UK Future Deterrrent.
The only way it is a deterrent is if the Oppos fear it and think it would be used. Everyone knows the Western Society is weak and thinks Nuclear War is abhorrent and will do anything to avoid it.
Shame so many folks on our side fail to believe the Fundamentalists are quite willing to use a Nuke on us.
Shame so many folks on our side fail to believe the Fundamentalists are quite willing to use a Nuke on us.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civobs,
For the UK, the cost is prohibitive.
For a weapons system that is never going to be used for its intended purpose the UK can no longer afford (if it ever really could) it.
Make no mistake, no Western leader will ever launch a nuclear attack on another nation. Some will say that the only nuclear attack WAS launched by a Western leader but that was 60 years ago and the world is almost unrecognisable today from what it was then.
From a weapons employment viewpoint, nukes are almost useless in modern combat. With precision weaponry and stealth aircraft a better result can be achieved in actual missions with the use of conventional weaponry.
Cheers
BHR
For the UK, the cost is prohibitive.
For a weapons system that is never going to be used for its intended purpose the UK can no longer afford (if it ever really could) it.
Make no mistake, no Western leader will ever launch a nuclear attack on another nation. Some will say that the only nuclear attack WAS launched by a Western leader but that was 60 years ago and the world is almost unrecognisable today from what it was then.
From a weapons employment viewpoint, nukes are almost useless in modern combat. With precision weaponry and stealth aircraft a better result can be achieved in actual missions with the use of conventional weaponry.
Cheers
BHR
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BillHicksRules
Some will say that the only nuclear attack WAS launched by a Western leader but that was 60 years ago and the world is almost unrecognisable today from what it was then.
Best of luck!
(edited for spelling)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BH,
"The Big Boys Club"?
Are you kidding me?
Nukes did not deter 911, Madrid, Bali, London etc etc etc.
Feel free to continue to waste money on holes in the ground and underwater dick compensators. By all means do not let reality intrude.
A future enemy is highly unlikely to be as stupid as to launch ICBMs at us in a pre-emptive strike. I mean even the Russians were aware how stupid that was likely to be and they actually had the throw-weight to kill us off before we knew a thing about it.
Now the ME loons so greatly feared are far more likely to deliver nukes to their targets in the UK and US by truck than by missile.
This gives them a much smaller CEP.
Cheers
BHR
"The Big Boys Club"?
Are you kidding me?
Nukes did not deter 911, Madrid, Bali, London etc etc etc.
Feel free to continue to waste money on holes in the ground and underwater dick compensators. By all means do not let reality intrude.
A future enemy is highly unlikely to be as stupid as to launch ICBMs at us in a pre-emptive strike. I mean even the Russians were aware how stupid that was likely to be and they actually had the throw-weight to kill us off before we knew a thing about it.
Now the ME loons so greatly feared are far more likely to deliver nukes to their targets in the UK and US by truck than by missile.
This gives them a much smaller CEP.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK's current position is farcical. We spent a fortune buying and maintaining an 'independent' deterrent that could be removed by another nation (the US) on a whim, given that the UK doesn't even own the missiles. If the UK is going to maintain nuclear weapons, then it should have a completely independent system like the French. Otherwise we should give them up. The current position is a ridiculous and expensive willy-waving exercise.
BTW, has anyone considered the implications of Scottish independence on the future of the UK nuclear force?
BTW, has anyone considered the implications of Scottish independence on the future of the UK nuclear force?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a weapons system that is never going to be used for its intended purpose
BTW, has anyone considered the implications of Scottish independence on the future of the UK nuclear force?
G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BHR,
First, it's not my country's deterrent you are discussing, so my vote counts for nought.
I agree, basically, with the delivery method you described for any forseeable threat.
BUT, what happens when Russia, China or any other member of the nuclear club (That better? Banter assumes a degree of sarcasm, hence "Big Boys Club"), decides its aims differs from the UK's? Only 20 years ago, there was a genuine fear of the 'other side.' Why is it not conceivable for something else to change over the next 20-60 years?
If the nuclear saber is rattled, and that is not that outlandish a possibility (if its happened before, it could happen again), seems it would be embarassing to reach for your own scabbard and come up empty handed.
First, it's not my country's deterrent you are discussing, so my vote counts for nought.
I agree, basically, with the delivery method you described for any forseeable threat.
BUT, what happens when Russia, China or any other member of the nuclear club (That better? Banter assumes a degree of sarcasm, hence "Big Boys Club"), decides its aims differs from the UK's? Only 20 years ago, there was a genuine fear of the 'other side.' Why is it not conceivable for something else to change over the next 20-60 years?
