FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Trident nuclear programme
The Trident nuclear programme
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Its a huge amount of money for something that really is a last resort and would effect the whole planet,
Its going to cost X amount to replace the trident or X amount to upgrade it, If they do neither what is the alternative ?
Having no deterrent to any future/potential "rogue countries" and leaving it to diplomacy ?
Another type of defence system ?
Relying on our "friends" to back us up ?
I don't really no much about the subject myself but always find it interesting reading other peoples comments/facts on these type of topics |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Multiple questions, OP.
1/ how much will it cost?
2/ what is its use?
3/ what are the alternatives?
4/ just how 'independent' is it? "
I was thinking this. Like I said in a recent forum ww3 is looking very likely but the amount of money wasted by previous governments and the reduction in scale of the UKs armed forces means someone's going to get more taxes. Guess who? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Multiple questions, OP.
1/ how much will it cost?
2/ what is its use?
3/ what are the alternatives?
4/ just how 'independent' is it?
I was thinking this. Like I said in a recent forum ww3 is looking very likely but the amount of money wasted by previous governments and the reduction in scale of the UKs armed forces means someone's going to get more taxes. Guess who?"
Trident is arguably a Cold War deterrent.
Nuclear weapons have no place in any of the wars the UK is currently engaged in |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't agree with any country having nuclear weapons as such. Why the world would, do want to wreak that level of destruction upon it's enemies or neighbours is unimaginable. Two on Japan to end WW2 could have been avoided.
However, as long as some random nutter has the button within reach, others are going to argue, that the only thing stopping them pressing is the fact that the intended victim nation other it's allies have them too. Weird trade off, but it has worked until now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't agree with any country having nuclear weapons as such. Why the world would, do want to wreak that level of destruction upon it's enemies or neighbours is unimaginable. Two on Japan to end WW2 could have been avoided.
However, as long as some random nutter has the button within reach, others are going to argue, that the only thing stopping them pressing is the fact that the intended victim nation other it's allies have them too. Weird trade off, but it has worked until now. "
Again, we're talking about a situation - the so-called 'balance of terror' - that existed in the Cold War.
This thinking is irrelevant int he modern world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Trident is arguably a Cold War deterrent.
Nuclear weapons have no place in any of the wars the UK is currently engaged in "
Yes I agree but it wouldn't take much for another cold war to start up again, And its not like they could knock a couple of tridents up over night, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't agree with any country having nuclear weapons as such. Why the world would, do want to wreak that level of destruction upon it's enemies or neighbours is unimaginable. Two on Japan to end WW2 could have been avoided.
However, as long as some random nutter has the button within reach, others are going to argue, that the only thing stopping them pressing is the fact that the intended victim nation other it's allies have them too. Weird trade off, but it has worked until now. "
I agree. It's not ideal. A necessary evil  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Trident is arguably a Cold War deterrent.
Nuclear weapons have no place in any of the wars the UK is currently engaged in
Yes I agree but it wouldn't take much for another cold war to start up again, And its not like they could knock a couple of tridents up over night, "
1/ New Cold war with whom...?
2/ But we already have Trident...? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't agree with any country having nuclear weapons as such. Why the world would, do want to wreak that level of destruction upon it's enemies or neighbours is unimaginable. Two on Japan to end WW2 could have been avoided.
However, as long as some random nutter has the button within reach, others are going to argue, that the only thing stopping them pressing is the fact that the intended victim nation other it's allies have them too. Weird trade off, but it has worked until now.
Again, we're talking about a situation - the so-called 'balance of terror' - that existed in the Cold War.
This thinking is irrelevant int he modern world. "
North Korea alone make it entirely relevant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't agree with any country having nuclear weapons as such. Why the world would, do want to wreak that level of destruction upon it's enemies or neighbours is unimaginable. Two on Japan to end WW2 could have been avoided.
However, as long as some random nutter has the button within reach, others are going to argue, that the only thing stopping them pressing is the fact that the intended victim nation other it's allies have them too. Weird trade off, but it has worked until now.
Again, we're talking about a situation - the so-called 'balance of terror' - that existed in the Cold War.
This thinking is irrelevant int he modern world.
North Korea alone make it entirely relevant."
Common wisdom says that the People's Republic of North Korea only has a handful of nukes and no useful payload system.
They could hit S. Korea, possibly Japan.
