National Security

[Denny Crane!]

Does it begin with warfare or energy? We live in a changing world and I think attitudes need to change with it, where in the cold war period military might may have seemed important I suggest that in the age of peak oil technology and energy production in whatever form it takes is far more important than military might.

Thoughts?

btw: A random speculative thought. 25 billion on our new nuclear deterrent would fund numerous nuclear reactors or enough off shore wind power stations to energise 35% of the UK, which is a massive step forward considering that money would have been spent anyway.

[JNS]

I agree, investment and development of new more sustainable energy sources will give the upper hand to anyone who has it. The first country to develop an cheap renewable energy source will have an inmense economic advantage, which will help it invest in other areas, instead of wasting resources in old energy sources that are not nearly as efficient.

Investing in the military both in europe and the US is not that critical anymore. Wars aren't fought conventionally anymore, and already the west has a huge technological advante over anyone else. Also the fact that europe and the US are allies means that the only potential threats are China and Russia, who have way too much too lose economically to go into any direct conflict with the west. Unless the crap absolutely hits the fan, and we are suddenflly faced with a critical lack of resources such as water or fossil fuels there is no reason for these blocs to engage in combat.

[Denny Crane!]

Wars aren't likely and wars that are likely to happen and even less likely to happen with nuclear weapons, what the UK has seen recently is potential problems with our gas supply and the less we rely on energy the more independent and secure we are. The concern about how we survive should surpass possible threats, oil prices are a grave threat to our survival right now - nuclear threats are only potential threats.

Perhaps it is vested interests or perhaps old attitudes that cause this difference in opinion?

[JNS]

Definetelly. Companies that feel their inmense profits are threatened use their power to influence the goverment to keep the cash flowing in their direction. Even with the recent crisis the goverment is a secure client that is easilly manipulated . Also people in the goverment, and the general population may be too fearful or insecure about new energy technologies to break from their dependence from fossil fuels. For example most of the population where I live are completely against the use of nuclear power, despite the fact that it is a clean, efficient energy source when handled properly, and it may solve most of our energy needs. It also seems the public is more concerned with the boogeyman of the month to care for stuff that they have in abundance and take for granted like the energy , food etc. That short-sightendness may lead to crisis when the supply of these resources are threatened.

In addition I don't think any country, wether it be the UK, U.S. or the rest of europe should invest in a large nuclear arsenal. A small, well mantained arsenal is enough to keep MAD in play should any threats arise. We should concentrate on any internal systematics problems, as we pretty much have nothing to fear from external powers.

[Viking Prince]

I do agree that energy resources are important. And we may indeed benefit by diverting some resources from the military to energy generation. Unfortunately it is not the only reason nor even the most important reason for national defense. We can do better as a part of the developed western nations with collective defense, but even that only goes so far.

[Rolling Thunder]

Does it begin with warfare or energy? We live in a changing world and I think attitudes need to change with it, where in the cold war period military might may have seemed important I suggest that in the age of peak oil technology and energy production in whatever form it takes is far more important than military might.

Thoughts?

btw: A random speculative thought. 25 billion on our new nuclear deterrent would fund numerous nuclear reactors or enough off shore wind power stations to energise 35% of the UK, which is a massive step forward considering that money would have been spent anyway.

An even better though: £25 billion towards a viable fusion plant. Do that, and we've got enough energy to power the entire country, and possibly the entirety of Europe.

[Poach]

ITER isn't due to come online until 2019, and that's currently the most advanced and active Fusion project on the go. Fusion won't be with us for some time.

As for the subject at hand, I am in agreement. The UK does not need a Nuclear Deterrent, what does it give us? A seat on the UN Security Council? The UN is useless anyway. The money spent on the Nuclear Deterrent would be better invested in giving us a strong, conventional Armed Forces, structured around an expeditionary capability, capable of protecting our interests and, as Denny suggested, to fund investment into alternative energy sources to remove our reliance on imported energy.

If we can achieve self-sufficiency in our energy supply, we as a nation will be far more secure, both economically and diplomatically.

[Denny Crane!]

Yes and the point is of course that this is money already accounted for in the budget and if that 28bn or so was used to incentivise rather than pay for outright then you could probably look at doubling the amount of wind farms (or whatever else is deemed economically viable) and power most of the UK as well as smashing renewable energy targets.

VP I'm not sure where you are going with that post. You can have the best military in the world but if your economy crumbles around you due to rising energy prices it will avail you nothing.

[Poach]

Wind Farms are only one way to generate electricty. We're an island nation, we'd be far more suited to making use of tidal or offshore generation methods such as the Pelamis machine (already started in Scotland), amongst others.

[Denny Crane!]

Wind Farms are only one way to generate electricty. We're an island nation, we'd be far more suited to making use of tidal or offshore generation methods such as the Pelamis machine (already started in Scotland), amongst others.

Coastal wind around the UK is virtually constant, I've heard tidal dirges produce staggering amounts of electric but the only thing I've ever heard about wave energy is that it is horrendously expensive to install. I must admit though of all energy generation that is one I've read the least about.

But I'm cool either way, so long as it produces electricity and isn't that expensive I'd rather see tax money spent on that instead of Nuclear weapons. Hell I'd take 28bn worth of nuclear energy over nuclear weapons.

The vested interests and the Back bench idiot conservatives and front bench idiot labour politicians won't allow it to be put off. Not sure what Cameron and his cabinets position is though they have deferred it for 4 years.

[Poach]

The P2 Pelamis machine is rather powerful (I tried loading the data sheet of their site to get a figure but opening the pdf crashes the internet, Uni computers are quite at dealing with pdf's for reasons I do not know) and I believe 3 50MW sites are being developed in Scotland at the moment.

The cost per unit is far greater than the cost per turbine, it is true, but I believe in terms of kWh they're just as good if not better than a collection of wind turbines. Scotland has numerous sites that have been identified as choice, though they are in the far north where the land is most exposed to the clashing of the North Sea with the Atlantic. I don't know if England will have many sites that are as suitable as that, and as such wind power is probably the way forward for the South, unless we can develop the Scottish sites to the point that we can simply import energy from those sites into England.

No doubt the gigantic wind farms that we already have far outproduce these early tidal sites, but we should exploit such sites to their fullest potential.

[Rolling Thunder]

Hell, we could keep the nuclear option, just keep them on land-based silo's rather than the infinitely more expensive submersible platforms.

[Thorn777]

I agree, big-money tax-evasion and other white-collar crime should be treated as a matter of national-security.

[Denny Crane!]

I agree, big-money tax-evasion and other white-collar crime should be treated as a matter of national-security.

Um...yeah.