated with notorious rebels... (at least, the names match).
Fascinated by this discussion, reference books being 800 miles away and
all. Note that Atheling is more a title than a name, but your point
holds.
But if English civil war chaps are included, we cannot leave out HMS
Blake, fourth of her name, and with a very curious and money-wasting
history behind her.
Still, after the upcoming defence review, the only names needed for the
Royal Navy will be HMS Smith and HMS Jones. HMS Brown is laid up in
ordinary, and the rest scrapped.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>In article <7ap0c7x...@news.aber.ac.uk>, Andrew Robert Breen
><a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <hsjpc7$1jk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 14/05/10 15:27, Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Oh, then how about HMS Wat Tyler?
>> >
>> >There have been three named 'HMS Blake', one HMS Cromwell and even an
>> >HMS Fairfax, but that was a Commonwealth ship that retained her name...
>>
>> Add, for that matter, HMS Atheling and HMS Warbeck - both names
>> associated with notorious rebels... (at least, the names match).
>
>Fascinated by this discussion, reference books being 800 miles away and
>all. Note that Atheling is more a title than a name, but your point
>holds.
>
>But if English civil war chaps are included, we cannot leave out HMS
>Blake, fourth of her name, and with a very curious and money-wasting
>history behind her.
>
>Still, after the upcoming defence review, the only names needed for the
>Royal Navy will be HMS Smith and HMS Jones. HMS Brown is laid up in
>ordinary, and the rest scrapped.
I suppose HMS Tom, HMS Dick and HMS Harry would have been
sexists/elitist?
I always did like the original Irish navy ships names - Macha, Maev
and Cliona. Sounds like a slightly suspect firm of lawyers. Nice pub
song about them too!
Eugene L Griessel
There is no such thing as time that doesn't count.
William Black
> In article<hsk0fc$m8d$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> William Black<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/05/10 16:15, deem...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> HMS Bligh?
>>>
>>
>> Of course, the man was a hero.
>>
>> A WWII Captain class frigate.
>
> All of which were named for Nelson's captains - of which company Bligh
> was a particularly distinguished member. You're not doubting Nelson as
> a judge of a fighting captain, surely?
>
No.
I never have.
He was a superb seaman and navigator and a fighting sailor.
Just a bit unlucky in his subordinates...
William Black
>
> Still, after the upcoming defence review, the only names needed for the
> Royal Navy will be HMS Smith and HMS Jones. HMS Brown is laid up in
> ordinary, and the rest scrapped.
>
Translation:
"I'm pissed because they're going to stop those two carriers on the
perfectly reasonable grounds that they're no bloody use for anything."
Eugene Griessel
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/05/10 22:38, Alan Lothian wrote:
>
>>
>> Still, after the upcoming defence review, the only names needed for the
>> Royal Navy will be HMS Smith and HMS Jones. HMS Brown is laid up in
>> ordinary, and the rest scrapped.
>>
>
>Translation:
>
>"I'm pissed because they're going to stop those two carriers on the
>perfectly reasonable grounds that they're no bloody use for anything."
No naval vessel is of any bloody use for anything. Until you
desperately need it, of course. Which is when the dumb populace rise
as one and accuse the government of incompetence and neglect.
Eugene L Griessel
I sometimes think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated
his ability.
Alan Lothian
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/05/10 22:38, Alan Lothian wrote:
>
> >
> > Still, after the upcoming defence review, the only names needed for the
> > Royal Navy will be HMS Smith and HMS Jones. HMS Brown is laid up in
> > ordinary, and the rest scrapped.
> >
>
> Translation:
>
> "I'm pissed because they're going to stop those two carriers on the
> perfectly reasonable grounds that they're no bloody use for anything."
Please, William. We are both Brits. If you mean "pissed", say "pissed".
If you mean "pissed off" then say "pissed off." FWIW I always thought
those carriers a ridiculous idea, and am on record all over the place
saying they would never be built. No need for me to get pissed to come
to that conclusion.
William Black
FWIW I always thought
> those carriers a ridiculous idea, and am on record all over the place
> saying they would never be built.
So did I.
Ray OHara
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:88b8e0fa-669e-4e47...@j15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
==========================================================
I don't recall Hood as fighting against the crown as Mr Percy did.
Andrew Robert Breen
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/05/10 21:46, Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>> In article<hsk0fc$m8d$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> William Black<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/05/10 16:15, deem...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> HMS Bligh?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, the man was a hero.
>>>
>>> A WWII Captain class frigate.
>>
>> All of which were named for Nelson's captains - of which company Bligh
>> was a particularly distinguished member. You're not doubting Nelson as
>> a judge of a fighting captain, surely?
>>
>
>No.
>
>I never have.
Never intended to suggest you did - comment was addressed to
deemsbill, but I ought to have made that clearer. Apologies.
>He was a superb seaman and navigator and a fighting sailor.
>
>Just a bit unlucky in his subordinates...
He does seem to have been a tough man to serve under as a subordianate
officer, but a good one to learn from (that based on comments made
after his death in letters between two who had, who had both had
distinguished careers - quoted in one of the better Bligh biogs[1]).
The same, of course, could have been said of Cook, from whom Bligh
seems to have learned both the best and worst aspects of his style of
command[2].
[1] William Bligh - the man and his mutinies. I forget the author';s
name for the moment.
[2] LOsing temper and bawling out officers in public with much foul
language seems to have been a Cook thing, and it's possible Bligh
adopted the same approach. Bligh was far less of a flogger than Cook,
though.
Ray OHara
Mr Christian wasn't the world's best "Number One" either.
dott.Piergiorgio
>> As the Texas schools history text scandals show,
>> Histories used in schools are writtrn by conservatives.
>
> Sometimes. They're definitely written as blandly as possible....not
> to mention without much fact checking.
>
> There's a local lawsuit about a text which refers to Creationism as
> a myth. I don't know for sure, but I'm betting your garden variety neo-
> con didn't write it.
I knew about the fuss about religion and science textbooks chosen by
Texan boards of istruction, the former presenting the
born-again/fundamentalist POV on Christianity and the latter involved in
the larger creationism/"intelligent design"/Scientific controversy, but
it's the first time i read about this involving history textbooks.
references ? pointers ?
dott.Piergiorgio
> Please, William. We are both Brits. If you mean "pissed", say "pissed".
> If you mean "pissed off" then say "pissed off." FWIW I always thought
> those carriers a ridiculous idea, and am on record all over the place
> saying they would never be built. No need for me to get pissed to come
> to that conclusion.
well, I suspect that at least one will be more or less completed,
commissioned for a while then quickly put into ordinary lest Italian
Wardrooms laughing & toasting at the fact of having total capital ship
superiority on the Royal Navy ;)
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
That is because you haven't got 43 Hollywood writers all trying to
for "something new".
Ray OHara
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:MVqHn.178214$813.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
'Texas schoolbook massacre' rewrites American history
Country music and the speeches of Jefferson Davis could soon be taught in
the nation's classrooms
By Guy Adams in Los Angeles
Sunday, 28 March 201
Country music is an important modern cultural movement; hip-hop isn't.
Thomas Jefferson deserves to be erased from a list of "great Americans", but
Ronald Reagan doesn't. And we should re-evaluate Senator Joe McCarthy: he
was almost certainly a national hero.
If you think that sounds like a quirky rewriting of American history with a
right-wing twist, then you're not alone. But if the state of Texas gets its
way, it'll be what teachers across the rest of the nation are required to
tell their students.
In a move that has sparked controversy from coast to coast, together with a
slew of headlines about the "Texas schoolbook massacre", the Lone Star state
has just narrowly approved a series of conservative-minded alterations to
its social studies curriculum.
The school board's decrees range from the surreal to the faintly sinister.
One dictates that the Republican former House speaker Newt Gingrich should
be studied. Another says that the speeches of Jefferson Davis, the
slave-owning president of the Confederacy, should be taught alongside those
of Abraham Lincoln. And the National Rifle Association should be praised for
upholding the Constitution.
These and many other changes were approved by the board earlier this month,
following three days of rancorous debate in Austin, the state capital. The
vote of 15-5 in favour of the move was made entirely along party lines:
every Republican on the committee approved them.
