With labour looking to rid us of our nuclear weapons and Conservatives trying to ensure we keep them who do you think is right?
Labour is saying that we wouldnt need them in 2020 as things will change but who knows what the future holds.
I am totally for keeping nuclear weapons and hope to god we keep them to defend our nation. I think enough has already been shaven off our armed forces enough. If they want to make cuts then bring back national service to help.
Nukes are a joke. No western nation that has them would ever use them, but if they got rid of them would feel vulnerable anyway.
Perhaps they are a deterrent, but theyre not a weapons system thats gonna actually be used.
Just scrap them and tell Korea and Iran that you still got them, and theyre studlier and with extra pleasure ridges now.
Nuclear submanrines are very expensive to run and the money could be spent elsewhere. The present submarines could easily be refurbished if they were needed beyond that date.
Better to have them and not need them than to not have them and need them.
Nuclear weapons these days are not for a pre-emptive strike, they are basically "If we are gonna die, we will take you with us" to stop other people from just nuking us as they know they cant win without massive casualties themselves.
We are no longer a prime target for any nuclear capable nation as most of those that have them or are building them are either our neighbours/friends or are not interested us and they are there for a reason (ie pakistan/india)
We are much more vunerable to terrorists than a nation firing missles upon us. And you cannot retaliate with a nuclear strike against a terrorist organisation as you can against a nation.
My vote is against nuclear weapons.
As long as other countries have them I think we should keep them as id hate to be caught with our pants down.
Quote from: DaveBetter to have them and not need them than to not have them and need them.
At best they are a deterrent and, TBH, they arent a very good one. Nobody is interested in invading the UK anyway. It could be better spent on other things, even the TA... :P
Thatcher came close to using one in the falklands conflict. There could well be a future use against Iran - simply the threat of its use is a massive advantage - ti isnt just a deterrant & given the other countries developing them it is naive to think that they dont have a use any more. Thier use isnt limited to the cold war detterant/mutually assured destruction anymore - we are not in the cold war & russia isnt really trying to kill us anymore.
Quote from: SeriousAt best they are a deterrent and, TBH, they arent a very good one. Nobody is interested in invading the UK anyway. It could be better spent on other things, even the TA... :P
And look at the mess they got themselves into when they cut back on the TA... they have made some pretty silly mistakes & getting rid of nukes would be bloody stupid - we are better off scrapping this whole Joint strike fighter crap with the yanks & cutting back on the eurofighter.
think how much moneys been spent on them over the years... the development, the bunkers, the upkeep etc... what a waste to scrap em, might as well use em up and get our monies worth :-o
ok, so people would get pissed at us for using them against there firneds etc.... but lets face it, no one likes the french anyway :wink:
Quote from: DaveQuote from: SeriousAt best they are a deterrent and, TBH, they arent a very good one. Nobody is interested in invading the UK anyway. It could be better spent on other things, even the TA... :P
And look at the mess they got themselves into when they cut back on the TA... they have made some pretty silly mistakes & getting rid of nukes would be bloody stupid - we are better off scrapping this whole Joint strike fighter crap with the yanks & cutting back on the eurofighter.
We would still have the present submarines, they should be easy enough to update. Generally military equipment is continually getting more expensive which might not be the best option.
We need more well trained soldiers, dispite the tongue the TA are as good as any.
Quote from: Alan1but lets face it, no one likes the french anyway :wink:
Hmm, make Paris glow :twisted:
QuoteBritain must replace its nuclear deterrent, the Conservative Party says.
Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said the UK must maintain its four Trident missile submarines "for as long as possible" before replacing them.
Dr Fox told the BBC a new deterrent was needed because it was the best way to ensure no other country launches a nuclear strike.
His comments came days after MPs began an inquiry into Trident, which is expected to be obsolete by 2020.
"We have to replace [Trident] because there are states in the world still trying to get nuclear weapons," said Dr Fox.
"The best guarantee of them not being used is for Britain to have an independent deterrent."
The House of Commons defence committee is taking evidence from a range of experts about the type of threat the UK might face in 20 years time.
The cost of replacing the UKs four submarines armed with Trident missiles could reach Ã,£20bn, according to some estimates.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4822758.stm
So someone sails into London with a bomb hidden on a ship and sets it off, who ya gonna blame? who gets the reprisal?
Personally im for more weapons testing.
A tactical nuclear weapon need not bring death to a 300mile radius :D
A tactical nuclear weapon could be developed to co-exist with existing technologies. Imagine a rather powerful grenade? Useful for battling against cave dwelling terrorists (afganistan), either they get killed, irradiated, or suffocate to death when the mouth of the cave collapses. No need to risk our boys lives in dingy caves.
