Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
no. 3 isn't enough,as is shown by France at the moment: one is under construction, one is under maintenance, one has been damaged and one is used full time. ANy problem occurring now would suppress the detterence capability of France.

I would think that a fifth or sixth submarine would be needed.

As for the debate, I actually thik that moral and international relations have to be dissociated. As a country, there is a need to force oneself to follow rules, but at the same time acting as if the others would not be following said rules. This ensures the general following of rules by everybody.

I rather regret that Britain and France are still unable to cooperate in missile subs matters, as this would cut costs tremendously and improve credibility. Arguments on the cost do not hold if costs were divided between Fr and Gb or better even, divided between all UE members.

The main problem for such a cooperation is the necessary unicity of command for these weapons.

by Xavier in Paris on Thu Jul 16th, 2009 at 06:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes well, that IS true. But while the probability of having a single sub damaged by accident is small, the risk of having TWO subs damaged in a row before the first one is repaired is very small. And you can't really plan for everything. It will cost to much and reduce other capabilities.

Otherwise I agree completely with your post.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 01:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the fact is also that one more sub costs much less than the first one of a serie.

by building all six submarines one per year, you would earn a lot of money, say half a sub.

by Xavier in Paris on Fri Jul 17th, 2009 at 02:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series