UK Future Deterrrent.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 4Foxtrot
Are the days gone when merely being a nuclear power gave you a seat at the table?
Originally Posted by Tourist
.... though an Astute launched nuc has its advantages.
I would suggest we still need to keep ICBM nucs.
Unfortunately, having cruise missile nucs and ICBMs would be proliferation, wouldn't it?
I'm all in favour of another set of SSBN. Pity we can't do without the Yanks for the missiles. Could we not partner with EADS?
Last edited by Dollond; 14th Mar 2006 at 22:16.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...or with EDS?
I'm not sure I really buy that. For one thing who really knows what temperature the cold war rose to? I heard the Americans flew past their turnaround point during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is that tepid?
In any event what happens when you're dealing with a nation of suicide bombers? If they think there's an afterlife full of virgins, they have no vested interest in the Earth still being sperical
And a good point was raised earlier. If MAD was so good, then give Nukes to everyone in the ME. It really doesn't matter if they launch them because if Star Wars is as good as we're told, they'll all get lasered out of the sky anyway.
The fear Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has help prevent further world conflict, which is why the cold war never really got any more than tepid.
In any event what happens when you're dealing with a nation of suicide bombers? If they think there's an afterlife full of virgins, they have no vested interest in the Earth still being sperical
And a good point was raised earlier. If MAD was so good, then give Nukes to everyone in the ME. It really doesn't matter if they launch them because if Star Wars is as good as we're told, they'll all get lasered out of the sky anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g126,
"Let's look at it like this. UK loses its deterrent. Iran creates its own. Iran improves it to a standard where they can strike the UK. Who now holds all the cards? Iran: you have one week to leave all Muslim countries, UK, or we nuke you. What choice do we have then? Iran (or whoever) would then hold more political and physical might than the UK."
What do we do differently if we have a nuclear capability?
Do you think any politician in a western democracy will launch first?
So lets say the Iranians do launch, deterrent has failed at this point since it has not deterred. What does the UK do then? Retaliate? Why?
I am not being facetious with this discussion. I am genuinely trying to understand your thinking.
To give you some background on myself, I did my masters thesis on the politics of nuclear warfare.
Cheers
BHR
"Let's look at it like this. UK loses its deterrent. Iran creates its own. Iran improves it to a standard where they can strike the UK. Who now holds all the cards? Iran: you have one week to leave all Muslim countries, UK, or we nuke you. What choice do we have then? Iran (or whoever) would then hold more political and physical might than the UK."
What do we do differently if we have a nuclear capability?
Do you think any politician in a western democracy will launch first?
So lets say the Iranians do launch, deterrent has failed at this point since it has not deterred. What does the UK do then? Retaliate? Why?
I am not being facetious with this discussion. I am genuinely trying to understand your thinking.
To give you some background on myself, I did my masters thesis on the politics of nuclear warfare.
Cheers
BHR
Suspicion breeds confidence
BHR,
I for one am quite happy knowing that if I go up in a puff of smoke, I know that the offending nation and its entire population is toast. I sleep very easily with that concept.
I for one am quite happy knowing that if I go up in a puff of smoke, I know that the offending nation and its entire population is toast. I sleep very easily with that concept.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onan the Clumsy
Rubbishes the rest of your argument!
Navaleye Amen to that!
BHR What conclusions did you come to?
NC43
Originally Posted by Onan the Clumsy
...or with EDS?
I heard the Americans flew past their turnaround point during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is that tepid?
.
I heard the Americans flew past their turnaround point during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is that tepid?
.
Navaleye Amen to that!
BHR What conclusions did you come to?
NC43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BillHicksRules
g126,
So lets say the Iranians do launch, deterrent has failed at this point since it has not deterred. What does the UK do then? Retaliate? Why?
BHR
So lets say the Iranians do launch, deterrent has failed at this point since it has not deterred. What does the UK do then? Retaliate? Why?
BHR
BTW, my background included 4 yrs babysitting some MMIIIs under North Dakota. However, with continued medication and therapy, I'm doing much better now.....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do we do differently if we have a nuclear capability?
To give you some background on myself, I did my masters thesis on the politics of nuclear warfare.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Travelodge account holder
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with all deterrent debates, the result for both sides will invariably be a score draw. Undoubtedly the World would be a better place without nukes....however, as soon as just one member has them, the rest are disadvantaged and open to coercion. Almost a bit like Germans and sunbeds - you might hate them for doing it but if you don't get your towel down you don't get your lounger of choice. Or, as Harry Enfield so eloquently put it, "Better to be on the train pi$$ing onto the platform than running along the platform trying to pi$$ in."
Good! That's solved the deterrent debate then - drunk germans on their hols and weeing off trains!
Good! That's solved the deterrent debate then - drunk germans on their hols and weeing off trains!
Last edited by Tracey Island; 15th Mar 2006 at 08:50.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orac,
I do not. I also do not include Pakistan or India.
NC43,
To put it very simply we have been so far lucky with the politicians with have had on both sides.
No matter who bad they were none were crazy enough to step over the nuclear line. Not Stalin, Nixon nor any of the others. What I did learn which surprised me was that one of the greatest proponents for the removal of nuclear weapons was Ronald Reagan.
