Couldn't the evildoer in the other room simply shoot/step on it as soon as it flew through the door?

I don't wish to be picky but did you have too many beers last night Lewis?

The sentences "but not yet that there will be any planes to fly off them." and "if the other partner nations could be got to agree" make my head hurt.

The idea of a recce grenade or shell isn't new. Royal Ordnance did a technology demonstrator (with PV capital) about 15 years ago.

a bouncing grenade that will bounce of walls with a rotary timer. them scots will just end up with a haggis on a slingshot

Having served for many years in the Military, there has always been cutbacks. The current financial situation demands even more.

Basically if the Country cannot afford to equip us with the best and safest equipment then they should seriously consider withdrawing us back in to a home defence role.

Any job losses in defence suppliers can be soaked up by enlisting them in the services and then using their skills at a far cheaper rate LOL.

Could always scrap the replacement to trident?

Next to noone in Scotland want's it and the English don't want it in their back yard either.

It would save a few billion every year.

Cue flame on job cuts lack of nuclear detterent etc etc etc.

Nuclear weapons are pointless. By the time you start using them you've already lost whatever war you're involved in and as a rule terrorists don't give a fuck if you kill them. So not much of a deterrent there, even if you could figure out a reason for firing them aimlessly into Afghanistan.

The biggest fantasy, tactical nuclear weapons, would actually start the end of the world.

"Oh so you think you can turn this war around by nuking our tanks and infantry do you? Take that you motherless sons of capitalism, a few gigatons of nuclear waste in your own backyard in return for deep frying our army."

As for Korea, they'll probably end up nuking themselves given the success (or lack of) of their current missile projects.

Nope, can't think of a single reason to have nuclear weapons, except maybe to teach George Bush how to stop saying nuculer.

Shouting Bang was good enough for Spike Milligan in 1940 and there was a war on, so it should be good enough for the British forces today.

I'm sure the Taliban and Al Quaeda would get into the spirit of things and point sticks at our guys... or maybe not.

As an alternative, Afghanistan is full of stones perhaps we can retrain the army to use slings, Alexander the Great used Balearic slingers as his artillery and they could sling a 6 or 7 ounce stone up to 300 yds. Substitute stones for grenades occasionally just to keep them guessing.

Fuck the forces day...with 364 reruns per year...

I disagree that nukes have no purpose. I believe in their use usefulness as a deterrent. For example, I really don't believe that Iran or North Korea getting the bomb as such a big deal.

If Iran nukes Tel Aviv, Iran is a glass parking-lot with 12 hours. And Iran know it.

If North Korea's nukes Seoul, they're damned stupid 'cos they've just contaminated their own soil, since Seoul is so close to their own border. AND they're a glass parking-lot by the end of the day. And they know it.

But of course, this only works if The Big Boys have enough nukes (and sophisticated delivery systems) to make this a credible threat. I'm afraid I must disagree with your "you've already lost the war" argument - These stocks of nukes are there to *prevent* wars. They're only useful if they're never used. This is an irony, but not an insanity.

But do I agree that they're (mostly) useless against terrorists. But don't buy the propaganda: Terrorists are not the only military threat left in the world. And while nukes are impossible to use *directly* against terrorists, they are still useful in deterring any nation stupid enough to consider giving nukes to terrorists. "Plausible deniability" only gets you so far after you've really, REALLY pissed off the USA or Russia.

And I also agree (without any reservation this time) that tactical nukes are only useful to tent the pants of generals. Because of the deterrent of "strategic" nukes, "tactical" nukes are the dumbest idea since the chocolate teapot.

Of course, all this is a totally different argument, only peripherally useful to deciding whether or not Britain in particular needs to be spending mega-bucks on new nukes while her entire military budget is such a shambles as to make Zimbabwean agriculture look like a model of efficiency and productivity.

This is something I've never really understood - why can't the MOD just agree a price per rifle/ship/fighter, then refuse to pay any more?

Or even (and this would be in the "too awesome to ever happen" category) charge the boards of the defence firms with treason if they don't deliver on time for the agreed prices.

Cutting the one legitimate government agency’s budget will pissing away piles of money on right steeling nanny state agencies. Makes sense to me. Its not like Russia is invading its neighbors and a crap load of suicidal wackos want to destroy western civilization.

Perhaps it's time for the MOD to become a bank...