Why is that fundamental out the the security of the UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Trident is arguably a Cold War deterrent.
Nuclear weapons have no place in any of the wars the UK is currently engaged in
Yes I agree but it wouldn't take much for another cold war to start up again, And its not like they could knock a couple of tridents up over night,
1/ New Cold war with whom...?
North Korea ? China ? I don't know really just saying another stand off with a country or counties could happen
2/ But we already have Trident...?"
Yes I know but if we don't maintain it or replace it we wont have one in the future |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Old cold war logic - MAD, mutually assured destruction - both sides wipe each other out there is no winner and no looser, the effect as a deterrent is debatable however the cost is less than 0.2% of GDP as part of our commitment to NATO we spend 2% of GDP on conventional forces, so in essence we would spend less than a tenth of what we spend on conventional forces to replace Trident and if that 0.2% is enough to make just one fuckwit dictator or terrorist think twice then in my book its well spent.... and no I don't agree with nukes, they are hideous in the extreme. Condom syndrome - it's better to have one and not need it than to need it and not have one.
Just my opinion and worth exactly the same as everyone else's - Sod all !!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't agree with any country having nuclear weapons as such. Why the world would, do want to wreak that level of destruction upon it's enemies or neighbours is unimaginable. Two on Japan to end WW2 could have been avoided.
However, as long as some random nutter has the button within reach, others are going to argue, that the only thing stopping them pressing is the fact that the intended victim nation other it's allies have them too. Weird trade off, but it has worked until now.
Again, we're talking about a situation - the so-called 'balance of terror' - that existed in the Cold War.
This thinking is irrelevant int he modern world.
North Korea alone make it entirely relevant.
Common wisdom says that the People's Republic of North Korea only has a handful of nukes and no useful payload system.
They could hit S. Korea, possibly Japan.
Why is that fundamental out the the security of the UK "
You may have complete confidence that the intelligence we have on the rest of the worlds capabilities to attack us is exhaustive but I do not. Better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Trident is not the problem a nuke us just a bomb strapped to a missile however the submarines are the problem sonar technology is always changing so if your don't update your billion pounds subs then the enemy can track and sink them....sink all 4 subs and you have won the war |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money."
.
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
"
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't agree with any country having nuclear weapons as such. Why the world would, do want to wreak that level of destruction upon it's enemies or neighbours is unimaginable. Two on Japan to end WW2 could have been avoided.
However, as long as some random nutter has the button within reach, others are going to argue, that the only thing stopping them pressing is the fact that the intended victim nation other it's allies have them too. Weird trade off, but it has worked until now.
Again, we're talking about a situation - the so-called 'balance of terror' - that existed in the Cold War.
This thinking is irrelevant int he modern world.
North Korea alone make it entirely relevant.
Common wisdom says that the People's Republic of North Korea only has a handful of nukes and no useful payload system.
They could hit S. Korea, possibly Japan.
Why is that fundamental out the the security of the UK
You may have complete confidence that the intelligence we have on the rest of the worlds capabilities to attack us is exhaustive but I do not. Better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it."
There's no way N. Korean nukes could reach us... unless they shipped them over in sea containers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance."
You could say that but Australia haven't been attacked either and they don't have nukes ...neither does most of south America and most or Europe for that matter and they don't get attacked |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't agree with any country having nuclear weapons as such. Why the world would, do want to wreak that level of destruction upon it's enemies or neighbours is unimaginable. Two on Japan to end WW2 could have been avoided.
However, as long as some random nutter has the button within reach, others are going to argue, that the only thing stopping them pressing is the fact that the intended victim nation other it's allies have them too. Weird trade off, but it has worked until now.
Again, we're talking about a situation - the so-called 'balance of terror' - that existed in the Cold War.
This thinking is irrelevant int he modern world.
North Korea alone make it entirely relevant.
Common wisdom says that the People's Republic of North Korea only has a handful of nukes and no useful payload system.
They could hit S. Korea, possibly Japan.
Why is that fundamental out the the security of the UK
You may have complete confidence that the intelligence we have on the rest of the worlds capabilities to attack us is exhaustive but I do not. Better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it."