Naval,
Well all I can say is lets hope you are never in that position.
Brick,
I think you will find that any nuclear attack on the UK is pretty much going to be game over for all on the islands. “
“Square Leg was a 1980 British government exercise that assessed the effects of nuclear war. In it, 150 nuclear weapons were assumed to fall on Britain with a total explosive power of 280.5 megatons. This was felt to be a reasonably realistic scenario, although the report stated that a total strike in excess of 1000 megatons would not be unexpected. Mortality was estimated at 29 million; serious injuries at 7 million; short-term survivors at 19 million.” (Source Wikipedia) This is assuming a strike on both military and civil targets.
In the hypothetical “Iranian Strike” I think it is not wrong to assume that it would be simply an assault on the civilian population.
g126,
I never claimed omniscience in this subject.
As for "they can then make demands that we have no choice but to submit to", but yet you agree that having nukes does not mean we can do anything differently?
Cheers
BHR
I do not. I also do not include Pakistan or India.
NC43,
To put it very simply we have been so far lucky with the politicians with have had on both sides.
No matter who bad they were none were crazy enough to step over the nuclear line. Not Stalin, Nixon nor any of the others. What I did learn which surprised me was that one of the greatest proponents for the removal of nuclear weapons was Ronald Reagan.
Naval,
Well all I can say is lets hope you are never in that position.
Brick,
I think you will find that any nuclear attack on the UK is pretty much going to be game over for all on the islands. “
“Square Leg was a 1980 British government exercise that assessed the effects of nuclear war. In it, 150 nuclear weapons were assumed to fall on Britain with a total explosive power of 280.5 megatons. This was felt to be a reasonably realistic scenario, although the report stated that a total strike in excess of 1000 megatons would not be unexpected. Mortality was estimated at 29 million; serious injuries at 7 million; short-term survivors at 19 million.” (Source Wikipedia) This is assuming a strike on both military and civil targets.
In the hypothetical “Iranian Strike” I think it is not wrong to assume that it would be simply an assault on the civilian population.
g126,
I never claimed omniscience in this subject.
As for "they can then make demands that we have no choice but to submit to", but yet you agree that having nukes does not mean we can do anything differently?
Cheers
BHR
Guest
Posts: n/a
BHR,
IF Iran can put together 150 ICBMs AND have them hit the UK, ok, you win your point. (If they can do that, then welcome to your seat on the Security Council, Mr. Iran. Neither event is likely)
I still say that the last surviving guy in the UK's nuclear release control chain would say, " 'ave at it, boys." to the RN SSBNs.
IF Iran can put together 150 ICBMs AND have them hit the UK, ok, you win your point. (If they can do that, then welcome to your seat on the Security Council, Mr. Iran. Neither event is likely)
I still say that the last surviving guy in the UK's nuclear release control chain would say, " 'ave at it, boys." to the RN SSBNs.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, as I have already said, Iran et al are a new kind of opposition and must be treaty differently. But the debate is not should we nuke Iran. The question is 'should the UK replace it's nuclear detterrent?' and if 'yes', what with?
Now with the arguments presented here, over what status the UK would have if it did give up it's detterrent, I can not see how you can justify it's removal.
G
Now with the arguments presented here, over what status the UK would have if it did give up it's detterrent, I can not see how you can justify it's removal.
G
BHR,I would put it to you that the very reason India and Pakistan are not at each other's throats is because they both have Nukes. MAD!I would also point out that it was a WESTERN leader that did use first strike on Japan.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g126,
So now you are back full circle.
You claim we need a nuclear deterrent because Iran may someday threaten us with nukes. Yet you say that Iran will not be deterred from striking us. You further cannot say what we would do differently were we under threat from Iran should we have nukes or not.
With logic that circular and yet self-fulfilling I yield the floor to you.
Brick,
I do not doubt that there would be calls for retaliation from those unlucky enough to survive.
I was just questioning the futility of it.
Cheers
p.s. Since you all but admitted to being a RoughRider are you allowed to also say if your were a Vulgar Vulture, a Gravelhauler or a member of the WolfPack?
So now you are back full circle.
You claim we need a nuclear deterrent because Iran may someday threaten us with nukes. Yet you say that Iran will not be deterred from striking us. You further cannot say what we would do differently were we under threat from Iran should we have nukes or not.
With logic that circular and yet self-fulfilling I yield the floor to you.
Brick,
I do not doubt that there would be calls for retaliation from those unlucky enough to survive.
I was just questioning the futility of it.
Cheers
p.s. Since you all but admitted to being a RoughRider are you allowed to also say if your were a Vulgar Vulture, a Gravelhauler or a member of the WolfPack?
Last edited by BillHicksRules; 15th Mar 2006 at 09:39.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BillHicksRules
g126,
Since you all but admitted to being a RoughRider are you allowed to also say if your were a Vulgar Vulture, a Gravelhauler or a member of the WolfPack?
Since you all but admitted to being a RoughRider are you allowed to also say if your were a Vulgar Vulture, a Gravelhauler or a member of the WolfPack?
My SMW, now defunct (although I swear there was no relation between me being a member and its de-activation.), was the 321st SMW who had a rather Village People-ish mascot, "Warrior of the North."