Welcome to the BDSM Library.
  • Login:
beymenslotgir.com kalebet34.net escort bodrum bodrum escort
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Just a little OFF
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    There's a big difference between a nuclear sub, one which relies on nuclear power for propulsion, and a nuclear missile sub, which is armed with nuclear weapons. I agree that, other than an all-out nuclear holocaust, the missile subs are useless except as a deterrent. However, they can be fitted with non-nuclear, Tomahawk-type cruise missiles for more conventional warfare. In fact, such missiles were launched from submarines during the latest Iraq war, with good effect.

    But nuclear powered submarines, and other naval vessels, are probably here to stay. While more expensive to build, they are cheaper to operate, can stay at sea for long periods, and, in the case of submarines, are far more stealthy than diesel/electric subs. And despite the protests of the anti-nuclear crowd, they are safer for both the environment and their crews.

    Whether or not the UK, or the US for that matter, actually NEED as many as they already have, though, is a different question altogether.
    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  2. #2
    Never been normal
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    969
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    There's a big difference between a nuclear sub, one which relies on nuclear power for propulsion, and a nuclear missile sub, which is armed with nuclear weapons. I agree that, other than an all-out nuclear holocaust, the missile subs are useless except as a deterrent. However, they can be fitted with non-nuclear, Tomahawk-type cruise missiles for more conventional warfare. In fact, such missiles were launched from submarines during the latest Iraq war, with good effect.

    But nuclear powered submarines, and other naval vessels, are probably here to stay. While more expensive to build, they are cheaper to operate, can stay at sea for long periods, and, in the case of submarines, are far more stealthy than diesel/electric subs. And despite the protests of the anti-nuclear crowd, they are safer for both the environment and their crews.

    Whether or not the UK, or the US for that matter, actually NEED as many as they already have, though, is a different question altogether.
    True, but when Faslane is discussed it's always and only in terms of Trident, which for the past 20 years has been a pointless virility symbol for UK governments.
    Leo9
    Oh better far to live and die under the brave black flag I fly,
    Than play a sanctimonious part with a pirate head and a pirate heart.

    www.silveandsteel.co.uk
    www.bertramfox.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top