cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Thats a LOT of razor blades

Community Veteran
Posts: 13,921
Thanks: 514
Fixes: 7
Registered: 01-08-2007

Thats a LOT of razor blades

Sad but true, tin cans and razor blades is what is being made from the Ark Royal:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/5015454/Ark-breaking-as-great-ship-turn...
A terrible and tragic piece of vandalism.
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
26 REPLIES
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 25,760
Thanks: 1,120
Fixes: 47
Registered: 14-04-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

...or a good piece of recycling.
Customer and Forum Moderator.
Product of the Tyrell Corporation
Community Veteran
Posts: 7,149
Thanks: 51
Fixes: 2
Registered: 30-08-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

Ark Royal is old, obsolete and designed for an aircraft that was retired 2008, that would be no match with those new aircraft currently in development <even if they are American> Both have had their glory but their time is up.
There comes a time when however sentimental your feelings it is not worth keeping Ark Royal afloat or the Harriers flying.
Sad, but Gillette and Wilkinson will be more than happy.
Experience; is something you gain, just after you needed it most.

When faced with two choices, simply toss a coin. It works not because it settles the question for you. But because in that brief moment while the coin is in the air. You suddenly know what you are hoping for.
Community Veteran
Posts: 13,921
Thanks: 514
Fixes: 7
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

I disagree with you Petlew.
At least one of that class of carrier should have been kept for preservation. We have Harriers in preservation, concorde in preservation and many others including the odd battle ship and submarine. Why not an aircraft carrier?
What is so terribly wrong with this idea?
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
David_W
Rising Star
Posts: 2,293
Thanks: 29
Registered: 19-07-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

We sold our Harriers, job lot to the Americans because they are better than the VTOL's the Americans are making (the American VTOL's actually melt the deck of the aircraft carrier).  So now we've switched to the F35B variant which required our aircraft carrier (which isn't built yet) to be fitted with Cats and Traps at an insane cost (£1b? The Americans offered to do it for £2m or some seriously low amount), the initial specs for the QE Carriers specified that it should be upgradable to Cats and Traps but alas, BAE charges us a fortune for what should have been built in from the ground up.
It's all well and good having the latest and greatest military technology, but who exactly are we going to use them against?  Argentina?  They have trouble with their ships somehow managing to sink.  We have no countries which we're not friendly with that we have any hope of defeating if it came to blows, even with our current high level of technology, the countries we may end up going up against have 3rd world military powers and it's quite unlikely that their stones, spears and catapults can reach high enough to take down a man in a tree let alone a Typhoon.
Next up, the government does a U turn (again) and decided to go with the F35C VTOL and tells BAE to remove the Cats and Traps from the QE carrier.
Community Veteran
Posts: 7,149
Thanks: 51
Fixes: 2
Registered: 30-08-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

Quote from: David
but who exactly are we going to use them against?

That's a tricky one David W. Nick Ferrari on LBC radio was vehemently making the point this morning that we should keep our submarine nuclear deterrent.
His reasoning was based on history. Who were our potential enemies 30 years ago; USSR? are they now,? who could have predicted then that they would join NATO, very probably we didn't go to war with them is a direct result of having the "bomb", very obviously opinions vary on this.
So, who are our potential enemies in 30 years time? very possibly those who at this time are developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them; Iran, North Korea?  they may not be able to reach us now, but who knows what they will be able to do then.   
Experience; is something you gain, just after you needed it most.

When faced with two choices, simply toss a coin. It works not because it settles the question for you. But because in that brief moment while the coin is in the air. You suddenly know what you are hoping for.
David_W
Rising Star
Posts: 2,293
Thanks: 29
Registered: 19-07-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

