Do we need an Independant Nuclear Deterrant?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK, Paris, Peckham, New York
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the question of rogue states using a dirty bomb is a bit of a red herring. If some bottom feeder living in a cave drops a dirty bomb what is the point in dropping sunshine all over Nk/Pakistan et al. What would it achieve and it is probably what they want, in their mind accerating the world into an Islamic god fearing world...
But what if in the future a country attacks, the Chinese run out of oil, or something else, could we afford not to have it? Plan for all occasions!!
But what if in the future a country attacks, the Chinese run out of oil, or something else, could we afford not to have it? Plan for all occasions!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAV, you raise an iinteresting point. Let us surmise that some mad mentalist has found and made a dirty bomb. he chooses his target. will he pick one regardless of consequences to his homeland, his faith, all those he leaves behind.
Whereas someone using a car bomb or semtex underwear will kill hundreds a weapon of mass destruction elevates it to a whole new playing field.
Do they want to take that gamble??? and do we want to be able to reply should they do something?
I remember a line from a Freddie Forsyth novel about GW1 where he sasy of a meeting between the iraqi foreign minister of the day and a western general (IIRC), the quote went something like:
" Please infomr your President that if you choose to employ the known and banned weapon of poison gas we will deliver a nuclear device. We will, in short, nuke Baghdad."
My point is, if having the biggest stick and the means to deploy it stops rogue states or individuals from doing something very stupid then I am all for it. I just wanted to know if you all had ideas about what next after we wear out the Bomber (note I do not subscribe to the Yankee terminology).
One more thing - to the driver of the boat, Mind the french!
Whereas someone using a car bomb or semtex underwear will kill hundreds a weapon of mass destruction elevates it to a whole new playing field.
Do they want to take that gamble??? and do we want to be able to reply should they do something?
I remember a line from a Freddie Forsyth novel about GW1 where he sasy of a meeting between the iraqi foreign minister of the day and a western general (IIRC), the quote went something like:
" Please infomr your President that if you choose to employ the known and banned weapon of poison gas we will deliver a nuclear device. We will, in short, nuke Baghdad."
My point is, if having the biggest stick and the means to deploy it stops rogue states or individuals from doing something very stupid then I am all for it. I just wanted to know if you all had ideas about what next after we wear out the Bomber (note I do not subscribe to the Yankee terminology).
One more thing - to the driver of the boat, Mind the french!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tonker - I did say NOVEL and tbh he had used it before - so either he used it all up (or more likely he hid it very very well)
I also didn't know that when Corporate went south it had some WE's on board that had to be offloaded (or did they)
I love a good conspiracy me - anyhoo back to topic at hand.
Replace Y/N with what??
I also didn't know that when Corporate went south it had some WE's on board that had to be offloaded (or did they)
I love a good conspiracy me - anyhoo back to topic at hand.
Replace Y/N with what??
cornish-stormrider
In 1996 the BBC made a documentary about the Gulf War. One of Saddam's General, then in exile, confirmed that Saddam did indeed have artillery shells and missile warheads filled with Nerve Agents and such biological nasties as Anthrax. But, he said, it was decided not to use them against such an enemy (as the US, or perhaps he included Israel?)....
Although never spelt out, the US would have had tactical nuclear weapons in theatre, mostly aboard the SIX carriers they had in the region.
Evalu8er
Much of the rationale for the SSBN based replacement to the V-Class is the simple fact that without it the UK will be out of the Nuclear shipbuilding business. The gap between the last of the Astutes and the first of their replacement would be simply too long (and thus expensive) to keep a highly skilled workforce in mothballs. Hence why we're talking of replacing the subs and re-working the missiles.
FWIW the debate needs to be do we need this indigenous capability. If we do then let's build the new Bombers as it remains the best way to guarantee a second-strike capability, If the answers "no" then we would probably have to go back to a mix of TLAM-N and Storm Shadow-N....not exactly cheap either.
I thought the V class was predicated to run out of life.... and then there is the problem of will the new missiles fit in the tubes. But if we were to opt to a TLAM-N type option, then we would need more boats. The SSN force is stretched on current operations.
We should remember too, that these type of decisions will send messages to other nations. Are we saying we don't believe in nuclear deterrence, or deterrence full stop? How does it affect out international relationships?
In 1996 the BBC made a documentary about the Gulf War. One of Saddam's General, then in exile, confirmed that Saddam did indeed have artillery shells and missile warheads filled with Nerve Agents and such biological nasties as Anthrax. But, he said, it was decided not to use them against such an enemy (as the US, or perhaps he included Israel?)....
Although never spelt out, the US would have had tactical nuclear weapons in theatre, mostly aboard the SIX carriers they had in the region.
Evalu8er
Much of the rationale for the SSBN based replacement to the V-Class is the simple fact that without it the UK will be out of the Nuclear shipbuilding business. The gap between the last of the Astutes and the first of their replacement would be simply too long (and thus expensive) to keep a highly skilled workforce in mothballs. Hence why we're talking of replacing the subs and re-working the missiles.
FWIW the debate needs to be do we need this indigenous capability. If we do then let's build the new Bombers as it remains the best way to guarantee a second-strike capability, If the answers "no" then we would probably have to go back to a mix of TLAM-N and Storm Shadow-N....not exactly cheap either.
