Yes?  No?

Why?

yes for the moment it is a good idea to retain a nuclear deterrant

every islamosh*tehole in the middle east seems to want nukes - getting rid of our nuclear deterrent prematurely would be a pretty rash thing to do - if trident needs updating then so be it

+ it will seriously piss of the hippies and lesbians in CND  :mrgreen:

Spork, FTW.

While I would advocate a smaller stockpile, I think the need for it is still there.

Quote from: Daveyes for the moment it is a good idea to retain a nuclear deterrant

The whole question is are you willing to use it? If the answer is yes then I dont want you in any position to press that button...

A nuclear deterrent is only such as long as nobody is willing to use it unilaterally.

Quoteevery islamosh*tehole in the middle east seems to want nukes - getting rid of our nuclear deterrent prematurely would be a pretty rash thing to do - if trident needs updating then so be it

Updating is a different issue, do we need more, increased capability, nukes? I dont think so, we have enough as it is. Time to put Trident in mothballs and find something more worthwhile to spend the money on, we can always use air delivery if we need to.

Quote+ it will seriously piss of the hippies and lesbians in CND  :mrgreen:

Also costs a lot of money for something thats never going to be used, if you use it then its no longer a deterrent, its a huge pile of corpses, and everyone will rightly hate you for doing so.

Quote from: SeriousThe whole question is are you willing to use it? If the answer is yes then I dont want you in any position to press that button...

Eventually, when all other avenues have been tried then yes, if there was no other choice i would be willing to issue the order.  Its a final act, and maybe some people would consider it to be revenge, but nukes where only ever a final answer anyway.  

As for trident, yeah, replace it.  we still want to keep a few nukes in our arsenal, and the cheapest way to run ICBMs is to put them in Subs.  The other option is to build silos, that need constant guarding, and they make a particular area a high priority target.  Better we have our own than rely on the USA or France to come to our aid in the event.  

Its a waste of money. Plain and simple. The Brits and Americans are still capable of carpet bombing any city in the world with incendiary bombs and stealth bombers on a moments notice. If we expect other countries to not develop weapons, we should stop the hypocrisy.

For those that claim the bomb ended the war in the Pacific in 1945, I recommend you reread your history. The Japanese had already surrendered--the bombing happened because some generals had hardons and just had to try the thing out. Dwight Eisenhower had the same opinion. The world cannot survive another Hiroshima or Nagasaki, especially as the modern kit is vastly more powerful. Drop one bomb on Tehran, and you murder ten million people and throw the world into the last war of humanity.

No, because the armed forces are in dire straits financially as it is; the way things are going we wont have any left soon. Get rid of Trident and plough the money back into the forces conventional arsenal.

The Japanese had suggested they where willing to surrender before the bomb was dropped, but they wanted to attatch conditions.  The Allies had already made it clear that they where only willing to accept either a full defeat, or an unconditional surrender.  Eisenhower knew that attacking Mainland Japan would have a price in lives that America would not pay, so when they saw the nukes they decided to use them.  From what ive gathered over the years the Japanese had been making noises about surrendering for a long time, and the USA was losing thousands of men pushing them slowly back.  The Japanese government in the meantime where stalling for time, the bomb didnt end the war, but it did force the Japanese to surrender on the terms that the allies demanded.  

Ergo: it was the worst act of terrorism ever committed. You dont kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to get your way on a nitpicky surrender. Well, you dont, and retain any sort of moral high ground.

Quote from: maximusotterErgo: it was the worst act of terrorism ever committed. You dont kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to get your way on a nitpicky surrender. Well, you dont, and retain any sort of moral high ground.

I think they just wanted it over, and at the time the American people didnt have a clue about Nukes.  If they had done then the liklyhood of them being used would probably have been less, but then again Japan likely wouldnt have attacked the USA if they already had The Bomb.  

its interesting to look back at old news articles on this, the press where all for it at the time, but stuff from the late 50s and 60s switched round when the enormity of what they had done finally hit home.

Quote from: BeakerThe Japanese had suggested they where willing to surrender before the bomb was dropped, but they wanted to attatch conditions.  The Allies had already made it clear that they where only willing to accept either a full defeat, or an unconditional surrender.  Eisenhower knew that attacking Mainland Japan would have a price in lives that America would not pay, so when they saw the nukes they decided to use them.  From what ive gathered over the years the Japanese had been making noises about surrendering for a long time, and the USA was losing thousands of men pushing them slowly back.  The Japanese government in the meantime where stalling for time, the bomb didnt end the war, but it did force the Japanese to surrender on the terms that the allies demanded.  

There were still conditions attached in regard to the Emperor of Japan anyway.

Quote from: Beaker

Quote from: SeriousThe whole question is are you willing to use it? If the answer is yes then I dont want you in any position to press that button...

Eventually, when all other avenues have been tried then yes, if there was no other choice i would be willing to issue the order.  Its a final act, and maybe some people would consider it to be revenge, but nukes where only ever a final answer anyway.

At which point would you use it? If at any other than after the enemy has fired theirs, or there is no other option but defeat, then you are bonkers.

The idea of a deterrent is that they are a threat, not something that you are going to pull out when a few terrorists turn up. Who are you going to nuke if Osama pulls one out in London and sets it off?

QuoteAs for trident, yeah, replace it.  we still want to keep a few nukes in our arsenal, and the cheapest way to run ICBMs is to put them in Subs.  The other option is to build silos, that need constant guarding, and they make a particular area a high priority target.  Better we have our own than rely on the USA or France to come to our aid in the event.  

Subs need constant protecting too, and they have a big crew, repair and fuel bills. Using relatively cheap air dropped, stand off missiles would be far more economic. OK you need a couple of secure storage areas, but they are going to be airfields and should be secure anyway. There is no additional cost as you already have the planes.

If you stuff Trident into mothball then you only need to refuel and put the warheads on, if you need to.

You should all visit Hiroshimas Peace Park once in your life.

Nuclear Weapons should never, ever be deployed again in wartime.

Quote from: SeriousSubs need constant protecting too, and they have a big crew, repair and fuel bills. Using relatively cheap air dropped, stand off missiles would be far more economic. OK you need a couple of secure storage areas, but they are going to be airfields and should be secure anyway. There is no additional cost as you already have the planes.

If you stuff Trident into mothball then you only need to refuel and put the warheads on, if you need to.

yes but nukes are supposed to be a deterrent

hardly as effective if they are just kept in storage so they could be attached to a plane if needed

the whole point of using subs is that they can be anywhere in the world & no one knows


so basically some rogue state knows that if they launch a nuke at us we can launch one back at them ASAP - thus the deterrent works

if you want to bomb someone with a nuke form a plane youre not going to be able to do it particularly quickly - it wouldnt be an immediate response it would be more of a planned retaliation and youd have to get permission from another country to use their runways + other countries to use their airspace etc..etc.. + the plane could easily get shot down

I wouldnt fancy sending a handful of tornadoes into china while theyve got the biggest airforce in the world.