This, not a solution I am happy with, but if the only barrier between having one dropped on any nation, is the fact that said nation would retaliate likewise has to be better than trusting the likes of Kim with a button at his fingertips. If no one had them, no one would need them. Sadly, some have them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andACouple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
"
The point is, they stop a nuclear attack on us in the first place. It's one thing to launch a nuclear attack on a country who can't retaliate, it's a different story altogether if you know that you're liable to be wiped out as well if you dare to go down that path. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
The point is, they stop a nuclear attack on us in the first place. It's one thing to launch a nuclear attack on a country who can't retaliate, it's a different story altogether if you know that you're liable to be wiped out as well if you dare to go down that path."
that myth is old and only works for some countries America and Russia both have defence systems to stop nukes from entering there airspace |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money."
It's not. It's like calling an insurance policy on getting, well hit by a nuclear missle. No one would pay to have that insurance policy.
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance."
Ireland hasn't been attacked yet either so obviosly not having nukes is also a deterrant.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andACouple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"
that myth is old and only works for some countries America and Russia both have defence systems to stop nukes from entering there airspace "
Those defence systems don't actually work. They may occasionally intercept a single missile in tests but that is a world away from shooting down multiple missiles in a real life situation.
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/can-we-stop-a-nuke-16988105/?page=6 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance."
.
Insurance makes it sound like your going to get reimbursed... Your not your dead you were vaporised in a milli second if your lucky... Blowing the fuck out of the aggressor that did it will not bring you back!.... It's not insurance.
A detent maybe? Insurance never |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance..
Insurance makes it sound like your going to get reimbursed... Your not your dead you were vaporised in a milli second if your lucky... Blowing the fuck out of the aggressor that did it will not bring you back!.... It's not insurance.
A detent maybe? Insurance never"
Yeah but you get vapourised knowing the fuckers on the other side are as well |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
that myth is old and only works for some countries America and Russia both have defence systems to stop nukes from entering there airspace
Those defence systems don't actually work. They may occasionally intercept a single missile in tests but that is a world away from shooting down multiple missiles in a real life situation.
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/can-we-stop-a-nuke-16988105/?page=6"
You can believe that if you like .....I think it would easier for you to fly to Mars Than the get the truthful top secret information about missile defence systems from the Russian and American government |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance..
Insurance makes it sound like your going to get reimbursed... Your not your dead you were vaporised in a milli second if your lucky... Blowing the fuck out of the aggressor that did it will not bring you back!.... It's not insurance.
A detent maybe? Insurance never
Yeah but you get vapourised knowing the fuckers on the other side are as well "
.
That will be the last thing that I'm worried about in the milli second I get to contemplate life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance..
Insurance makes it sound like your going to get reimbursed... Your not your dead you were vaporised in a milli second if your lucky... Blowing the fuck out of the aggressor that did it will not bring you back!.... It's not insurance.
A detent maybe? Insurance never
Yeah but you get vapourised knowing the fuckers on the other side are as well .
That will be the last thing that I'm worried about in the milli second I get to contemplate life"
Not me. I'm a firm believer in vengance  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance..
Insurance makes it sound like your going to get reimbursed... Your not your dead you were vaporised in a milli second if your lucky... Blowing the fuck out of the aggressor that did it will not bring you back!.... It's not insurance.
A detent maybe? Insurance never
Yeah but you get vapourised knowing the fuckers on the other side are as well .
That will be the last thing that I'm worried about in the milli second I get to contemplate life
Not me. I'm a firm believer in vengance "
.
That's different I haven't got a problem with you being vengeful but that's not deterrence or insurance either... So let's call them what they are.... It's vengeance annihilation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money."
9 countries in the World have nuclear deterrents
.
The United States, Russia, the UK, France, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel all control some nuclear weaponry. Russia and the US share 93 per cent of all nuclear warheads
.
That is; 9 countries out of 195 countries
.
so? how the fuck do the other 194 countries manage to survive?
where is their "so called insurance policy"
.
What happens if we keep nukes and France is nuked but not us, we are still fucked with the fall out
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance."
.
.
Yes we have been attacked or have you forgotten the date of 2nd April 1982
.
. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance..
Insurance makes it sound like your going to get reimbursed... Your not your dead you were vaporised in a milli second if your lucky... Blowing the fuck out of the aggressor that did it will not bring you back!.... It's not insurance.
A detent maybe? Insurance never
Yeah but you get vapourised knowing the fuckers on the other side are as well .
That will be the last thing that I'm worried about in the milli second I get to contemplate life
Not me. I'm a firm believer in vengance .