Keeping Trident with the rise of unstable states getting the nuke is a no-brainer, we can't allow ourselves to be threatened by nukes because we don't have any.  However, would we go to war against a country that does have nukes, knowing that if we start to win they may hit the big red button?  We could never really go to war against North Korea either, no matter how much mercury their hatters have been using, it's next door neighbour is China so if the west were to go into NK, China wouldn't stand for having western forces having a bit of a war next to them.
We just really don't have anyone we'll get in to a fight with where the weapons we currently own wouldn't be enough to finish the job.  Most of the traditional countries we go to war with are more interested in selling stuff to us, the rising countries we sell our arms to, give it 30 years time when the dominant nations are from South America or India, as well as China and war would be over a board room table whilst we try to get the best trade deals possible.
Of course, it's politically unsuitable to allow our armed forces to have out of date gear, so the 3 services continually lobby to get hold of the greatest and latest weapons O'Doom, as soon as our own equipment starts to age a bit, fall apart, need upgrading to version 5, The Sun will slam the government for letting our boys down, they really, really need see in the dark sun glasses that allow them to look around corners half a mile away to see if someone has left the toilet seat up.
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,580
Thanks: 191
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

So you favour the MAD option do you?

Community Veteran
Posts: 7,149
Thanks: 51
Fixes: 2
Registered: 30-08-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

It worked very well during the years following the second world war.
Experience; is something you gain, just after you needed it most.

When faced with two choices, simply toss a coin. It works not because it settles the question for you. But because in that brief moment while the coin is in the air. You suddenly know what you are hoping for.
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,580
Thanks: 191
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

No it didn't.
It was sheer luck that we lived through that period unscathed.

David_W
Rising Star
Posts: 2,293
Thanks: 29
Registered: 19-07-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

I do support the principle of "okay, you won't nuke us because we have nukes, and we won't nuke you either".  If we got rid of our nukes and a nasty state decided it would eliminate us by raining nukes at our large cities, no other country would then launch nukes at them, we can't ever rely on some other country wiping a country off the face of the planet if they decided to nuke us, the risk of them getting nuked is too high.  We need our own deterrent from states which have nukes and could use them.  Every country will know that if they launch a first strike at us, somewhere in the oceans is a hidden submarine who will quietly slip in to position and unleash deadly retribution, that is what should (in theory) prevent us from entering a nuclear war - it doesn't stop people with religious fervour who may one day wander into London with a dirty nuke, but then we can only hope that never happens.
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,307
Thanks: 86
Fixes: 3
Registered: 08-01-2008

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

Maybe we could manage with ONE proper Trident replacement + 2 or 3 (or more) 'dummy' boats just as long as nobody knew if it was the 'real' one out on duty at any given time - the 'deterrent' still exists and might save a fortune in these hard times.
Difficult to know if we'd ever actually use a 'nuke' anyway and I'd hope every other possible means of avoidance would be used first.
Call me 'w23'
At any given moment in the universe many things happen. Coincidence is a matter of how close these events are in space, time and relationship.
Opinions expressed in forum posts are those of the poster, others may have different views.
tinto
Grafter
Posts: 262
Registered: 21-11-2010

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

Quote from: David
I do support the principle of "okay, you won't nuke us because we have nukes, and we won't nuke you either".  If we got rid of our nukes and a nasty state decided it would eliminate us by raining nukes at our large cities, no other country would then launch nukes at them, we can't ever rely on some other country wiping a country off the face of the planet if they decided to nuke us, the risk of them getting nuked is too high. 

If any nation even threatened to  toss nukes around, I believe one or more of the other nuclear powers would have an extremely firm word in their ear.  The fallout from nuclear warfare wouldn't stop at the borders of any country that had been attacked, it would be carried all round the planet by the various jet streams, and be brought down indiscriminately by precipitation.
A prime example is the nuclear power station that suffered a meltdown in the Ukraine.  So much radio active fallout came down on parts of the Scottish highlands that farmers were banned from selling sheep for human consumption for several years, and that was a relatively mild instance.
Mind you, I still wouldn't rule out the probability of us having to face up to the problem at some time.
Community Veteran
Posts: 13,921
Thanks: 514
Fixes: 7
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

Quote from: tinto
A prime example is the nuclear power station that suffered a meltdown in the Ukraine.

That was Chernobyl Wink
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,580
Thanks: 191
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: Thats a LOT of razor blades

Or Three Mile Island (USA)
Or multiple reactors in Japan, recently.
BTW We may have to get permission from the USA before we can launch "our" trident missiles.
These missiles are very low yield efforts (Most of the warheads have a yield of 80-100 kilotons, although there has been speculation that some missiles may be armed with a single low-yield nuclear warhead of 10-15 kilotons).
Only suitable for destroying medium sized cities.