"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if they can get
one.

The USA have 14 Ohio Class ballistic nuclear missile equipped nuclear
submarines.

France currently has 4 Triomphe Class ballistic nuclear missile
equipped nuclear submarines.

In what circumstances do you forsee the US allowing either the UK
or France to initiate a nuclear war ? Rather than getting full
"value for money" for their own 14 subs ? See [1] below.


They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

If you're talking about Moslem fundamentalists then they sincerely believe
that all Moslems including millions of innocent civialans wasted by nukes
are all destined for heaven as martyrs. Even if the virgins
bit is a mistranslation. In their case "deterrence" rather
than being a deterrent, is actually a positive encouragement.


You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages

Oh really ? And where do most of any wages go? If you care to look
it up you'll find that the UK's nuclear missiles are only "leased"
from the USA.

quote

The UK does not own its Trident missiles—they are leased from
the USA. UK Trident submarines must regularly visit the US base
at King's Bay, Georgia to return their missiles to the US
stockpile for maintenance and replace them with others.

/quote

http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm

So much for the "value for money" of our "independent deterrent"

Basically the only possible "value for money" is if, after having most
of Great Britain turned into a nuclear wasteland so as to sustain
our "special relationship" with the USA, some surviving politician deep
in some bunker somewhere will at least be able to say "when it came down
to it at least the people of this great country of ours, Great Britain
did their bit. Even if they're all now dead"


michael adams

....