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 (http://images.google.com/images?q=spork&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off), 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: BeakerQuote 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial_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.
If you mothball them you still have the issue of high security storage.
Nukes are only a deterrent so long as you are able to use them. Mothballing them means your effectively taking out Britains nuclear capability.
Serious you keep saying threat, but its not a threat if you never intend to use them.
While its sound thinking to reduce the number of nukes in the world, I think itd be a mistake to completely remove our ability to wage war beyond conventional means.
QuoteSubs 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.
Excluding the WE177 which doesnt really have a high enough yield to count as a deterrent we have no aircraft in our arsenal capable of carrying nuclear stand off missiles. The last capable aircraft was the Vulcan which was retired March 1984. And if you do a little bit of research about Blue Steel and find out how costly, time consuming, and downright hazardous to use youll realise it is far more expensive than maintaining the four Vanguard submarines.
Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent if you can only use them one at a time. Any nation can buy a nuclear warhead, strap it onto a cruise missile and fire it at someone. To equal a succesful strike from four submarines ( 48 warheads each ) using air power and assuming 50% attrition (which is probably being very generous) as they are infinitely more vulnerable youd need 384 aircraft at the bare minimum. We dont have that many in our entire arsenal at the moment, again it would be far more expensive than maintaining the four Vanguard submarines/Trident D5 combo.
Quote from: Daveyes 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.
So why would a rogue state bother? Hand a nuke to some terrorists, let them set it off and refuse all knowledge of it. Why would a terrorist organisation or rogue state use its single bomb against us when they have the US as a target?
Chinas air force is mostly using old planes.
Quote from: M3ta7h3adIf you mothball them you still have the issue of high security storage.
You need to guard the docks they are based at anyway.
QuoteNukes are only a deterrent so long as you are able to use them. Mothballing them means your effectively taking out Britains nuclear capability.
Serious you keep saying threat, but its not a threat if you never intend to use them.
Fifty years and we havent used one in actual warfare? Something a bit suspicious there.
QuoteWhile its sound thinking to reduce the number of nukes in the world, I think itd be a mistake to completely remove our ability to wage war beyond conventional means.
I didnt suggest that.
Quote from: Chris HExcluding the WE177 which doesnt really have a high enough yield to count as a deterrent we have no aircraft in our arsenal capable of carrying nuclear stand off missiles. The last capable aircraft was the Vulcan which was retired March 1984. And if you do a little bit of research about Blue Steel and find out how costly, time consuming, and downright hazardous to use youll realise it is far more expensive than maintaining the four Vanguard submarines.
Two hundred kilotons is enough for something twenty times the Hiroshima blast. Blue Steel used outdated technology, its easy enough to source cruise missiles.
QuoteNuclear weapons are not a deterrent if you can only use them one at a time. Any nation can buy a nuclear warhead, strap it onto a cruise missile and fire it at someone. To equal a succesful strike from four submarines ( 48 warheads each ) using air power and assuming 50% attrition (which is probably being very generous) as they are infinitely more vulnerable youd need 384 aircraft at the bare minimum. We dont have that many in our entire arsenal at the moment, again it would be far more expensive than maintaining the four Vanguard submarines/Trident D5 combo.
WE HAVE NEVER USED A NUKE IN A WAR YET! So one or four hundred, it will not make any difference. The only reason we have got them was in case the Soviets invaded Europe and America tried to duck out of the situation. We could fire ours at Russia meaning they would have to fire theirs at us and the US and the Americans would have to reciprocate. TBH if you did use the lot then the radioactivity will be coming back to you anyway.
Basically you are all scaremongering things that are extremely unlikely to happen.
If you use cruise missiles the attrition rate of your planes drops remarkably BTW.
however Cruise missles can and have been shot down. ICBMs are all but impossible to defend yourself from. Both the British and Americans have solutions to Cruise, in both traditional Kinetic Energy forms as with Phalnax and its newer variants, and with missiles.