If the nuclear saber is rattled, and that is not that outlandish a possibility (if its happened before, it could happen again), seems it would be embarassing to reach for your own scabbard and come up empty handed.
What if.......
The UK gives up Nuclear weapons because they are too expensive, will never be needed....are evil to even consider...and what ho Spiffy...we can come to terms with those that mean us harm.
Then a year or two down the road...or a lot of years down the road......at the Changing of the Guard ceremony.....
Now What? You ask your good friends and allies the Spams to drop a few nukes for you or just wring the hands you have left and think "Oh Sorryo...bad decision back then! What were we thinking?"
Then a year or two down the road...or a lot of years down the road......at the Changing of the Guard ceremony.....
Now What? You ask your good friends and allies the Spams to drop a few nukes for you or just wring the hands you have left and think "Oh Sorryo...bad decision back then! What were we thinking?"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK SASless, point taken, if Libya or China or any other recognised state did carry out an attack of that nature hurl a few buckets in their direction, (well maybe not the Chinese, we may get a serious kicking on that one!). but our leaders seem to be telling us that an assymetric threat will be in the form of an attack from a terrorist organisation, not nation. Who would you target in that case. On current form we should have nuked Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq in the search for OBL and Al Q. Ooh, perhaps not 'cos then we couldn't extract the oil from the last 2 places.
BHR
"Nukes did not deter 911, Madrid, Bali, London etc etc etc"
Not nearly as tangible, but a valid question is what war did having nuclear weapons stop? Do you think the Fulda gap would have remained peaceful and not a one way road for T72's moving your way if the West didn't possess nuclear weapons? Kinda like car insurance, a pain in the ass till you need it, and then you really need it.
"Nukes did not deter 911, Madrid, Bali, London etc etc etc"
Not nearly as tangible, but a valid question is what war did having nuclear weapons stop? Do you think the Fulda gap would have remained peaceful and not a one way road for T72's moving your way if the West didn't possess nuclear weapons? Kinda like car insurance, a pain in the ass till you need it, and then you really need it.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmmm, remember the neutron bomb? CND really hated that one, "the capitalist bomb", killed people and left buildings and infrastructure intact. Now where did I put those plans....... 
Orac,
The Chinese have them.....
The Chinese have them.....
Investigation of Theft of Design Information for the Neutron Bomb
The Select Committee received information about the U.S. Governmentís investigation of the PRCís theft of classified U.S. design information for the W-70 thermonuclear warhead. The W-70, which is an enhanced radiation nuclear warhead (or "neutron bomb"), also has elements that can be used for a strategic thermonuclear warhead. In 1996 the U.S. Intelligence Community reported that the PRC had successfully stolen classified U.S. technology from a U.S. Nuclear Weapons Laboratory about the neutron bomb.
This was not the first time the PRC had stolen classified U.S. information about the neutron bomb. In the late 1970s, the PRC stole design information on the U.S. W-70 warhead from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The U.S. Government first learned of this theft several months after it took place. The PRC subsequently tested a neutron bomb in 1988.
The FBI developed a suspect in the earlier theft. The suspect worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and had access to classified information including designs for a number of U.S. thermonuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile at that time.
In addition to design information about the W-70, this suspect may have provided to the PRC additional classified information about other U.S. weapons that could have significantly accelerated the PRCís nuclear weapons program.
The Clinton administration has determined that further information about these thefts cannot be publicly disclosed.
The Select Committee received information about the U.S. Governmentís investigation of the PRCís theft of classified U.S. design information for the W-70 thermonuclear warhead. The W-70, which is an enhanced radiation nuclear warhead (or "neutron bomb"), also has elements that can be used for a strategic thermonuclear warhead. In 1996 the U.S. Intelligence Community reported that the PRC had successfully stolen classified U.S. technology from a U.S. Nuclear Weapons Laboratory about the neutron bomb.
This was not the first time the PRC had stolen classified U.S. information about the neutron bomb. In the late 1970s, the PRC stole design information on the U.S. W-70 warhead from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The U.S. Government first learned of this theft several months after it took place. The PRC subsequently tested a neutron bomb in 1988.
The FBI developed a suspect in the earlier theft. The suspect worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and had access to classified information including designs for a number of U.S. thermonuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile at that time.
In addition to design information about the W-70, this suspect may have provided to the PRC additional classified information about other U.S. weapons that could have significantly accelerated the PRCís nuclear weapons program.
The Clinton administration has determined that further information about these thefts cannot be publicly disclosed.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
What was the delivery method for the lovely pic you posted? Who did it come from? Was it a single shot?
Brick,
The UK government during the "scary years" had a "better Red than dead" philosophy. Who is to say in the future the same concept will not prevail?