To the rest of America, the board's colourful right-wingery ought to be
nothing more than a colourful sideshow. But the economics of the education
industry mean otherwise: Texas is the biggest market for new teaching
materials in the country, with 4.7 million schoolchildren, meaning that its
curriculum influences the contents of textbooks nationwide.
Historians this week voiced concerns about the proposed revisions, many of
which they have described as inaccurate. They are particularly angry that
Jefferson's importance to the nation's founding fathers will in future be
played down. That change to the curriculum was supported by evangelical
Christians, who dislike Jefferson's support for the separation of church and
state.
"The books that are altered to fit the [new] standards become the
bestselling books, and therefore within the next two years they'll end up in
other classrooms," Fritz Fischer, chairman of the National Council for
History Education and a vociferous opponent of the changes, told The
Washington Post. "It's not a partisan issue; it's a good history issue."
Elsewhere, the new curriculum allows teachers to treat country and western
music as a significant cultural movement. But a move to add hip-hop to the
same list was voted down by conservatives.
Students of Cold War history looking at McCarthyism must in future be told
that the Verona papers, which documented communications between the Soviet
Union and its spies, "confirmed suspicions of Communist infiltration in US
government". In fact, historians are divided on whether this is really the
case.
Controversy over the changes has shone a spotlight on the powers and make-up
of the 15-strong Texas board. One of them, a dentist called Roy McElroy,
failed by a whisker last year to get the board to force the teaching of
Creationism alongside evolution in science lessons. This year he supported a
successful move to have the term "capitalism" replaced with "free market
enterprise" in classes.
Texas has a long and storied tradition of political interference in the
educational process. Since the 1970s, evangelicals have repeatedly tried to
have books seen as anti-Christian removed from its syllabus. Conservatives
have also attempted to prevent children being taught about gay rights and
global warming.
Eugene Griessel
Any nation that can dream up 347 different types of pasta deserves it.
Eugene L Griessel
There is nothing wrong with sobriety in moderation.
Alan Lothian
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Four of that name, the last one an H-class destroyer with a fine WWII
record, starting at the Battle of Narvik. Sad fate, though: sold off to
the Dominican Republic and renamed _Trujillo_.
Don't think there was ever an HMS Percy, although my reference books
are not at hand. Andy Breen will know.
Ray OHara
"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:2t5tu59d2ul26vf7j...@4ax.com...
Shape does matter.
dott.Piergiorgio
>> well, I suspect that at least one will be more or less completed,
>> commissioned for a while then quickly put into ordinary lest Italian
>> Wardrooms laughing& toasting at the fact of having total capital ship
>> superiority on the Royal Navy ;)
>
> Any nation that can dream up 347 different types of pasta deserves it.
huh ?
Last time I bothered to catalogue, the total was around low 400s, sorry
I don't recall the exact figure....
Jack Linthicum
More than French cheeses?
Alan Lothian
dott.Piergiorgio <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
"La pastasciutta e' stata la rovina della cucina italiana"
There are, effectively, only about fifty or so truly distinct varieties
of pasta secca, and some would reduce that number to thirty.
Pasta fresca... hmmm. Probably about the same.
Many a regional variation, of course. We *are* talking about Italy. I
have a great fondness for "bringoli" as they are called in the
Altatiberina, but have come across almost identical (egg-free, fresh
pasta, rolled under the armpits) stuff all over Italy. WIth different
names and legends attached, s'intende.
Eugene Griessel
Possibly - here's my list:
ABISSINI
ALFABETO
ANCHELLINI
ANELLI SICILIANI
ANELLIS
ARMELLETTE
ARMELLINE
ARMONIE
ASTRI
ASTRI
AVEMARIE
AVENA GRANDE
AVENA
BALLERINE
BARBINE A NIDO
BARDELE
BASSETTI
BAVETTE FINI
BAVETTINE
BIGOLI
BIGUI
BOCCOLOTTI
BROFANDEI
BUCATINI
CABELLOS DE ANGEL
CAMPANELLE
CANDELE
CANNELLI ZITI
CANNELLONI ZITONI
CANNELLONI
CANNERONI GRANDI
CANNERONI
CANNOLICCHI PICCOLI
CANNOLICCHI
CANONCETTI
CAPELLINI FINI
CAPELLI
CAPELVENERE
CAPORELLI
CAPPELLETTI UMBRI
CAPPELLETTIU
CAPPELLETTI
CAPPELLINI
CAPPELLO NAPOLETANO
CAPPELLON
CAPPETTINE
CARAMELLE
CASARECCI
CAVATELLI
CESARICCIA
CHICCHI DI RISO
CHIOCCIOLE
CICORIETTA
CICORIE
CINESI RIGATI
CINESINI
CIOCCHETTI
CIRILLINI
COCCIOLETTE
COCCIOLINE
CONCHIGLIETTE
CONCHIGLIONI
COQUILLETTES
CORALLI
CORNETTI RIGATI
CORNETTI
CORNI DI BUE
CRESTE DI GALLI
CRESTIDIGALLI
CRESTINE
DENTI DI CAVALLO
DENTI DI PECORA
DIAVOLETTI RIGATI
DISCHI VOLANTI
DISCHI
DITALETTI
DITALINI
ELEFANTE
ELICHE GRANDI
ELICHE
FAGIOLETTI
FAGIOLINI
FAGIOLONI
FARFALLE TONDE
FARFALLE
FARFALLONI
FEDELINI
FETTUCCE RICCE
FETTUCCE ROMANE
FETTUCCELLE
FETTUCCE
FETTUCCIA RICCIA
FETTUCCINE
FIADI DI ZITI
FIADI
FIDE BUCATE
FIDE RISTORANTI
FIDELINI A NIDO
FIDELINI BUCATI
FIDELINI
FIDE
FILATELLI
FIOCCHETTI
FIOCCONI
FIORI DI SAMBUCO
FISCHIONI
FISCHIOTTI
FORATINI
FRANCESINE
FREGOLINA
FRESE
FRESINE
FUSILLI
FUSILLONI
FUSSILLI
GALLA GENOVESE
GEMELLI
GIANDUIETTA
GIANDUINI
GIGANTONI
GIGLI
GNOCCHETTI DI ZITI
GNOCCHETTI SARDI
GNOCCHETTI ZITI
GNOCCHETTINI
GNOCCHETTI
GNOCCHETTONI ZITONI
GRAMIGNA
GRAMIGNONI
GRANDININA SODA
GRANO
GRATTATA
GRATTINI
GRATTONI
ITALIANA
JUMBO SHELLS
LASAGNETTE
LASAGNE
LASAGNONI
LINGUETTINE
LINGUINE
LONG MACARONI
LUCCIOLE RIGATI
LUCCIOLE
LUMACHELLE
LUMACHETTE
LUMACHINE
MACARONI
MACCHERONCELLI
MACCHERONICINI
MACCHERONI
MAFALDE
MAGLIETTA
MALLOREDDUS
MALTAGLIATI
MANFREDINE
MANICHE
MARGARITINE
MARGHERITA MESSINESE LUNGA
MARGHERITA
MARGHERITE LISCE
MARGHERITE RIGATE
MARZIANI
MELONE
MERLETTI
MESSICANI
MESSINESI
MEZZANELLI
MEZZANI
MEZZE PENNE ZITE
MEZZE PENNETTE LISCE
MEZZE PENNE
MEZZE ZITE
MEZZE
MEZZI COCCI
MIDOLLINE
MOSTACCIOLI
MPARRETTATI
NAPOLETANI
NASTRINI
NASTRI
NUVOLE
OCCHI DI BOVE
OCCHI DI ELEFANTE
OCCHI DI GIUDEO
OCCHI DI PERNICE
OCCHI DI TROTA
OCCHI DI
OCCHIO D'ACQUILA
OCCHIP
ONDULE
ORECCHIETTE
ORZO
PANTACCE
PAPPARDELLE
PAPPARELLE
PASSERO
PATERNOSTER
PENNA A CANDELA
PENNE DI ZITI
PENNE DI ZITONI
PENNE REGINA
PENNETTINE
PENNINE
PENNONI
PENNUZZE
PEPERINI DI GENOVA
PEPERINO
PEPE
PERCIATELLINI
PERCIATELLI
PERCIATELLONI
PINCINELLI
PIOMBI
PISELLINI
PISELLI
PIZZOCCHERI
PRIMAVERINE
PUNTALETTE
PUNTE D'AGO
PUNTINE
QUADRATINI RIGATI
QUADRATINI
QUADREFIORE
QUADRETTI RIGATI
QUADRETTINI
QUADRETTI
QUADRUCCI
RADIATORI
RADICHINI
RAVIOLI
REGINELLE
REGINETTE
REGINE
RICCE