That's different I haven't got a problem with you being vengeful but that's not deterrence or insurance either... So let's call them what they are.... It's vengeance annihilation "
Still works for me  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance.
.
.
Yes we have been attacked or have you forgotten the date of 2nd April 1982
.
."
Bloody hell we've been attacked with Nuclear weapons in 1982 & I didn't even notice 
A small Island been occupied by a none Nuclear enemy with conventional forces & defeated by our own conventional forces is a whole different ball game to being struck with Nuclear weapons.
Comparing the 2 is ridiculous
Also saying that others countries are fine without having Nuclear weapons is missing the point that in many cases they have Allies who do posses them giving them a umbrella protection effect.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand."
so what about the other 186 Countries without nuclear weapons are they all dead in the water
waken up lad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand.
so what about the other 186 Countries without nuclear weapons are they all dead in the water
waken up lad. "
The vast majority of other countries dont have a recent history against a Nuclear power like we have with Russia
Also the vast majority of other countries are still in the bloody dark ages in comparison to a Nuclear power like Russia so what would they want from them ?? fek all.
Comparing underdeveloped countries against the developed world with potential hostile Nuclear nations is bloody laughable
So you might want to "waken up lad"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand."
Actually, that's not correct. After his capture, Saddam said that his chemical weapons would have only been used in the case of the Americans, Saudis or Israel using them first. The threats issued by the Americans (by Baker not Bush) were to Tariq Aziz, and he never delivered them to his President, so Saddam never knew about them at the time, and therefore it seems unlikely that they influenced his decision whether to use Chemical Weapons or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand.
Actually, that's not correct. After his capture, Saddam said that his chemical weapons would have only been used in the case of the Americans, Saudis or Israel using them first. The threats issued by the Americans (by Baker not Bush) were to Tariq Aziz, and he never delivered them to his President, so Saddam never knew about them at the time, and therefore it seems unlikely that they influenced his decision whether to use Chemical Weapons or not. "
Ermm.. it was plastered all over the news world wide in 1991 by defense Secretary Cheney & again in 2002 so i don't see how Saddam didn't know, every fucker knew lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand.
Actually, that's not correct. After his capture, Saddam said that his chemical weapons would have only been used in the case of the Americans, Saudis or Israel using them first. The threats issued by the Americans (by Baker not Bush) were to Tariq Aziz, and he never delivered them to his President, so Saddam never knew about them at the time, and therefore it seems unlikely that they influenced his decision whether to use Chemical Weapons or not.
Ermm.. it was plastered all over the news world wide in 1991 by defense Secretary Cheney & again in 2002 so i don't see how Saddam didn't know, every fucker knew lol "
Sorry, I was only referring to the first Gulf War as that's what I thought you were talking about. The first War had already begun in earnest before the media were told about the threat of Nuclear weapons, so it's simply incorrect to state foe certain that it was those threats that acted as a deterrent. Still, never let facts get in the way of a good narrative and all that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andACouple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"
that myth is old and only works for some countries America and Russia both have defence systems to stop nukes from entering there airspace
Those defence systems don't actually work. They may occasionally intercept a single missile in tests but that is a world away from shooting down multiple missiles in a real life situation.
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/can-we-stop-a-nuke-16988105/?page=6 You can believe that if you like .....I think it would easier for you to fly to Mars Than the get the truthful top secret information about missile defence systems from the Russian and American government "
It's very much in both countries interests to have the other side believe they have a working missile defence program. Not the opposite. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand.
so what about the other 186 Countries without nuclear weapons are they all dead in the water
waken up lad.
The vast majority of other countries dont have a recent history against a Nuclear power like we have with Russia
Also the vast majority of other countries are still in the bloody dark ages in comparison to a Nuclear power like Russia so what would they want from them ?? fek all.
Comparing underdeveloped countries against the developed world with potential hostile Nuclear nations is bloody laughable
So you might want to "waken up lad"
"
So?
all 186 other countries live in the dark ages compared with Israel & North Korea, some how I will disagree with that
and I still disagree that they are a deterrent to war, The Falklands invasion, IRA conflict and other recent wars prove that.
So tell me again why we the UK so desperately need a Nuclear deterrent, whilst 186 other countries do not?
or is it a requirement that being a NATO member means you must have Nuclear weapons, no it does not.