I thought the V class was predicated to run out of life.... and then there is the problem of will the new missiles fit in the tubes. But if we were to opt to a TLAM-N type option, then we would need more boats. The SSN force is stretched on current operations.
We should remember too, that these type of decisions will send messages to other nations. Are we saying we don't believe in nuclear deterrence, or deterrence full stop? How does it affect out international relationships?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian,
I am sorry I do not remember the nuclear destruction of the world in 1956 but I was referring to a few other operations recently that we have had to have yank interference to support us? Maybe the next decisive nuclear war that comes along, they might consider helping. I guess it depends how good the 'special relationship' is after 6 May??
Good answer though, well thought out. I will put it to all the uneducated children, sick mothers and poor squadies when we pour un-defendable amounts of nonexistent cash into this white rabbit.
To be honest, I would rather put all the nuke bits into one place and make electricity – it would save me thousands?
I am sorry I do not remember the nuclear destruction of the world in 1956 but I was referring to a few other operations recently that we have had to have yank interference to support us? Maybe the next decisive nuclear war that comes along, they might consider helping. I guess it depends how good the 'special relationship' is after 6 May??
Good answer though, well thought out. I will put it to all the uneducated children, sick mothers and poor squadies when we pour un-defendable amounts of nonexistent cash into this white rabbit.
To be honest, I would rather put all the nuke bits into one place and make electricity – it would save me thousands?
Hey GND
Yeah but carry a big stick, just in case the neighbour gives a problem, you wouldn't skimp on house insurance would you.
Regards
Air pig
Peace and Love????
Trust thy neighbour
Trust thy neighbour
Regards
Air pig
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nuclear proliferation isn't an evil that's gone away, and the greater the number of states with nuclear weapons, the greater the collective risk. We cannot easily argue for cessation of new arms building whilst we continue to maintain a pretty steady state nuclear arsenal ourselves.
If the UK is to maintain a nuclear deterrent, I don't think it makes much sense for it to be anything but SSBN, for sake of ease of targeting, detection, credibility vs anything ship, air or silo based. However, I'd far rather the UK's budget goes towards defence spending that will actually be put to use. There are a lot of resources involved from design, build, running costs in terms both materiel and personnel and the cost of keeping all at Faslane secure. All this for something that can never be used, else realistically we've already lost?
With the accuracy of modern precision munitions, cruise missiles etc to hit targets of strategic importance, why do you need to raze entire cities?
If the UK is to maintain a nuclear deterrent, I don't think it makes much sense for it to be anything but SSBN, for sake of ease of targeting, detection, credibility vs anything ship, air or silo based. However, I'd far rather the UK's budget goes towards defence spending that will actually be put to use. There are a lot of resources involved from design, build, running costs in terms both materiel and personnel and the cost of keeping all at Faslane secure. All this for something that can never be used, else realistically we've already lost?
With the accuracy of modern precision munitions, cruise missiles etc to hit targets of strategic importance, why do you need to raze entire cities?
Because sometimes just sometimes you cannot reach them.
How does Germany or any other large non nuclear country manage without an independant deterrent?
And why do you think that when Israel flaunted all diplomatic conventions by stealing our citizen's passports and using false-flag cover to assassinate a Hamas leader, that they only sanction they suffered was expulsion of the UK Mossad chief? Because they have nukes....
Basically, if you have nukes, you have diplomatic leverage.
Our RN deterrent is sacrosanct, and should always be the first "tick" on any defence review. My only concern is that our technology is to US dependent - we should be fully independent like the French.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK, Paris, Peckham, New York
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And why do you think that when Israel flaunted all diplomatic conventions by stealing our citizen's passports and using false-flag cover to assassinate a Hamas leader, that they only sanction they suffered was expulsion of the UK Mossad chief? Because they have nukes....
Don't think that is the only reason. How about the amount of money involved in uk and us buisnesses to threaten them with any thing worth while. They Are a law on to themselves.
Don't think that is the only reason. How about the amount of money involved in uk and us buisnesses to threaten them with any thing worth while. They Are a law on to themselves.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnd
Ian,
I am sorry I do not remember the nuclear destruction of the world in 1956
I seem to remember it was on a Friday evening, at about 7pm.
Maybe you were off duty by then (with it being a Friday).
Hope that helps
Ian,
I am sorry I do not remember the nuclear destruction of the world in 1956
I seem to remember it was on a Friday evening, at about 7pm.
Maybe you were off duty by then (with it being a Friday).
Hope that helps
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: somewhere...everywhere
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
How does Germany or any other large non nuclear country manage without an independant deterrent?
Because they are not on the Security Council.
How does Germany or any other large non nuclear country manage without an independant deterrent?
Because they are not on the Security Council.
Is that what you're really saying? If that's the case why don't we withdraw the UK from the Security Council, save some money on the Trident replacement and spend it where it's really needed. Perhaps we need to consider too our role in world politics. Do we need to be the worlds policemen and bring our version of law and order to far away lands? Perhaps that's the reason we see ourselves as targets and justify the need for a deterrent.
I just don't believe that the deterrent works anymore. World politics and warfare techniques have moved on since WW2 and the cold war and we need to adapt our strategies, policies and equipment to move with them.
FS