RICCIARELLE
RICCIOLINE
RIGATI
RIGATONI
RISETTO
RISONE
RISTORANTI
ROCCHETTI
ROTELLE
ROTELLE
ROTELLINE
ROTINE
ROTINI
RUOTINE
SAGNARELLI
SALAMINI
SALIERE
SCALOPPI
SCHIAFFONI
SCINTILLE
SCIVIOTTI ZITI
SCIVIOTTINI
SEDANETTI RIGATI
SEDANINI RIGATI
SEME SANTO
SEMI D'AVENA
SEMI D'ORZO
SEMI DI CICORIA
SEMI DI MELA
SEMI DI RISO
SEMI DI
SEMIMELONE
SEMINI
SEMONI
SFRESATINE
SIGARETTE
SIGNORINE
SOPRACAPPELLINI
SPACCATELLE
SPAGHETTI
SPAGHETTONI
SPIGHE
SPIRALI
SPOLETTE
SPOLE
STELLETTE
STELLETTINE
STELLE
STIVALETTINI
STORTINI RIGATI
STORTINI RIGAT
STORTINI
STRENGOZZE
STRICCHETTI TONDI
STROZZAPRETI
SVOLTINI
SVUOTINI
TAGLIARELLI
TAGLIATELLE NERVATE
TAGLIATELLE
TAGLIATELLINE
TAGLIATI DI ZITONI
TAGLIATI DI
TAGLIATIZ
TAGLIATI
TAGLIOLINI A NIDO
TAGLIOLINI
TEMPESTA
TEMPESTINA
TOFETTINE
TORCHIO
TORDELLI
TORTELLINI
TORTELLI
TORTIGLIONI
TRENNETTE
TRENNE
TRINETTE A MATASSE
TRIPOLINI
TROFFIETTE
TROTTOLE
TUBETTI LUNGHI RIGATI
TUBETTINI LUNGHI
TUBETTINI
TUFOLI
VAPORINO
VERMICELLI
VERMICELLONI FILATELLI
VERMICELLONI GIGANTI
ZITELLINI
ZITI TAGLIATI
ZITI
ZITONI TAGLIATI
ZITONI
ZITUANE
Eugene L Griessel
No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society.
If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't
test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity,
ignorance, greed and love of power. P.J. O'Rourke
deem...@aol.com
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 18:10:04 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
Wow, you have wayyyyyyyyyy too much time on your hands! (Not that
that's a bad thing)
scott s.
news:hsm3tg$3r7$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
It's not textbooks, it is social studies curriculum standards though
obviously textbooks are selected against the standard.
As far as T Jefferson, he is required to be covered in grade 5 and
grade 8 and HS U.S. Gov't. He was removed by the school board from
HS world history. Not sure that's the end of the world as the libs
would have us believe.
Looking at names added or removed from mandatory coverage by the
school board:
adds
Charles Pinckley
John Wise
John Nance Garner
Raul Gonzalas
Jose Gutierrez de la Lara
Lawrence Ross
John Quincy Adams
James Armistead
Crispus Attucks
Philip Bazaar
William Blackstone
William Carney
Wentworth Cheswell
Thomas Hooker
John Locke
Charles de Montesquieu
Haym Salomon
Mercy Otis Warren
Betty Friedan
Warren Harding
Rosa Parls
Phyllis Schlafly
Alexis de Tocqueville
Thomas Aquinas
Simon Bolivar
John Calvin
John Jay
Milton Friedman
Friedrich Hayek
Deletes
Thomas Jefferson (as mentioned above)
George Wallace
Oveta Culp Hobby
Herbert Hoover
Benjamin Davis
Doesn't look like right wing conservative Christians running amuck
to me.
scott s.
.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
IFYPFY
Dennis
> I suppose HMS Tom, HMS Dick and HMS Harry would have been
> sexists/elitist?
Not if they were named after the escape tunnels in the WWII Stalag!
Dennis
Eugene Griessel
It's my aunt Suzy's list - but, hey, she was a Neapolitan and had odd
quirks about pasta declaring anything to be found in a shop an
abomination before the sight of the good Lord and possibly causing all
manner of bodily ills. However I do not subscribe to the theory that
every micron difference in thickness should engender a new name for
the stuff - even before one starts twisting and shaping it!
Eugene L Griessel
I tried to get a life once, but they were out of stock.
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
Recently rereading the wooden horse - Peter Butterworth, one of my
favourite "Carry On" actors, played a role in this particular escape.
When he auditioned for a part in the movie shortly after WW2 he was
turned down on the grounds that he did not look "heroic" enough.
Sigh.
Eugene L Griessel
If Hypocrisy is the homage Vice pays to Virtue then Theology
is the homage Nonsense tries to pay to Sense.
Andrew Robert Breen
And given that the RN has, in the past, featured HM ships Mi Mi, Fi Fi
and Tou Tou...
.. ships with a pretty distinguished fighting record, too.
Eugene Griessel
Breen) wrote:
>In article <Xns9D799B4D59512ts...@130.133.4.11>,
>Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose HMS Tom, HMS Dick and HMS Harry would have been
>>> sexists/elitist?
>>
>> Not if they were named after the escape tunnels in the WWII Stalag!
>
>And given that the RN has, in the past, featured HM ships Mi Mi, Fi Fi
>and Tou Tou...
>
>.. ships with a pretty distinguished fighting record, too.
Well, hardly _ships_ . Small MLs would be a better description.
Eugene L Griessel
If you put bullshit into a computer, nothing comes out
but bullshit. But this bullshit, having passed through a
very expensive machine, is somehow enobled, and no one dares
to criticize it.
Paul J. Adam
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>"I'm pissed because they're going to stop those two carriers on the
>perfectly reasonable grounds that they're no bloody use for anything."
They're useful for a great many tasks.
Whether they (and the air wing needed to complete the hand) are
affordable, or whether HM Government wants to be able to conduct those
tasks, is a different issue... but we've had good service out of the
existing carriers, which are now overdue for replacement (as ARKR's
recent tribulations trying to deploy for Joint Warrior highlighted) and
no prospect of anything else.
One lesson that's been expensively and repeatedly learned over the last
decade or so is that the cost of an aircraft carrier doesn't scale
anything like linearly with its size (more like the square or cube
root); every time a study into rescoping them was demanded, it turned
out that halving the size might get perhaps 25% off the cost yet
massively reduced the surge capability; there's a lot to be said for
either getting a large vessel with growth room, or getting out of the
expeditionary airpower business altogether.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Andrew Robert Breen
Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:25:53 +0100, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert
>Breen) wrote:
>
>>In article <Xns9D799B4D59512ts...@130.133.4.11>,
>>Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose HMS Tom, HMS Dick and HMS Harry would have been
>>>> sexists/elitist?
>>>
>>> Not if they were named after the escape tunnels in the WWII Stalag!
>>
>>And given that the RN has, in the past, featured HM ships Mi Mi, Fi Fi
>>and Tou Tou...
>>
>>.. ships with a pretty distinguished fighting record, too.
>
>Well, hardly _ships_ . Small MLs would be a better description.
Mi Mi and Tou Tou were MLs, Fou-Fou a small armed steamer (ex-German
prize), from memory. All HM ships, though - a ship in this context
being what the RN decides is one. A hotel or holiday camp becomes a
ship by the same alchemy.