.
best you think again, perhaps you are right to take time out? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Recent conversation with Mr Putin:
"Mr Putin I wish to remove all nuclear weapons"
"And so do I Mr Obama"
"OK Mr Putin we have a deal then?"
"Yes Mr Obama we do. After you then"
"No Mr Putin I insist ... After you"
etc etc ad infinitum ..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Recent conversation with Mr Putin:
"Mr Putin I wish to remove all nuclear weapons"
"And so do I Mr Obama"
"OK Mr Putin we have a deal then?"
"Yes Mr Obama we do. After you then"
"No Mr Putin I insist ... After you"
etc etc ad infinitum ....."
.
I think Regan offered to decommission all there nuclear weapons in Reykjavik in the 80s?. He thought they were to expensive to keep |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand.
so what about the other 186 Countries without nuclear weapons are they all dead in the water
waken up lad.
The vast majority of other countries dont have a recent history against a Nuclear power like we have with Russia
Also the vast majority of other countries are still in the bloody dark ages in comparison to a Nuclear power like Russia so what would they want from them ?? fek all.
Comparing underdeveloped countries against the developed world with potential hostile Nuclear nations is bloody laughable
So you might want to "waken up lad"
So?
all 186 other countries live in the dark ages compared with Israel & North Korea, some how I will disagree with that
and I still disagree that they are a deterrent to war, The Falklands invasion, IRA conflict and other recent wars prove that.
So tell me again why we the UK so desperately need a Nuclear deterrent, whilst 186 other countries do not?
or is it a requirement that being a NATO member means you must have Nuclear weapons, no it does not.
.
best you think again, perhaps you are right to take time out? "
You're asking why we didn't nuke Argentina because a bunch of sheep were briefly kidnapped or why we didn't nuke the IRA who live amongst the population we want to protect???
Glad it's not you who gets to decide when the button is pushed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand.
so what about the other 186 Countries without nuclear weapons are they all dead in the water
waken up lad.
The vast majority of other countries dont have a recent history against a Nuclear power like we have with Russia
Also the vast majority of other countries are still in the bloody dark ages in comparison to a Nuclear power like Russia so what would they want from them ?? fek all.
Comparing underdeveloped countries against the developed world with potential hostile Nuclear nations is bloody laughable
So you might want to "waken up lad"
So?
all 186 other countries live in the dark ages compared with Israel & North Korea, some how I will disagree with that
and I still disagree that they are a deterrent to war, The Falklands invasion, IRA conflict and other recent wars prove that.
So tell me again why we the UK so desperately need a Nuclear deterrent, whilst 186 other countries do not?
or is it a requirement that being a NATO member means you must have Nuclear weapons, no it does not.
.
best you think again, perhaps you are right to take time out?
You're asking why we didn't nuke Argentina because a bunch of sheep were briefly kidnapped or why we didn't nuke the IRA who live amongst the population we want to protect???
Glad it's not you who gets to decide when the button is pushed. "
are you mentally insane??
I never mentioned nuking any country anytime, infact I am suggesting they are pointless and not required as many wars get fought regardless of whether we have them or not.
Would it not be better using £200 Billion to have a better army, better navy and better RAF
Navy, Army and RAF are used daily, and in Battle, Nuclear Weapons are not.
And if we do not have them; remember!!! we are still a NATO member
.
Now tell me again, where did you get this silly idea that you think and had to write - You're asking why we didn't nuke Argentina because a bunch of sheep were briefly kidnapped or why we didn't nuke the IRA who live amongst the population we want to protect
.
I honestly cant believe I have wasted 2 minutes replying to your pathetic post.
honestly you must |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The most current case of reducing battlefield casualties because of the threat of Nuclear weapons was the Gulf War.
Saddam had chemical weapons, which could of wrecked havoc on the battlefield but Bush announced if they we're used against Allied forces then battlefield tactical Nukes would be used against the Iraqi Army.
Chemical weapons we're not used even once Saddam knew he'd lost, it still kept him from resorting to using them.
That's the deterrent/insurance policy that some fail to understand.
so what about the other 186 Countries without nuclear weapons are they all dead in the water
waken up lad.
The vast majority of other countries dont have a recent history against a Nuclear power like we have with Russia
Also the vast majority of other countries are still in the bloody dark ages in comparison to a Nuclear power like Russia so what would they want from them ?? fek all.