Put it this way. Iran/NK/PRC decide on regime change for the UK and decide to tell us it will be their way or instant sunshine followed by the UK turned into a no-go area for 48,000 years, which is going to happen? Will it be any different with 196 tac nukes as we have today?
g126,
"To deter any rogue nations with nuclear weapons from attacking us, or as a tool of international diplomacy?"
I do not believe it works in either case. We have a seat at the "big boys" table because of the way WW2 ended. At that time only one of the 5 at the table had nukes.
WC,
Fulda Gap-wise nukes were always likely to be a fallacy. A bit like pistols in the missile silo command centers. Nice to know they exist but if you use them it is game over anyway.
To all,
Sorry if I missed any points out it is not deliberate just a mistake on my part.
Cheers
BHR
What was the delivery method for the lovely pic you posted? Who did it come from? Was it a single shot?
Brick,
The UK government during the "scary years" had a "better Red than dead" philosophy. Who is to say in the future the same concept will not prevail?
Put it this way. Iran/NK/PRC decide on regime change for the UK and decide to tell us it will be their way or instant sunshine followed by the UK turned into a no-go area for 48,000 years, which is going to happen? Will it be any different with 196 tac nukes as we have today?
g126,
"To deter any rogue nations with nuclear weapons from attacking us, or as a tool of international diplomacy?"
I do not believe it works in either case. We have a seat at the "big boys" table because of the way WW2 ended. At that time only one of the 5 at the table had nukes.
WC,
Fulda Gap-wise nukes were always likely to be a fallacy. A bit like pistols in the missile silo command centers. Nice to know they exist but if you use them it is game over anyway.
To all,
Sorry if I missed any points out it is not deliberate just a mistake on my part.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The famous picture is 'Shot Grable' of a 15kt 280mm artillery shell fired from 'Atomic Annie' in May 1953 in Nevada.
It was in fact the sort of weapon that might have been used if the Red Army crossed the Oder.
If you read about the Cuban Missile crisis, you'll see that it was precisely the unveiled threat of a nuclear strike against the Russian Homeland, the 'Rodina', that pursuaded Kruschev to withdraw his missiles from Cuba. (not actually all of them though!)
In my mind, saying that the UK cannot afford an expensive system like Trident is precisely the sort of beancounter-speak that has left this country in its parlous defensive condition. Unable to conduct an operation on more than one front, immobile without third nation and contractor infrastructure, critically underesourced as a naval power for a historically seafaring country.
Either keep the nuke, or start speaking Arabic.
It was in fact the sort of weapon that might have been used if the Red Army crossed the Oder.
If you read about the Cuban Missile crisis, you'll see that it was precisely the unveiled threat of a nuclear strike against the Russian Homeland, the 'Rodina', that pursuaded Kruschev to withdraw his missiles from Cuba. (not actually all of them though!)
In my mind, saying that the UK cannot afford an expensive system like Trident is precisely the sort of beancounter-speak that has left this country in its parlous defensive condition. Unable to conduct an operation on more than one front, immobile without third nation and contractor infrastructure, critically underesourced as a naval power for a historically seafaring country.
Either keep the nuke, or start speaking Arabic.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt,
Try reading about the respective birth rates of the Western Democracies and the developed world.
Arabic is our future, nukes or not. Either that or Chinese.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. As for the CMC try reading a bit deeper on that and learn the real reason for the peaceful end.
Try reading about the respective birth rates of the Western Democracies and the developed world.
Arabic is our future, nukes or not. Either that or Chinese.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. As for the CMC try reading a bit deeper on that and learn the real reason for the peaceful end.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last time this country saw this wide-spread liberalist attitude and large scale demilitarisation was the decade before the Second World War.
Think about if the tables turn and your interests are at stake. How bad will the people who have called for its removal feel? But I'm sure I can cope with the fact that we have bought a system and not used it. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.
And remember, no matter how much we hope for it, we will never have 'the war to end all wars'. The last time we relied on that defence we were only just ready in time for the Second World War.
It's about time this country stopped concerning itself with whether it has offended individual people and instead stands up for what is right for the greater good of the nation. This goes for the procurement of nuclear weapons and many other areas of the UK's policy.
Rant over.
G.
"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment". - Willis Player.
And remember, no matter how much we hope for it, we will never have 'the war to end all wars'. The last time we relied on that defence we were only just ready in time for the Second World War.
It's about time this country stopped concerning itself with whether it has offended individual people and instead stands up for what is right for the greater good of the nation. This goes for the procurement of nuclear weapons and many other areas of the UK's policy.
Rant over.
G.