[not saying this for your benefit Eugene - I know you know this
already - just for others who don't have the knowledge]
Eugene Griessel
Breen) wrote:
>In article <htevu55nrddc0k2b3...@4ax.com>,
>Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
>>On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:25:53 +0100, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert
>>Breen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Xns9D799B4D59512ts...@130.133.4.11>,
>>>Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose HMS Tom, HMS Dick and HMS Harry would have been
>>>>> sexists/elitist?
>>>>
>>>> Not if they were named after the escape tunnels in the WWII Stalag!
>>>
>>>And given that the RN has, in the past, featured HM ships Mi Mi, Fi Fi
>>>and Tou Tou...
>>>
>>>.. ships with a pretty distinguished fighting record, too.
>>
>>Well, hardly _ships_ . Small MLs would be a better description.
>
>Mi Mi and Tou Tou were MLs, Fou-Fou a small armed steamer (ex-German
>prize), from memory. All HM ships, though - a ship in this context
>being what the RN decides is one. A hotel or holiday camp becomes a
>ship by the same alchemy.
>
>[not saying this for your benefit Eugene - I know you know this
>already - just for others who don't have the knowledge]
Yep - they even featured in Janes. In my youth we had two 41ft
Thorneycroft built vessels, seaplane tenders, used to service the
Sunderland flying boats of SAAF 35 squadron. These ended up at number
1 motorboat squadron at Langebaan and eventually in the SA Navy by
virtue of the unit being taken over in 1969. They were extensively
rebuilt by the chippies at Langebaan and were fitted with two Perkins
6 cylinder diesels (previously had petrol engines). They were very
similar to Fifi and Toutou in hull shape and showed a good turn of
speed. Quite enjoyed running around the bay in them. However they
were never named. Not even the ASRLs were named and went through life
merely as numbers.
Eugene L Griessel
To study history means submitting to chaos and nevertheless retaining
faith in order and meaning. It is a very serious task, ... and possibly
a tragic one. - Hermann Hesse
William Black
> In message <hskgqc$8ji$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> "I'm pissed because they're going to stop those two carriers on the
>> perfectly reasonable grounds that they're no bloody use for anything."
>
> They're useful for a great many tasks.
Are they tasks a medium sized European country with huge economic
problems should even contemplate?
--
William Black
These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.
Alex Potter
> And that's the real issue. Lots of folks in Britain seem to hold the
> opinion that the UK doesn't need any power projection capability or
> nuclear deterrent.
Just for the record, I'm an Englishman, living in the UK.
I think that people who hold the former opinion are deluded. One assumes
that there are few Brits frequenting this place who would think otherwise.
However, there's no credible way in which we can afford[1] to continue to
maintain a both a nuclear deterrent (if we ever could), and an effective
force for to project our power (!), and it's arguable that we no longer
need one such deterrent (if we ever did).
[1] The total acquisition cost of the Trident programme was £9.8 billion,
or £14.9 billion at 2005 prices, 38% of which was incurred in the U.S. In
2005/2006, annual expenditure for running and capital costs was estimated
at between £1.2bn and £1.7bn and was estimated to rise to £2bn to £2.2bn
in 2007/2008, including Atomic Weapons Establishment costs. Since Trident
became operational in 1994, annual expenditure has ranged between 3% and
4.5% of the annual defence budget, and was expected to increase to 5.5%
of the defence budget by 2007/2008.[2][4]
[2] Ministry of Defence and Property Services Agency: Control and
Management of the Trident Programme. National Audit Office[3]. 29 June
1987. ISBN 0102027889.
[4] The Future of the British Nuclear Deterrent. Research paper 06/53.
House of Commons Library. 3 November 2006. http://www.parliament.uk/
commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-053.pdf.
--
Alex
j...@cix.compulink.co.uk
spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk (Alex Potter) wrote:
> > And that's the real issue. Lots of folks in Britain seem to hold
> > the opinion that the UK doesn't need any power projection
> > capability or nuclear deterrent.
>
> Just for the record, I'm an Englishman, living in the UK.
Ditto.
> I think that people who hold the former opinion are deluded. One
> assumes that there are few Brits frequenting this place who would
> think otherwise.
The distinctions between an absolute "need", "need to maintain our self-
image" and "need to maintain our place in the world" can be a bit tricky
sometimes. I would like us to maintain both these things, but as you
say, affording them is another matter.
I have heard people say that we don't need a nuclear deterrent because
the USA will defend us. This was during the GWB administration.
Obviously, we were still going to have nukes during that administration,
but inviting such people to consider how a future US Administration of
similar stance might behave if we had in the meantime given up nukes
tended to produce "Oh! Ummm. Errr..." reactions. They seemed to have two
entirely separate and conflicting views of the USA for separate areas of
politics.
> However, there's no credible way in which we can afford[1] to
> continue to maintain a both a nuclear deterrent (if we ever could),
> and an effective force for to project our power (!), and it's
> arguable that we no longer need one such deterrent (if we ever did).
Yup. We have used our power projection capability for mostly-solo
operations a few times in recent decades. As well as the Falklands, the
surprisingly successful intervention in Sierra Leone comes to mind.
But I predict that we will end up, if we have only one, with the nukes.
Because the French have them, and aren't going to give theirs up any
time soon.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
deem...@aol.com
> In article <hsp9e7$de...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Just my 2 cents(pence?)....any nation that has nukes would be
foolish to get rid of them. Relying on another nation for deterrent is
very short-sighted (and I'm an American). You just can't tell what the
future will bring.
Sure, the US and UK have been pretty close for going on a century,
but would the US risk nuclear strikes on our soil to protect another
nation? Maybe, but that's a very risky assumption.
I think the UK would be better off retaining her nukes and relying
on US/EU support for help with any conventional force projection. I
think that would be much more likely to be offered than chancing
nuclear immolation.
Alan Lothian
<spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:29:14 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> > And that's the real issue. Lots of folks in Britain seem to hold the
> > opinion that the UK doesn't need any power projection capability or
> > nuclear deterrent.
>
> Just for the record, I'm an Englishman, living in the UK.
To join in, also for the record, as most know I am a Scot living in
France. Which, by the way, has a half-arsed nuclear deterrent of its
own and all the power projection capability implied by being able to
send a battalion and a half of la Legion Etrangere to Chad.
>
> I think that people who hold the former opinion are deluded. One assumes
> that there are few Brits frequenting this place who would think otherwise.
Hmm. There is no simple answer to this. Problem numero uno is that we,
the Britistanis, are broke. I mean, really broke. Have just been
rereading Middlebrook/Mahoney's excellent "Sinking of the PoW and
Repulse" [1977], and referring particularly to the clumsy agonizing of
the Admiralty in the cash-strapped 20s and 30s about power projection
in the Far East.... we are a lot broker now than we were then. Or at
least, ships and men are a helluva lot more expensive than they were
then.
We are, I hope, going into a recovery period, in which I hope and pray
a very dodgy coalition will get to work undoing the damage wrought to
civil liberties and sheer common sense by the most vicious, partisan
and incompetent government of modern times [1]. Any fool can cut the
defence budget; any fool can get into a war; any superior fool can get
into a second war at the same time. It takes a very high class of fool
to do all three at once.
We have a grossly under-resourced and over-stretched Army, bleeding
quite pointlessly in what that famous American leftie Ralph Peters has
(rightly, in my opinion) described as "the wrong war, in the wrong
place, at the wrong time." Aghanistan is perilously close to that
famous flip definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: you can't
win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game.
We have a Royal Navy reduced to not much more than a fishery protection
force (we don't actually have any fisheries left to protect, but that's
another story) with savage cuts in the fuel bills, weapons training,
etc needed to keep it an effective force. Its manpower levels have long
since shrunk below the numbers employed by Birmingham City Council.
And you are talking about aircraft carriers? Two, as well -- wrong
number, one if you want to wank a la francaise, three if you're
serious. Also small matter of escorts; we can't even afford *them*; the
very few Type 45s we are actually building we can't afford to arm.
And every penny diverted to armaments is a penny taken away from Sharon
the Mum with Many Dads, in her free council house. Don't knock Sharon,
by the way: she is, unlike most of today's British women, prepared to
reproduce. For a fee, of course. [This is, as the perspicacious will
have already figured out, a far more important issue than carriers or
Trident. Baby carriers: where are you?]