Nukes are there as the final thing you do when all other things have failed. Lets say we completely got rid of nukes. We leave ourselves somewhat more open to people with them. Just because we get rid of them wont stop other countries from developing them. While you may not think this is a good reason, its probably the best reason to keep them. We dont know what other contries are doing, not completely. If we did then we could stop everyone from getting nukes, as we cant we _must_ keep a viable deterrent that makes other potential enemies on their toes. The UK have no method of delivering nukes other than Nimrod, and that was de-nuked in the 1980s when the RAF stopped equipping their active patrol aircraft with nuclear depth charges. It could probably be re-equipped, but it would still be far too vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. Oh, and the UK decomed all of its air-delivered nuclear bombs in the late 90s if my memory serves. SO air-delivery of nuclear weapons isnt an option anyway, unless you think funding their development again would be a good idea. Oh, and well also have to develop a plane to carry them, or buy 2nd Hand B52s.
The SSBN fleet can be sent anywhere in the world, including under the polar ice-cap, and test launches from under the ice have proven to be viable provided the ice isnt too thick. We have out independant subs, to be commanded by Her Majestys Government to back up our foriegn policy. The primary purpose of a military is to back up a countrys presence abroad, defence of the realm is secondary.
If you want to find some way for the government to save lots of money, then cut benefit payments to the unemployed scumbags who havent worked for over 3 years, and havent got a reason other than they just dont want to work.
Quote from: SeriousSo why would a rogue state bother? Hand a nuke to some terrorists, let them set it off and refuse all knowledge of it. Why would a terrorist organisation or rogue state use its single bomb against us when they have the US as a target?
There are still rogue states out there developing nukes - it would be sensible for us to maintain a deterrent - If we are to maintain a deterrent then the best available way of doing this is via submarines
your proposition of scrapping the subs and letting the RAF maintain a deterrent and your reasoning for it just displays a large amount of ignorance on your part
Quote from: BeakerThe UK have no method of delivering nukes other than Nimrod, and that was de-nuked in the 1980s when the RAF stopped equipping their active patrol aircraft with nuclear depth charges. It could probably be re-equipped, but it would still be far too vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. Oh, and the UK decomed all of its air-delivered nuclear bombs in the late 90s if my memory serves. SO air-delivery of nuclear weapons isnt an option anyway, unless you think funding their development again would be a good idea. Oh, and well also have to develop a plane to carry them, or buy 2nd Hand B52s.
Virtually every jet aircraft we have, including the Navys Harriers, are capable of carrying at least one variant of the WE.177, including the Tornado. The last C variants were supposedly dismantled in 1998, due to the end of the cold war, but that does not prevent them being reassembled again.
Quote from: DaveQuote from: SeriousSo why would a rogue state bother? Hand a nuke to some terrorists, let them set it off and refuse all knowledge of it. Why would a terrorist organisation or rogue state use its single bomb against us when they have the US as a target?
There are still rogue states out there developing nukes - it would be sensible for us to maintain a deterrent - If we are to maintain a deterrent then the best available way of doing this is via submarines
your proposition of scrapping the subs and letting the RAF maintain a deterrent and your reasoning for it just displays a large amount of ignorance on your part
You mean unlike the rogue states, like the US, that already have nukes?
Please point me to the post where I said scrap the submarines, I obviously missed that one. I said mothball them, which is totally different, they should still be available for use within a few weeks of problems at most.
Get rid. Complete waste of money. I think a nuclear deterrent is required - and for that we have the USA and France. We sit in the middle and can ask either for help so lets not waste billions upon billions on weapons while we could instead spend the money on curing Aids or Cancer.
Quote from: SeriousVirtually every jet aircraft we have, including the Navys Harriers, are capable of carrying at least one variant of the WE.177, including the Tornado. The last C variants were supposedly dismantled in 1998, due to the end of the cold war, but that does not prevent them being reassembled again.
However none of them are viable delivery systems. They are either too slow, or too short range. PLus re-starting aw weapons development program from scratch would be more expensive than building replacements from Vanguard. The actual production line for the air-delivered bombs was shut down in the late 80s, not mothballed but actually shut down. They used to assemble the bomb cases at RO Euxton (Now BAe Chorley), and the plant that they where made in is now covered in some Yuppie housing called an "iPAD". Almost all the rest of RO Euxton is also housing now, and the majority of people who do stil work at BAe Chorley are part of "Land System" division with some MBDA workers who haven;t been moved over to Lostock.
