*sigh*

IIRC it was a Labour Government in the 1960s that said we didnt need carriers because the US would be able to provide them.  As such we got "Through Deck Cruisers" instead.  

They where proved wrong in 1982 when we went to war to protect some of our few remaining assets in the world.

We _need_ to keep a military force to both protect our shores, and to press our foriegn concerns as parliment feels appropriate.  While they could easily and without problem reduce the Trident fleet, they shouldnt get rid of it completely.  Instead they should spend the cash on the surface fleet (no dount some Hippy will now say they should spend it on something non-military).  

One could make the argument that theyre terrorist weapons and should be banned as theyre specifically designed to obliterate cities and civilian life, bringing a society to its knees.

Did we need to bomb Japan to end WWII? Nope. But the argument as to whether it shortened the war is strong--and as to the claim it saved lived, well thats pretty hard to prove.

ARE YOU ON CRACK OR WHAT?

threatening to use nuclear weapons is a STUPID way of trying to get something from the world. let alone using a tactical nuclear warhead DESIGNED to mass murder.


i advocate keeping it as a deterrent by using it as you suggested tbh you need a reality check.

if used you can kiss goodbye to f***ing EVERYTYHING you have ever known.

good night life on this dreery rock tbfh

ARE YOU ON CRACK OR WHAT?

threatening to use nuclear weapons is a STUPID way of trying to get something from the world. let alone using a tactical nuclear warhead DESIGNED to mass murder.


i advocate keeping it as a deterrent by using it as you suggested tbh you need a reality check.

if used you can kiss goodbye to f***ing EVERYTYHING you have ever known.

good night life on this dreery rock tbfh

Jeez louise! Anyone would think if you saw a rifle/gun youd crap yourself.

A nuke is a nuke... yeah sure massive megaton explosions = mass murder/death/civilian casualties.

Used correctly and modified/developed to minimise collateral damage I believe they could be an effective form of offensive weapon.

Serious, nuclear weapons can be modified to dispense most of their energy in the form of thermal radiation, as opposed to x-ray. Just as they can be modified to emit more x-rays than infra-red.

I would like to see what youve googled up to find out that nuclear fission/fusion becomes inefficient using smaller sizes of material when in comparison to traditional munitions.

The idea behind my suggestions would be for them to augment current munitions, not replace. At the moment the mere mention of their name conjours up images of burnt japanese cities or babies with 9 legs and 3 eyes.

Just as the average person overreacts to seeing a gun/rifle, everyone seems to overreact when it comes to nuclear weapons. Yes they are weapons of terror, they terrify me, however I would be happy if it was deemed legal to actually research into weapons, test them, and produce more sane weapons, such as nuclear penetration bombs, and a replacement for cluster bombs.

Due to the higher risk of radiation, these weapons would obviously have to be decided upon after deliberation but it would actually offer someone more options than a.) risking another bunch of men, or b.) carpet bombing an area with little bomblets that tend not to blow up, and kill little kiddies later on.

Environmental effects? You dont think the concussion effect, followed by the vacuum strong enough to pull your lungs outside of your body, and the lovely shockwave that follows destroying everything in its path that comes with fuelair bombs (aka daisy cutters) is environmentally friendly?!

yeah sure.. im sure that the now deaf, dead, bunny wabbits are thinking the same. Bombs are designed to kill, they definately arent environmentally friendly, and pretty much anything inside of the immediate range of any type of one, is doomed anyway. Residual radiation effects can be minimised, and evaluated prior to use of a nuclear device.

Whats the point in a deterrent against something thats never going to happen because everyones seen too many action movies. How about we give a point to our countries nuclear weapons programme.

lol then I would have expected more from you to be honest

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

lol then I would have expected more from you to be honest

how so using any form of nuclear device is stupid. politically its a complete waste of 60 years of politics on our behalf, if we just go, sod it. use a nuke shell to get them out of the town.

meh... using megaton weapon of death yep stupid. Spending dosh on a deterrent that isnt needed because noone is that stupid... yep stupid. Developing different formats of weapons that are of actual value on todays battlefield with the materials from decommissioned nukes. Not so stupid (imo)

tbh mate i dont like unnessacary violence.

Now that there.. is a decent reason to be against it Fair cop mate, cant argue with that.

Not quite, it was the advice of experts right up until the Faulklands that smaller was cheaper and better. Maggie bought into the idea so we ended up with them and the Hermes to fight the Argentinians.

Turned out it was a false economy and we would have been better off with bigger carriers.

Up to a point, but it was the Labour Government who vetod the manufacture of HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Duke of Edinburgh, after that the money ust wasnt there anymore to produce full-size carriers.  The Admiralty campaigned for years to at least buy one of the USAs surplus fleet if we couldnt have a shiny new one.  That was declared too expensive as well.  

Britain will _finally_ get the two full sized carriers we should have just over 40 years late, despite The Governments attempts at blocking (IIRC They where costed out and declared viable out of The RNs running budget before they took them to Whitehall to attempt to get funding for them).  

Regardless of anything else if The Army, Royal Navy or Airforce _need_ particular items of equipment they shouldnt be told "No we cant afford it".  With all the other defence cuts over the past few years we wont be in any position to defend somewhere like The Falklands ever again, and the Argentines are rattling their sabres again!

The problem with giving the forces and open budget is that you will always have someone saying you need more... just look at america who blatantly overspends on the military because they have near enough a blank cheque for them.

We just arent a big enough nation to meet the costs of being a major military power.

i wasnt talking about an open budget, i mean if The Military can justify spending money they should be allowed to spend what they need to.  

Sending an under-equipped army into combat is going to cost more lives than otherwise, same goes for The Navy and Airforce.  If they _need_ something than they should get it.  Last i checked they where professional soldiers made of people who are they voluntarily.  Not Pressed into service, or conscripted.  As such the country should equip them as best they can be.