> However, there's no credible way in which we can afford[1] to continue to
> maintain a both a nuclear deterrent (if we ever could), and an effective
> force for to project our power (!), and it's arguable that we no longer
> need one such deterrent (if we ever did).
This is an old argument, and I am pretty sure I, at least, have been
here before. Nuclear weapons are about *fear*.
US built first, for *fear*that Hitler was on the way to one.
USSR built second, for *fear* that US might use the things.
UK built third, for *fear* that US would not risk national destruction
to save UK arse.
Etc.
I'd rather have one in my hip pocket, if it's all the same to you, but
I admit it's hard to justify. Incidentally, until not too long ago I
used to live in Pangbourne, the "Wind in the Willows" village on the
Thames. Lovely place, if grossly expensive. Point is (I am getting
there) that Pango is not far from Aldermaston, our nice Atomic Weapons
Establishment.
Some people may find what I am about to describe next as hard to
believe; I consider myself under oath, and I have no track record for
public lying.
Some clown in the AEW decided it would be a jolly good idea to print
many thousands of copies (after all, loads of money slopping around in
the budget, eh?) of a *fucking multi-page, glossy, full-colour
newsletter*, which it sent to many thousands of local households. "Hi,"
it said, "We're you're local, cuddly nuclear merchants of death. Here's
a nice pic of our top man giving presents to the children's party."
Pages and pages of this stuff. "Here's Janine, winner of AEW Secretary
of the Month. Mother-of-two Janine...." "Oh, and if there's an
accident --never happen, of course -- stay indoors and listen to the
radio."
When this first came through my letter box I thought it was an
extremely clever, although perhaps overly subtle and certainly
expensive, joke. Not so. It was all true. I regret the copy I preserved
is not with me in Frogistan, or I'd .pdf it and send it on request.
God knows what the thing cost. It should, of course, have cost several
jobs and pensions.
.....
I'm going to cut Alex's careful facts and figures, not because I
disagree with them but because when it comes to nukes it is more about
gut feeling than pounds and pence.
.....
[1] This might be misconstrued as a party-biased comment. It is not. I
have many Old Labour friends and am even nice to the occasional Tory or
Liberal Democrat.
The government we have just got rid of (and as I said I am none to
confident in its successor's ability to undo the mess) was easily the
most wicked political entity in the Western Europe of my lifetime. (I
was only six when Stalin died; he, I admit, was probably worse.) The
thought of what Tony Blair might have done with two aircraft
carriers...
Paul J. Adam
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On 16/05/10 10:59, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> They're useful for a great many tasks.
>
>Are they tasks a medium sized European country with huge economic
>problems should even contemplate?
They're tasks that HM Forces have been told to crack on with several
times in the last decade.
Whether we should contemplate them or not is a different issue - but the
politicians seem to keep insisting we should do them.
Back to the SDR problem: define the mission, then decide the kit to
achieve it.
Alex Potter
> If you don't keep your power projection capabilities, you might as well
> reduce your conventional military to 'home defense' levels.
Indeed.
> Personally, I think you need both, at least at some level. I think that
> if you intend to remain something of a Power, you need the capability to
> keep at least one SSBN at sea and the capacity project at least a
> brigade of combat power to whatever distance you decide is your
> appropriate 'sphere of action'. That last includes air power, so you
> need at least two carriers (so there's always one that isn't in the
> yards).
There's the nub of it, really. Great Britain no longer has an empire, so
it's at least arguable that we no longer need to be able go and shake a
big stick at the natives anywhere on the globe.
On the other hand, we are an island nation that lives, or is that lived,
by trade.
On the gripping hand, we're stony broke.
>
> If you have to give up something, I'd be inclined to give up the nukes
> first. You're much less likely to need them.
If we ever were... I've never been convinced.
--
Alex
j...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Alan Lothian) wrote:
> Some clown in the AEW decided it would be a jolly good idea to print
> many thousands of copies (after all, loads of money slopping around in
> the budget, eh?) of a *fucking multi-page, glossy, full-colour
> newsletter*, which it sent to many thousands of local households. ...
Have you read David Langford's _The Leaky Establishment_? There is a
scene in there which may record the start of this project.
William Black
> In message <hsoif7$alb$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> On 16/05/10 10:59, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>> They're useful for a great many tasks.
>>
>> Are they tasks a medium sized European country with huge economic
>> problems should even contemplate?
>
> They're tasks that HM Forces have been told to crack on with several
> times in the last decade.
>
> Whether we should contemplate them or not is a different issue - but the
> politicians seem to keep insisting we should do them.
The point I'm trying to make is that, for once, we seem to have a
reasonably rational government set on a reasonably moderate course and
who full well know that they neither have a bottomless pit for funding
'boys toys' (The Tory rift's basic bargaining position) or the more
rabid of our journalists baying for blood if the army hasn't got all the
latest high etch goodies, no matter if they work or not (The default
position of any Labour government)
So now, being reasonably free of loonies on both sides, they get to
pick what they want the armed services to do.
William Black
The UK certainly needs the ability to fire nuclear weapons.
But does it need a strategic nuclear deterrent carried in missile
equipped submarines?
Is there a credible enemy that needs such a system or could they manage
with much cheaper systems?
Jack Linthicum
> > commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-053.pdf.
>
> The UK certainly needs the ability to fire nuclear weapons.
>
> But does it need a strategic nuclear deterrent carried in missile
> equipped submarines?
>
> Is there a credible enemy that needs such a system or could they manage
> with much cheaper systems?
>
> --
> William Black
>
> These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
> Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
> their passage does so at his own peril.
Is there a credible enemy period?
William Black
Well the Falklands nonsense make dust and ashes of the theory that nukes
keep you safe from everyone without them.
So now all they do is keep people with them from blowing you up,
possibly...
Andrew Swallow
> Just for the record, I'm an Englishman, living in the UK.
>
{snip}
> [1] The total acquisition cost of the Trident programme was £9.8 billion,
> or £14.9 billion at 2005 prices, 38% of which was incurred in the U.S. In
> 2005/2006, annual expenditure for running and capital costs was estimated
> at between £1.2bn and £1.7bn and was estimated to rise to £2bn to £2.2bn
That makes the annual cost of Trident as being about the same as
manufacturing two B2 Stealth Bombers.
<http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/bombers/b2.html>
> in 2007/2008, including Atomic Weapons Establishment costs. Since Trident
> became operational in 1994, annual expenditure has ranged between 3% and
> 4.5% of the annual defence budget, and was expected to increase to 5.5%
> of the defence budget by 2007/2008.[2][4]
For a major facility 5.5% of the defence budget is not excessive. Once
a country has been nuked it probably does nor need invading.
This suggests a major strategy. Divide the world into a series of enemy
types.
Type:
a. Fully nuclear opponent.
b. Normal opponent.
c. Pirate.
d. Terrorist.
e. Drunken idiot.
Any type of enemy can be by lead drunken idiots. Tactics send policemen
to arrest them. If they fails then change to one of the other strategies.
Fully nuclear opponent. If the drunken idiots cannot be arrested by
either our police or the local police then nuke them. Possible
countries Russia, China, USA, France, European Union and India.
Normal opponent. Fight with conventional weapons. They will probably
be using the export version of weapons designed by an UN Security
Council member.
Pirate opponent. Fight using small war ships, aircraft and marines.
Their home base may need invading.
Terrorist opponent. Security guards on everything that needs guarding.
Conventional forces may need to invade and destroy their bases and
hideouts - see Afghanistan.
Andrew Swallow
Paul J. Adam
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On 16/05/10 19:22, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> They're tasks that HM Forces have been told to crack on with several
>> times in the last decade.
>>
>> Whether we should contemplate them or not is a different issue - but the
>> politicians seem to keep insisting we should do them.
>
>The point I'm trying to make is that, for once, we seem to have a
>reasonably rational government set on a reasonably moderate course and
>who full well know that they neither have a bottomless pit for funding
>'boys toys' (The Tory rift's basic bargaining position) or the more
>rabid of our journalists baying for blood if the army hasn't got all
>the latest high etch goodies, no matter if they work or not (The
>default position of any Labour government)
>
>So now, being reasonably free of loonies on both sides, they get to
>pick what they want the armed services to do.