So build the factory, build the machinery, employ and train the workers, then build the 1st bombs from the production line. Meanwhile they need to produce a long-range bomber to make sure we can deliver the package to targets far enough away to make all the other expense viable. Look how much it cost to produce a light Fighter/Bomber with EFA, and then consider how much itll cost to produce a new airframe for a long distance stratopheric bomber. The Vulcans where out of date in 1982 when the bombed Port Stanley, and everyone knew it was the only combat sorte they would ever make.
AWE cardiff used to develop the detonators for the air delivered bombs I believe. That too has been demolished and is now housing.
Quote from: SeriousPlease point me to the post where I said scrap the submarines, I obviously missed that one. I said mothball them, which is totally different, they should still be available for use within a few weeks of problems at most.
you really are deluded
firstly where are you going to magically find a crew from for these mothballed nuclear submarines?
secondly - how the **** do you expect to mothball, what is basically a big nuclear reactor and be able to have it up an running again in a few weeks - it isnt quite the same as putting a few tanks and fast jets into storage now is it :roll:
even if you could it would be pretty stupid as the deterrent isnt there - having the capacity to make a deterrent isnt much of a deterrent - basically what youre advocating would involve putting into action the subs upon the first signs of hostilities which in strategic terms would just serve as an escalation measure which doesnt benefit anyone.
It takes a long time to MOT, tax & ins. a mothballed ship. Plus the security & h&s goes way above a normal naval dock.
You gotta plan for worst case scenario, no ones got a crystal ball, certainly not a rose-tinted one. Cant rely on the U.S or France, the U.S would hit the wrong country and France would just hide somewhere.
on a semi-related side-note, interesting read; http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html
Quote from: DaveQuote from: SeriousPlease point me to the post where I said scrap the submarines, I obviously missed that one. I said mothball them, which is totally different, they should still be available for use within a few weeks of problems at most.
you really are deluded
firstly where are you going to magically find a crew from for these mothballed nuclear submarines?
secondly - how the **** do you expect to mothball, what is basically a big nuclear reactor and be able to have it up an running again in a few weeks - it isnt quite the same as putting a few tanks and fast jets into storage now is it :roll:
even if you could it would be pretty stupid as the deterrent isnt there - having the capacity to make a deterrent isnt much of a deterrent - basically what youre advocating would involve putting into action the subs upon the first signs of hostilities which in strategic terms would just serve as an escalation measure which doesnt benefit anyone.
Thankfully Im nowhere near as deluded as you. The politicians are *never* going to use them, so we might as well not bother. They are a huge and very expensive penile extension for those in power.
Quote from: SeriousThankfully Im nowhere near as deluded as you. The politicians are *never* going to use them, so we might as well not bother. They are a huge and very expensive penile extension for those in power.
I was posting in response to your assertion that wed be somehow better off with a few nuke armed planes - so stop being a muppet
- Ive got no issues with people who dont want a nuclear deterrent at all - it is a perfectly valid and to some extent justifiable POV - If I had an issue with it Id have been quoting max and sams posts (Im only in favour of retaining the deterrent for the next few decades and then reassessing it later with a view to getting rid of nukes btw.. so my views are sympathetic towards disarmament too - despite my deliberately flippant comment about CND)
- I was however taking issues with your proposals on alternatives to subs and your arguments for them which were, as Ive already pointed out, deluded.
Im not saying get rid of them because there might be that one in a billion chance in the future that we need them.
I am not saying update them because we dont need more firepower than we have now.
The issue is, if we dont use them, what is the point of having them cruising around doing naff all? The money might as well be spent on something else, such as front line troops or even the TA. We dont have enough squaddies to fill our present positions. If something else was to happen the UK would be in real trouble.
Unless you fancy another tax hike?
just bulldoze the third world and employ everyone as farmers with irrigation systems fueled by a nuclear reactor.
or
fuel air bomb the entire place and turn it into a solar farm.
problem solved.
