Why doesn't Britain have any land based ICBMs?
>>28379700
not enough space to put them
We don't have enough warheads to justify spending the billions needed to create the facilities
Expensive to maintain a triad
If shit gets hot they have enough to ruin somebody's day anyway.
Would it not be a good idea to have some road mobile ICBMs to ensure second strike capability? If the one patrolling sub is sunk or destroyed then the nuclear deterrent is gone.
I mean having 5-10 road mobile launchers like the Russian Topol M with a high yield warhead (say 2Mt) that can be used against your opponents cities.
>UK SSBN defects
>deterrent gone
>every single Bongistani colony out for their blood
>UK asks for American aid
>U.S sends CBG
>To loot Britain even more
>>28379700
It's probably smart, actually. No land-based ICBMs means that there is less reason for Britain itself to be a target in a nuclear exchange. Same reason why the US puts land based ICBMs in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. Britain doesn't have nearly as much empty space in comparison.
>>28379700
Because America has been Britain's army for the last hundred years so they don't need them.
>>28379700
because they don't have any land
>>28380013
I don't think there is even a chance of that happening, that's retarded
>>28379917
I was under the impression the Bongs had 1 at sea, 1 at mid/low ready and 1 in for maintenance
>>28379700
Because we used the space that would have been used for Silo's for high altitude radar
>>28382097
No idea but 1 nuke at faslane (prime target in a strike so you're talking 15-20 nukes most likely) and the 3 other subs are gone. The one remaining at sea is all that's left.
land based ICBMs are obsolete, unless you are a land locked nation.
>>28382139
Exactly why before going to sea the captains of the bong nuke boats are issued the letter of last resort for is command goes silent.
The Bong deterrent is based on that sub at sea being enough of a threat with 16+ missiles aboard. It's a sucker punch to make the enemy hurt if they try anything, not to wipe out a nation outright.
The Soviet threat was never ground based to the UK as their naval force projection was laughable and any other attack would have to come through mainland Europe with most Russian nuiclear assets being assumed to be used on clearing France and Germany, giving enough time to scramble at least a 2nd boat
>>28379917
>Would it not be a good idea to have some road mobile ICBMs to ensure second strike capability?
That's why we have SSBN's, so we still have second strike capability even if the whole island gets evaporated.
>If the one patrolling sub is sunk or destroyed then the nuclear deterrent is gone.
>If the one patrolling sub
We've got four. There's allways two on patrol with rotations every six months, but that's done for buget reasons rather than them only working for half a year before springing a leak.
why can't the british isles use lots of balloons and sail away. this way they can put missile silo's and be maneuverable. it is literally the best of both worlds.
>>28380013
Go back to bed Tom Clancy, you are drunk.
Also, dead.
>>28380013
Did someone leak the next CoD script?
1) because nuclear submarines are a much better deterrent
2) they don't have that much land to scatter silos all about
I can't find the latest policy but here's the previous policy that was recently updated. The UK keeps 4 nuclear subs with 1 at sea at all times for nuclear deterrence.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-uk-nuclear-deterrent/2010-to-2015-government-policy-uk-nuclear-deterrent
Where would they put them? In farmland? That would mean an invader would have to destroy their food production facilities to be sure they got all installations. In cities? That would be like using civilians as a shield. Not supposed to keep nukes in space. The ocean is all that's left.
>>28380013
>UK SSBN defects
To who, Argentina?
>>28384093
Lol
We were going to have them. We developed the silo technology in the 1950s and gave it to the US. We decided agianst it for several reasons - cost, geology, lack of wilderness. It was politically impossible to put them in the crowded south-east near London and similarly we could not make Scotland or Wales the ground zero or the natibesw would rise up. So they started basing them at RAF Spadeadam a few miles down the road from me. The old facilities are still there. We went for the V-bombers then Polaris.
>>28379700
because they don't need to fight enemies that their own government creates to kill themselves like certain A-CUNTS
>>28382382
Killed me