I'm probably the wrong person to talk to for Navy stuff, being biased on
at least two levels. However, we're back to the straightforward
question: what do we want the UK military to be able to do?
Do we want to be able to move and support a brigade or two of combined
arms (infantry-heavy, some artillery, a bit of armour, air cover, lots
of rotary-wing lift) ashore somewhere overseas to impose our will on the
fuzzy-wuzzies, to prop up Our Least Disliked Dictator, to try to annoy
our Most Disliked Dictator, or to cover a "A Plague On All Your Houses"
situation long enough to extract our civilians?
Or, given warning time and support from allies, put a division into a UN
operation?
Or, do we accept that our influence realistically ends twelve miles
offshore and we stick to home defence and isolationism? Which would chop
the defence budget to buttons, relatively speaking, until something
happens overseas that we don't like: and at that point the government de
jour has to say "How sad, too bad, we're not funded for that any more."
and live with the consequences.
Like the step change between an Offshore Patrol Vessel and a useful
frigate, there's a big gap where self-delusion is pointless: we either
do overseas power projection, or we don't. If we pretend to try, then
we'll succeed in failing when tested. Do we as a nation want to be able
to reach out and change things overseas? If so, we have to pay for it.
If we want to bin that capability, we can do that; but once gone, it'll
stay gone.
I just get paid to try to square the circle between what the politicians
want HMF to do, and what they'll fund. I'm either lucky, skilled or both
(my money's on luck) that so far when I've warned that a course of
action would be not merely novel, but downright courageous, it's been
heeded.
Alex Potter
> In article <hsp9e7$de9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Alex Potter
> <spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:29:14 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> > And that's the real issue. Lots of folks in Britain seem to hold the
>> > opinion that the UK doesn't need any power projection capability or
>> > nuclear deterrent.
<snippage>
> Hmm. There is no simple answer to this. Problem numero uno is that we,
> the Britistanis, are broke. I mean, really broke. Have just been
> rereading Middlebrook/Mahoney's excellent "Sinking of the PoW and
> Repulse" [1977], and referring particularly to the clumsy agonizing of
> the Admiralty in the cash-strapped 20s and 30s about power projection in
> the Far East.... we are a lot broker now than we were then. Or at least,
> ships and men are a helluva lot more expensive than they were then.
I think that goes right to the heart of it, Alan. In the days when we were
both an imperial power and the world's workshop, it made sense to maintain
the armed forces
> We are, I hope, going into a recovery period, in which I hope and pray a
> very dodgy coalition will get to work undoing the damage wrought to
> civil liberties and sheer common sense by the most vicious, partisan and
> incompetent government of modern times [1].
I don't share your optimism about a recovery, at least in any sort of
long-term. If you look back over the last hundred or so years, the thing
has oscillated, and the solutions have made the next ride down the dipper
much more uncomfortable.
>Any fool can cut the defence
> budget; any fool can get into a war; any superior fool can get into a
> second war at the same time. It takes a very high class of fool to do
> all three at once.
Quite.
> We have a grossly under-resourced and over-stretched Army, bleeding
> quite pointlessly in what that famous American leftie Ralph Peters has
> (rightly, in my opinion) described as "the wrong war, in the wrong
> place, at the wrong time." Aghanistan is perilously close to that famous
> flip definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: you can't win, you
> can't break even, and you can't get out of the game.
Yes.
>
> We have a Royal Navy reduced to not much more than a fishery protection
> force (we don't actually have any fisheries left to protect, but that's
> another story) with savage cuts in the fuel bills, weapons training,
> etc needed to keep it an effective force. Its manpower levels have long
> since shrunk below the numbers employed by Birmingham City Council.
I can well believe it. I think I've already related the difference
between my and my son's experiences in Portland Harbour when small boys.
> And you are talking about aircraft carriers? Two, as well -- wrong
> number, one if you want to wank a la francaise, three if you're serious.
> Also small matter of escorts; we can't even afford *them*; the very few
> Type 45s we are actually building we can't afford to arm.
Voice in the wilderness, Alan.
<more snippage>
> I'd rather have one in my hip pocket, if it's all the same to you, but I
> admit it's hard to justify.
We'll have to agree to differ about your first statement, but I concur
with your second opinion.
>Incidentally, until not too long ago I used
> to live in Pangbourne, the "Wind in the Willows" village on the Thames.
> Lovely place, if grossly expensive. Point is (I am getting there) that
> Pango is not far from Aldermaston, our nice Atomic Weapons
> Establishment.
Lovely place, though. A friend's girlfriend lived there, and we visited
occasionally.
>
> Some people may find what I am about to describe next as hard to
> believe; I consider myself under oath, and I have no track record for
> public lying.
>
> Some clown in the AEW decided it would be a jolly good idea to print
> many thousands of copies (after all, loads of money slopping around in
> the budget, eh?) of a *fucking multi-page, glossy, full-colour
> newsletter*, which it sent to many thousands of local households. "Hi,"
> it said, "We're you're local, cuddly nuclear merchants of death. Here's
> a nice pic of our top man giving presents to the children's party."
> Pages and pages of this stuff. "Here's Janine, winner of AEW Secretary
> of the Month. Mother-of-two Janine...." "Oh, and if there's an accident
> --never happen, of course -- stay indoors and listen to the radio."
Totally credible.
>
> When this first came through my letter box I thought it was an extremely
> clever, although perhaps overly subtle and certainly expensive, joke.
> Not so. It was all true. I regret the copy I preserved is not with me in
> Frogistan, or I'd .pdf it and send it on request.
There've been plenty more such efforts since, if not by Aldermaston, by
other nuclear establishments.
> God knows what the thing cost. It should, of course, have cost several
> jobs and pensions.
Yes.
>
> .....
>
> I'm going to cut Alex's careful facts and figures, not because I
> disagree with them but because when it comes to nukes it is more about
> gut feeling than pounds and pence.
I understand that perfectly. I only pointed to the figures so that we
could weigh them against gut feeling, which, I freely admit, is whence
comes my aversion the the mighty atom. It'll all end in tears...
>
> [1] This might be misconstrued as a party-biased comment. It is not. I
> have many Old Labour friends and am even nice to the occasional Tory or
> Liberal Democrat.
I used to vote Labour, until the smarmies took over the party, since when
I've voted anti-Labour. My friends' politics' are of many shades.
> The government we have just got rid of (and as I said I am none to
> confident in its successor's ability to undo the mess) was easily the
> most wicked political entity in the Western Europe of my lifetime. (I
> was only six when Stalin died; he, I admit, was probably worse.) The
> thought of what Tony Blair might have done with two aircraft carriers...
--
Alex
Jack Linthicum
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 20:24:15 +0200, Alan Lothian wrote:
You people are missing the chance of a, er, lifetime. Dress up your
matelots in period costumes and entertain the tourists. Same with
other services. Nice tasty Battle of Britain with some of the Former
Foe, a redo of some of the better battles. The lower group of the
American states get off on their "recreations" of American Civil War
battles, always remembering to win against the detested Yankees. The
problems invoked by the Texas War of Insolvency can be lightened by
soaking the Mexican and Mexican American toursists heavily for the
ability to watch the Alamo fall. You must have similar.
Alex Potter
> I'm probably the wrong person to talk to for Navy stuff, being biased on
> at least two levels. However, we're back to the straightforward
> question: what do we want the UK military to be able to do?
I don't think the public have been asked that question in isolation in
recent times.
>
> Do we want to be able to move and support a brigade or two of combined
> arms (infantry-heavy, some artillery, a bit of armour, air cover, lots
> of rotary-wing lift) ashore somewhere overseas to impose our will on the
> fuzzy-wuzzies, to prop up Our Least Disliked Dictator, to try to annoy
> our Most Disliked Dictator, or to cover a "A Plague On All Your Houses"
> situation long enough to extract our civilians?
>
> Or, given warning time and support from allies, put a division into a UN
> operation?