QuoteWE HAVE NEVER USED A NUKE IN A WAR YET! So one or four hundred, it will not make any difference. The only reason we have got them was in case the Soviets invaded Europe and America tried to duck out of the situation. We could fire ours at Russia meaning they would have to fire theirs at us and the US and the Americans would have to reciprocate. TBH if you did use the lot then the radioactivity will be coming back to you anyway.
Basically you are all scaremongering things that are extremely unlikely to happen.
Actually serious if you even bothered to read what Id initially posted in this thread Im in favour of getting rid of them, they are a tremendous waste of money which would be better spent in other places, I firmly believe that the wasted on Vanguard from the defence budget can be spent on more important things for the armed forces. I was just questioning your rather ill-informed google-intellect.
To sum up: the word "deterrent" has become de rigeur when describing nukes. When we drop this artificial meme and look at the reality of everything--this is completely without merit. They dont deter a thing--the "safety" which they give us is purely illusional--and a quite old, ratty and tatty set of smoke and mirrors at that. Its not 1960 anymore. Its not about two huge empires facing off. An ICBM isnt the weapon you need to disarm a religious fanatic with a razor blade. Its pointless firepower and far more a liability than anything else.
When I went to grade school in the 70s, we were the last of a couple of generations of kids to do nuke drills, to "duck and cover" in the hall, and to watch a film narrated by a cartoon turtle showing us how to survive a nuclear blast. Even as young kids, and despite the cartoons, we were horrified by this ominous threat, and I remember the ice in my stomach every time we hear the siren and did one of the drills.
The mere existence of nukes of any sort is a crime against humanity. Bin them. Fight wars if you must, but do it on a scale thats not that of God himself.
Quote from: Dave(Im only in favour of retaining the deterrent for the next few decades and then reassessing it later with a view to getting rid of nukes btw..
But by then youve spent the money. I just think its a huge waste of money, and you know what, it might give us a little bit of the moral high ground when preaching to Iran.
Quote from: maximusotterWhen I went to grade school in the 70s, we were the last of a couple of generations of kids to do nuke drills, to "duck and cover" in the hall, and to watch a film narrated by a cartoon turtle showing us how to survive a nuclear blast. Even as young kids, and despite the cartoons, we were horrified by this ominous threat, and I remember the ice in my stomach every time we hear the siren and did one of the drills.
I watched similar films in the UK, and the general consensus was what bloody good will that do? Well all be dead anyway.
You cannot win a nuclear war, the best you can do is postpone it indefinitely. In that nukes work, both sides are too terrified to use them in large numbers, and because of the possibility of escalation they havent been willing to use them in any number.
Nukes are terror weapons, they terrorise people with them just being there, they dont have to do anything.
Quote from: Chris HQuoteWE HAVE NEVER USED A NUKE IN A WAR YET! So one or four hundred, it will not make any difference. The only reason we have got them was in case the Soviets invaded Europe and America tried to duck out of the situation. We could fire ours at Russia meaning they would have to fire theirs at us and the US and the Americans would have to reciprocate. TBH if you did use the lot then the radioactivity will be coming back to you anyway.
Basically you are all scaremongering things that are extremely unlikely to happen.
Actually serious if you even bothered to read what Id initially posted in this thread Im in favour of getting rid of them, they are a tremendous waste of money which would be better spent in other places, I firmly believe that the wasted on Vanguard from the defence budget can be spent on more important things for the armed forces. I was just questioning your rather ill-informed google-intellect.
I was answering the specifics of the post and nothing else ;)
Id gladly pay more income tax if the extra money went straight into the MOD
Of course we should have nukes.
All the Nations with Nuts in Charge seem to have them.. USA, China, Korea, Pakistan, India,etc.
so why not us?
I was going to add my 2p to this, but since recieving a job offer from a missile company I should probably keep it to myself :shock:
Quote from: EggtasticoOf course we should have nukes.
All the Nations with Nuts in Charge seem to have them.. USA, China, Korea, Pakistan, India,etc.
so why not us?
Missed out Russia BTW ;)
Becoming paranoid again by the look of things.
Quote from: funkychicken9000I was going to add my 2p to this, but since recieving a job offer from a missile company I should probably keep it to myself :shock:
ehehehe
MBDA are supported by the idiots where I used to work, be prepared to get very very annoyed at the pure muppetry and stupidity. :lol: