There is a Deep Sea Container Terminal being planned for Avonmouth at the moment
http://dsct.bristolport.co.uk/bpc
http://dsct.bristolport.co.uk/bpc
Britain's Tech lead in the 1950s
- Thread starter Derek Jackson
- Start date
abc123
Banned
OK, and what Tories should do then?
Also, I'm not sure that nationalisation of British Steel was so nescesary?
Lose the 1951 election.
For 4 years thay had an elderly Churchill taking up space. Then Anthony Eden came along and he turned out to be a hysterical old woman. Then Harold Macmillan who just wanted things to be quiet and kept kissing Eisenhower's butt and then starting on De Gaulle's cheeks.
The 13 years of Tory rule were a nostalgia trip for the old guard that lasted because Britain's competitors were still re building after the war. By 1960 there was real trouble but the Tories had no ideas, no vision and just limped from budget to budget trying to keep full employment for the present but sacrificing the future. Only Enoch Powell made a protest at the time.
The Wilson government tried to change things but by 1964 it was too late.
The Tories left a record trade deficit, budget problems and rising inflation.
By 1970 the Wilson government had produced a trade surplus, budget surplus and had built a record number of houses (many not very good) and eliminated most of the pockets of poverty that still existed. But this was done at the expense of defence cuts, infrastucture cuts and delays in raising the school leaving age.
Malaya (including Singapore) and Burma, some small pieces of some African colonies Hong Kong.
abc123
Banned
And, is that better than to improve education of population, mantain strong military and invest in modern infrastructure?
No. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I Can't be bothered to explain.
India didn't?
Profitable for whom?
British India was, IIRC, substantially loss making for the British state, as it lost more in providing security and administration than it made in taxes. However, British based companies (and their investors) made substantial profits from their interests in Indian trade, and financial interests made even more profit from the return on their loans and investments in Indian assets.
The British government economic desire to retain control was because they judged that the loss to the state was worth this increase in the wealth of these investors, as they recognised that independence would lead to being shut out of those markets and having their assets confiscated and loans canceled without sufficient compensation. If they though they could get away with a South American model where they could maintain their economic interests (hegemony, to be honest) without having to pay for security, I honestly think many would have jumped at the chance, if they hadn't already internalised the racist myths they'd created to justify the older, less efficient model of Imperialism.
There was also a debate over whether to swap the remaining lease on Weihaiwei for the New Territories in perpetuity, after the Japanese victory in 1905 meant it was no longer as necessary to have a base near Port Arthur.
Well thats sort of my point. It is perfectly possible for Britain to develop a nuclear triad but the need for which is debatable. As you point out the silos would be easily targeted by nuclear strikes and land based mobile balistic missles lack the vast open splace like they do in Russia to move about in while remaining inconspicuous. However, an extra Resolution Class SSBN would be a good addition to the fleet. OTL one was planned and was going to be called HMS Ramillies although I honestly prefer HMS Royal Oak.
Depends upon the nature of the Commonwealth. If a stronger political union emerges then Singapore could emerge as an equal partner over time but still economically and politically linked to Britain.
Russell
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Silos are still a good choice as silo mounted missiles are more accurate and carry a heavier warhead, and can ride out near misses, it was only the most recent generation of SLBM that gave the ability to use those for counter force strikes
That said Britain may prefer an extra SSBN but the Resolution class is mostly incapable of launching counterforce strikes
I've never been sure that counterforce strikes were the primary role of the British SSBN fleet. I've heard it described as a deterrent force, and from that point of view wouldn't countervalue strikes be almost as effective?
Indeed, that's why we had the famous "Moscow Criterion" Britain knew it couldn't afford to match the USSR warhead for warhead so instead it decided that the best deterrent strategy was to have sufficient warheads to destroy Moscow as it was felt that being able to destroy the Soviet Capital would be such a psychological blow to it Leadership that they would not attack Britain.
France had exactly the same strategy with the "string to weak deterrence" as it was called. Namely, the Soviets could only hope to lose more than what they would gain by conquering France should a war happen. Consequently, most of the French deterrent was geared towards the destruction of the largest Soviet cities west of the Urals.
Well, it was a little more complex than that...
The main fear for Russia was that while a retaliatory strike wouldnt destroy the Soviet Union, it would do significant damage, and leave them very vulnerable to attack from the USA or China if they cared to take advantage....
So the logic is, will the Russians care to risk getting destroyed while vulnerable just to take out the UK...
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Countervalue always was the role of the British SSBN fleet, although the Vangaurd Class has the ability to perform counterforce as well
If they already have sufficient countervalue ability, and OTL they did, why not spend the money getting something of a counterforce capability as well, just in case and still fufilling the deterrent role but easier to get in contact with
People would ask inconvenient questions. Questions such as "under what circumstances would this be useful?" and "who would a small counterforce strike even work on?".
Assume a counterforce capability on the same scale as the existing deterrent fleet - 4 SSBNs, each with 16 missiles and 2 warheads each (post Chevaline). Or, if you prefer, put the 128 warheads in equivalent air-launched or silo-launched delivery systems. That might be enough for an effective counterforce strike against any of the smaller nuclear powers (France, Pakistan, Israel or India), but it won't disarm the ones that matter (US, China and the USSR).
It would cost at least as much as the existing deterrent force, probably significantly more (more accurate missiles with heavier warheads are needed for the job, with more crew, and a whole new support and transport infrastructure), and it's hard to imagine any situations where it would be any more use. It would also be more vulnerable and expensive, the entire point of SSBNs is that they're hard to find and thus destroy.
As for the being easier to contact argument, I have doubts how much that really limits the value of the SSBN fleet (if it's even true; I have the impression short messages - launch orders, say - can still be sent fairly readily). Certainly under any circumstances their deterrent value is needed it won't do any harm.