Both of those, certainly. Is one division enough for the defence of these
islands against credible threats? What about a trained citizenry, able to
repel invaders, or at the least give them a very hard time until our
allies (?) came to our aid.
> Or, do we accept that our influence realistically ends twelve miles
> offshore and we stick to home defence and isolationism? Which would chop
> the defence budget to buttons, relatively speaking, until something
> happens overseas that we don't like: and at that point the government de
> jour has to say "How sad, too bad, we're not funded for that any more."
> and live with the consequences.
I don't know the answer to that now, let alone in 30 years' time. Oh, and
what about those islands down there near Antarctica.
>
>
> Like the step change between an Offshore Patrol Vessel and a useful
> frigate, there's a big gap where self-delusion is pointless: we either
> do overseas power projection, or we don't. If we pretend to try, then
> we'll succeed in failing when tested. Do we as a nation want to be able
> to reach out and change things overseas? If so, we have to pay for it.
> If we want to bin that capability, we can do that; but once gone, it'll
> stay gone.
Understood. There's also the not inconsiderable matter of keeping the
necessary skills alive.
>
> I just get paid to try to square the circle between what the politicians
> want HMF to do, and what they'll fund. I'm either lucky, skilled or both
> (my money's on luck) that so far when I've warned that a course of
> action would be not merely novel, but downright courageous, it's been
> heeded.
It seems likely that many of the population will have to do a fair bit of
belt-tightening for a while, whatever decisions are made about defence in
Whitehall.
--
Alex
Alex Potter
> The UK certainly needs the ability to fire nuclear weapons.
I remain unconvinced.
> But does it need a strategic nuclear deterrent carried in missile
> equipped submarines?
see above.
>
> Is there a credible enemy that needs such a system or could they manage
> with much cheaper systems?
I do not believe such an enemy exists now, although I am uncertain as to
whether it ever did.
--
Alex
Alex Potter
> You people are missing the chance of a, er, lifetime. Dress up your
> matelots in period costumes and entertain the tourists. Same with other
> services. Nice tasty Battle of Britain with some of the Former Foe, a
> redo of some of the better battles. The lower group of the American
> states get off on their "recreations" of American Civil War battles,
> always remembering to win against the detested Yankees. The problems
> invoked by the Texas War of Insolvency can be lightened by soaking the
> Mexican and Mexican American toursists heavily for the ability to watch
> the Alamo fall. You must have similar.
We do quite a lot of that already, Jack, including our Civil War. Senlac
too, I believe.
--
Alex
dott.Piergiorgio
> Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
>> I suppose HMS Tom, HMS Dick and HMS Harry would have been
>> sexists/elitist?
>
> Not if they were named after the escape tunnels in the WWII Stalag!
interesting, if we consider the standard freudian symbolism of tunnels...
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
>> Any nation that can dream up 347 different types of pasta deserves it.
>>
>> Eugene L Griessel
>
>
> Shape does matter.
Not only, trust me.... also the cooking time matters.
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 18:10:04 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>
>> Il 15/05/2010 14:47, Eugene Griessel ha scritto:
>>
>>>> well, I suspect that at least one will be more or less completed,
>>>> commissioned for a while then quickly put into ordinary lest Italian
>>>> Wardrooms laughing& toasting at the fact of having total capital ship
>>>> superiority on the Royal Navy ;)
>>>
>>> Any nation that can dream up 347 different types of pasta deserves it.
>>
>>
>> Last time I bothered to catalogue, the total was around low 400s, sorry
>> I don't recall the exact figure....
>
> Possibly - here's my list:
[snippone]
Antipatico ! ;PPP OCIO to the timezones !!! :PPPP now I must endure
until around 13, and now are eight minutes to 09.....
dott.Piergiorgio
>> Like the step change between an Offshore Patrol Vessel and a useful
>> frigate, there's a big gap where self-delusion is pointless: we either
>> do overseas power projection, or we don't. If we pretend to try, then
>> we'll succeed in failing when tested.
> The self-delusion course is the most dangerous path. It leads to
> politicians thinking you have a capability you do not have, which
> means they are much more likely to talk you into a position where you
> need the non-existent capability than if they know you don't have it
> and act accordingly.
Well, today Corvettes (FFL) are taking the fast escort role, Frigates
(at least the EU types) becaming more and more cruising ships, so for
the normal patrol/slow escort role, the OPV fill the billet. Aside the
various type shenanigans in getting the Naval budgets & Estimates
approved here and there, example: Italy's Comandanti class "patrol ship"
are unquestionally large corvettes, and also the naming of they link
them to the last Italian classic DD class (that is, "tin cans")) whever
the new, 5,000+ tons Frigates are named after Admirals (that is, Naval
Condottieri, because not few of the former Condottieri names are out of
question, three because of the connection with the former monarchy, and
one because is a sure way to compromise the Naval Budget (Di Giussano,
because a really questionable party here ideologically abuse her
namesake, but seems thar one of the new frigate will be named Antonino
Toscano, a buon intenditore.. ;) )
dott.Piergiorgio
>> I think that people who hold the former opinion are deluded. One assumes
>> that there are few Brits frequenting this place who would think otherwise.
>
> Hmm. There is no simple answer to this. Problem numero uno is that we,
> the Britistanis, are broke. I mean, really broke. Have just been
> rereading Middlebrook/Mahoney's excellent "Sinking of the PoW and
> Repulse" [1977], and referring particularly to the clumsy agonizing of
> the Admiralty in the cash-strapped 20s and 30s about power projection
> in the Far East.... we are a lot broker now than we were then. Or at
> least, ships and men are a helluva lot more expensive than they were
> then.
[cut]
I'll quote and fully subscribe here. Aside the analogies here (somewhat
tempered because of Italian Admirals's shrewdness in dealing with
politicos since late 1940s) I fully agree that sooner or later the
murder of the Old Labour and Italian Communist Party (respectively) will
be punished, but the issue here is that the ideological-economic
pressures against the EU style welfare state is felt everyhere in EU,
and the current greek fuckup don't help much, and UK banning the
Cardinals [1] raise the reciprocal suspects, and indeed France is
starting to condivide the spanish suspicions about economic warfare, and
this in the framework of the EU development, both enlargement and
instituitional (suffice to say that an EU enlarged to the southern &
eastern side of Med and with a more defined governance framework and the
Capital in her natural place, is *REALLY* something) don't bode well,
but you known, the "interesting times" I speak are now, the first half
of 2010s....
[1] not the ecclesiastical type; the Euro largest denomination bill,
whose is purple....
William Black
However, we're back to the straightforward
> question: what do we want the UK military to be able to do?
>
> Do we want to be able to move and support a brigade or two of combined
> arms (infantry-heavy, some artillery, a bit of armour, air cover, lots
> of rotary-wing lift) ashore somewhere overseas to impose our will on the
> fuzzy-wuzzies, to prop up Our Least Disliked Dictator, to try to annoy
> our Most Disliked Dictator, or to cover a "A Plague On All Your Houses"
> situation long enough to extract our civilians?
Which sounds reasonable, and, thinking about it, fairly French.
>
> Or, given warning time and support from allies, put a division into a UN
> operation?
Why?
Nobody else in Europe does.
> Or, do we accept that our influence realistically ends twelve miles
> offshore and we stick to home defence and isolationism? Which would chop
> the defence budget to buttons, relatively speaking, until something
> happens overseas that we don't like: and at that point the government de
> jour has to say "How sad, too bad, we're not funded for that any more."
> and live with the consequences.
We have overseas commitments to both our twelve remaining colonies, who
want us to look after them, and to the vast horde of Brits living
overseas, most of whom pay some form of tax to the UK government.
My personal feeling is for the light 'get in, get out' force of a
couple of brigades that can be supported by both naval and air forces
and a small nuclear force using conventional fixed wing aircraft and
cruise missiles as delivery systems to keep anyone with big ideas and a
couple of nukes well away.
William Black
> A deterrent force is only as good as its survivability. If you have a
> small number of weapons (on the order of hundreds), you need to keep
> them someplace where they are as immune from counterforce attacks as
> possible. That pretty much means on submarines.
>
Or in several different places that are hard to destroy.