Smaller bunker buster bombs. Can penetrate reinforced bunkers, and have a smaller payload yet equally powerful, Allowing more weight to be put into penetration mechanisms (more effective at busting bunkers).
The future isnt trident, nor cruise missiles. The future is smaller bombs, higher or the same rating of power, being more effective at what they do. Why use cluster bombs to clear airfields, use a small nuke to destroy the tarmac. Granted they will irradiate a large area and dust can be carried on the wind... but used sensibly they are as useful as the more usual payloads.
Re-open weapons testing on limited sized nuclear weapons. (No more super H bomb bollocks, lets actually think of a legitimate use for these weapons.)
There isnt a legitimate use for these weapons and theres a minimum size that can be used. Unless you were trying for th satyrical method? :mrgreen:
Nukes.. a defence? how so? they are all about retaliation or attack
*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).
Quote from: SeriousThere isnt a legitimate use for these weapons and theres a minimum size that can be used. Unless you were trying for th satyrical method? :mrgreen:
Theres a legitimate use in as much as theres a legitimate use for a claymore mine.
As for "minimum size" bollocks... I would think with todays technology and knowledge the boffins at DERA or other MOD branches would be able to come up with a few ways of making the "impossible... possible".
Why use a 10,000lb bunker buster bomb when a 3,000lb nuclear bunker buster could provide as much destructive power, as well as possibly being better at the job, and meaning an aircraft can carry more munitions.
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.
Quote from: maximusotterOne 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.
Agreed in their current format they are terror based weapons.
However I believe they should live up to the name of a "tactical nuclear weapon" and actually be deployable on the battlefield.
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
Quote from: Binary ShadowNukes.. a defence? how so? they are all about retaliation or attack
Its the threat that you will use them, Mutually Assured Distruction that made them a defense. Of course if someone calls your bluff you have to be do so and theres going to be several big holes to fill...
Quote from: Beaker*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.
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.
Quote from: M3ta7h3adQuote from: SeriousThere isnt a legitimate use for these weapons and theres a minimum size that can be used. Unless you were trying for th satyrical method? :mrgreen:
Theres a legitimate use in as much as theres a legitimate use for a claymore mine.
As for "minimum size" bollocks... I would think with todays technology and knowledge the boffins at DERA or other MOD branches would be able to come up with a few ways of making the "impossible... possible".
Why use a 10,000lb bunker buster bomb when a 3,000lb nuclear bunker buster could provide as much destructive power, as well as possibly being better at the job, and meaning an aircraft can carry more munitions.
Its still going to put out a load of radioactive dust into the local and global environment. Smaller nuclear bombs tend to be less efficient.
In modern warfare the amount of munitions doesnt really matter its the kind of munitions. For really heavy bombs they have tended away from the old daisycutters to penetration bombs and fuel air explosives which are far more effective than the older devices. As they still have huge stocks of older munitions from the cold war they arent going to waste them so a lot got delivered to Iraq during the gulf wars.
Quote from: redARE 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.
Quote from: M3ta7h3adJeez louise! Anyone would think if you saw a rifle/gun youd crap yourself.
saying that to a guy with an raf marksmanship lol.
twas in the cadet 100 with the atc.
arf
lol then I would have expected more from you to be honest :)
Quote from: M3ta7h3adlol 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.
tbh mate i dont like unnessacary violence.
Quote from: redQuote from: M3ta7h3adlol 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)
Quotetbh mate i dont like unnessacary violence.
Now that there.. is a decent reason to be against it :) Fair cop mate, cant argue with that.
yes
Quote from: SeriousNot 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.
Quote from: SweensterThe 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.
M3ta7h3ad Small nukes arent clean and if you use them at ground level you are still going to get a lot of radioactive contamination.You might start off with small ones but the risk of escalation from countries with them would make them unuseable in any situations where the enimy has a nuclear capability.
That leaves those countries that dont and basically as soon as you used or threaten to use one there every other nuke free country is going to make damn certain that getting them their number one priority.
Overall what you are going to do is encourage nuclear proliferation and what do you do when everyone has got them?
They have had battlefield nukes small enough to fit into a shell for a long time but they decided they were counterproductive.
nuclear proliferation for all :)
Nah I just dont see the point in having a deterrent if your not going to use it once in a while. Better to invest money in developing weapons that utilise the current tech whilst minimising collateral damage, and after effects.
The whole point is nobody wants to use nukes at all, for a democratically elected leader it would be next to political suicide. For a dictator everyone else would dump on them in self defense.
Nukes were the only reason that the cold war was so stable and why America and Russia never went head to head against each other. Its also why the Indian and Pakistani governments have suddenly stopped their usual sabre rattling at each other and have developed rather more mutual respect than previous. Neither side wants to risk a border skirmish turning into nuclear war, its bad for business, profits and tax collecting.