William Black
> William Black<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> We have overseas commitments to both our twelve remaining colonies, who
>> want us to look after them, and to the vast horde of Brits living
>> overseas, most of whom pay some form of tax to the UK government.
>>
>> My personal feeling is for the light 'get in, get out' force of a
>> couple of brigades that can be supported by both naval and air forces
>> and a small nuclear force using conventional fixed wing aircraft and
>> cruise missiles as delivery systems to keep anyone with big ideas and a
>> couple of nukes well away.
>>
>
> call 'commando carriers').
Why?
We've managed so far without big carriers.
> Cruise missiles don't have the range you need.
'Credible enemy' remember.
What credible enemy is out of submarine launched cruise missile range?
Fixed wing aircraft as
> nuclear delivery systems are going to require a tanker force, etc.
We already have one and a new one is on order and almost paid for.
> If you stick those cruise missiles on subs, first you need to develop
> those cruise missiles and then you need some dedicated boats to put
> them on.
I imagine our wonderful US allies would only be too glad to sell us some
and the things can be launched from a torpedo tube.
>
> You also have to develop several different types of warhead (gravity
> bomb plus cruise).
I think we already have some plans.
But developing some new warheads would give our huge and underemployed
nuclear weapons industry something new to do.
William Black
>>
>>> A deterrent force is only as good as its survivability. If you have a
>>> small number of weapons (on the order of hundreds), you need to keep
>>> them someplace where they are as immune from counterforce attacks as
>>> possible. That pretty much means on submarines.
>>>
>>
>> Or in several different places that are hard to destroy.
>>
>
> not precisely cheap, either.
>
Let's get one thing straight shall we.
It is not possible for a country the size of the United Kingdom to
survive a nuclear attack form someone who has the capacity to destroy
their nuclear arsenal by the use of nuclear weapons.
The idea is absurd, as is the whole idea of 'nuclear war fighting'.
dott.Piergiorgio
>> But developing some new warheads would give our huge and underemployed
>> nuclear weapons industry something new to do.
>>
>
> And that's the expensive bit. So instead of developing one warhead
> system for an SLBM, you're going to develop two new ones. Yeah, THAT
> will save a lot of money...
well, paying nuclear engineer/scientist for doing things is always the
right thing to do, lest these people once jobless and in financial
difficultiess sell their knowledge to people whose shouldn't be trusted
with nuclear toys....
ISTR to have noticed an increase of Russian academics, visiting fellow
or whatnot, in many US Uni during late '90s-first half of Aughties
timeframe....
For sure, Italy has signed a questionable contract with Russia about the
dismantling of these rusty & dangerous ex-soviet SSN/SSGN/SSBN, now at
the centre of a scandal, but at least *our* nuclear engineers has things
to do (because the nuclear centrals closed since mid-80s now are safe
for dismantling, we have around too many unemployed nuke engineers....)
William Black
> William Black<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/10 11:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> William Black<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have overseas commitments to both our twelve remaining colonies, who
>>>> want us to look after them, and to the vast horde of Brits living
>>>> overseas, most of whom pay some form of tax to the UK government.
>>>>
>>>> My personal feeling is for the light 'get in, get out' force of a
>>>> couple of brigades that can be supported by both naval and air forces
>>>> and a small nuclear force using conventional fixed wing aircraft and
>>>> cruise missiles as delivery systems to keep anyone with big ideas and a
>>>> couple of nukes well away.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so you need the carriers and their and some amphibs (what you lot
>>> call 'commando carriers').
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> We've managed so far without big carriers.
>>
>
Well, yes we do.
We got our people out of the Lebanon a couple of years ago without too
many problems.
>>> Cruise missiles don't have the range you need.
>>
>> 'Credible enemy' remember.
>>
>> What credible enemy is out of submarine launched cruise missile range?
>>
>
> So you're going to develop your own nuclear tipped submarine launched
> cruise missile?
No, we're going to adapt yours...
>> Fixed wing aircraft as
>>> nuclear delivery systems are going to require a tanker force, etc.
>>
>> We already have one and a new one is on order and almost paid for.
>>
>
> Uh, no. How about a cite for what you're talking about, keeping in
> mind that in the case you're talking about you need the capability to
> simultaneously tank a large number of bombers.
Bollocks, we don't need 'large numbers' of nuclear bombers.
We're not the USA looking to blow up the world you know...
The reality is that we're never going to actually use the bloody things,
nobody ever does.
It's to give you a 'seat at the table', so it only has to look good.
During the great Chevalline <sp> cock-up we didn't actually have a
working nuclear deterrent for some years but nobody actually noticed,
or if they did they were polite enough not to mention it...
>>> If you stick those cruise missiles on subs, first you need to develop
>>> those cruise missiles and then you need some dedicated boats to put
>>> them on.
>>
>> I imagine our wonderful US allies would only be too glad to sell us some
>>
>
> Don't bet on it. We're eliminating the things over here.
Money talks...
>> and the things can be launched from a torpedo tube.
>>
>
> Start changing warheads and you're going to have to fund and redo a
> lot of the work to allow that.
Who changes warheads on embarked weapons these days?
>>> You also have to develop several different types of warhead (gravity
>>> bomb plus cruise).
>>
>> I think we already have some plans.
>>
>> But developing some new warheads would give our huge and underemployed
>> nuclear weapons industry something new to do.
>>
>
> And that's the expensive bit. So instead of developing one warhead
> system for an SLBM, you're going to develop two new ones. Yeah, THAT
> will save a lot of money...
Thinking about it, why bother developing new ones?
Why can't we use the perfectly adequate old ones like the WE-177?
William Black
> William Black<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/10 11:10, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> William Black<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/05/10 00:46, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A deterrent force is only as good as its survivability. If you have a
>>>>> small number of weapons (on the order of hundreds), you need to keep
>>>>> them someplace where they are as immune from counterforce attacks as
>>>>> possible. That pretty much means on submarines.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or in several different places that are hard to destroy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you're going to build facilities that are nuclear hardened? That's
>>> not precisely cheap, either.
>>>
>>
>> Let's get one thing straight shall we.
>>
>> It is not possible for a country the size of the United Kingdom to
>> survive a nuclear attack form someone who has the capacity to destroy
>> their nuclear arsenal by the use of nuclear weapons.
>>
>> The idea is absurd, as is the whole idea of 'nuclear war fighting'.
>>
>
> again?
>
1. It allows you to stop people like Pakistan or Iran or North Korea
making silly noises in your direction if there's a dispute.
2. It gives you a 'seat at the table'.
Paul J. Adam
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On 16/05/10 22:37, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> Or, given warning time and support from allies, put a division into a UN
>> operation?
>
>Why?
We've considered it worth doing twice in the last twenty years. There
must be something in the water in Whitehall that makes it seem like an
attractive idea...
>Nobody else in Europe does.
We had a brigade of Italians with us in MND(SE), so some Europeans do
tag along sometimes...
But the key point is, whether this is a lever of influence that the UK
government wants to have available or not. If it's valueless, let it
slip away: but it's seemed worthwhile a couple of times so far.
>> Or, do we accept that our influence realistically ends twelve miles
>> offshore and we stick to home defence and isolationism? Which would chop
>> the defence budget to buttons, relatively speaking, until something
>> happens overseas that we don't like: and at that point the government de
>> jour has to say "How sad, too bad, we're not funded for that any more."
>> and live with the consequences.
>
>We have overseas commitments to both our twelve remaining colonies, who
>want us to look after them, and to the vast horde of Brits living
>overseas, most of whom pay some form of tax to the UK government.
>
>My personal feeling is for the light 'get in, get out' force of a
>couple of brigades that can be supported by both naval and air forces
>and a small nuclear force using conventional fixed wing aircraft and
>cruise missiles as delivery systems to keep anyone with big ideas and a
>couple of nukes well away.
In other words, we're limited in our options for defence cuts (since
we're basically tooled up for that, but need some investment in at least
the maritime - we've been making cuts to free up funds for operations
since 2004). We can rebalance by losing some heavy metal and fast jets,
but the savings get eaten up by needing more lift capability and more
infantry.
Now the question comes - how do we explain to the Treasury that, far
from making deep cuts, we need to spend more on defence?