Comparing underdeveloped countries against the developed world with potential hostile Nuclear nations is bloody laughable
So you might want to "waken up lad"
So?
all 186 other countries live in the dark ages compared with Israel & North Korea, some how I will disagree with that
and I still disagree that they are a deterrent to war, The Falklands invasion, IRA conflict and other recent wars prove that.
So tell me again why we the UK so desperately need a Nuclear deterrent, whilst 186 other countries do not?
or is it a requirement that being a NATO member means you must have Nuclear weapons, no it does not.
.
best you think again, perhaps you are right to take time out?
You're asking why we didn't nuke Argentina because a bunch of sheep were briefly kidnapped or why we didn't nuke the IRA who live amongst the population we want to protect???
Glad it's not you who gets to decide when the button is pushed.
are you mentally insane??
I never mentioned nuking any country anytime, infact I am suggesting they are pointless and not required as many wars get fought regardless of whether we have them or not.
Would it not be better using £200 Billion to have a better army, better navy and better RAF
Navy, Army and RAF are used daily, and in Battle, Nuclear Weapons are not.
And if we do not have them; remember!!! we are still a NATO member
.
Now tell me again, where did you get this silly idea that you think and had to write - You're asking why we didn't nuke Argentina because a bunch of sheep were briefly kidnapped or why we didn't nuke the IRA who live amongst the population we want to protect
.
I honestly cant believe I have wasted 2 minutes replying to your pathetic post.
honestly you must "
Read your own logic then.
Your logic is that they a pointless because they don't prevent wars and you cite two completely irrelevant examples.
Nobody claimed they prevent low intensity wars, they are a deterrent to nuclear attack and high intensity warfare. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
".
Nobody claimed they prevent low intensity wars, they are a deterrent to nuclear attack and high intensity warfare. "
You honestly think we need to spend £200 Billion on this when we are a NATO member
and you think our present army, navy and RAF are sufficient
I think you have been on the pills today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
".
Nobody claimed they prevent low intensity wars, they are a deterrent to nuclear attack and high intensity warfare.
You honestly think we need to spend £200 Billion on this when we are a NATO member
and you think our present army, navy and RAF are sufficient
I think you have been on the pills today."
I think that figure is bullshit and you should let the ministry of defence decide what equipment they need, unless you want them to come and do your job for you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
".
Nobody claimed they prevent low intensity wars, they are a deterrent to nuclear attack and high intensity warfare.
You honestly think we need to spend £200 Billion on this when we are a NATO member
and you think our present army, navy and RAF are sufficient
I think you have been on the pills today.
I think that figure is bullshit and you should let the ministry of defence decide what equipment they need, unless you want them to come and do your job for you"
perhaps that is the answer, you have been thinking so much, that your head has over heated, makes sense with some of your comments, you need to take time out and chill
have a kit-cat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
".
Nobody claimed they prevent low intensity wars, they are a deterrent to nuclear attack and high intensity warfare.
You honestly think we need to spend £200 Billion on this when we are a NATO member
and you think our present army, navy and RAF are sufficient
I think you have been on the pills today.
I think that figure is bullshit and you should let the ministry of defence decide what equipment they need, unless you want them to come and do your job for you
perhaps that is the answer, you have been thinking so much, that your head has over heated, makes sense with some of your comments, you need to take time out and chill
have a kit-cat"
Says the guy quoting a £200 bn figure against the NAO figure of about £26bn from memory!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Yeah, they get the figure into the 100s bn by including the 40 year projected running costs and decommissioning costs.
Last figures for replacement costs I saw were 23bn at 20014 prices - but these things always go way over budget, so up around 40bn is more likely imho. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yeah, they get the figure into the 100s bn by including the 40 year projected running costs and decommissioning costs.
Last figures for replacement costs I saw were 23bn at 20014 prices - but these things always go way over budget, so up around 40bn is more likely imho."
Yes indeed, projected running costs which will not disappear
your figure of £40billion is within reason for supply of 4 subs, but complete fitting, commissioning, testing and initial launch will bring this figure much higher then on top of that annual running costs brings the figure well into £200 Billion
such as life.
.
would still rather recruit more army, navy & RAF and provide all with correct gear and back up support.
Perhaps then we could defend ourselves.
.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yeah, they get the figure into the 100s bn by including the 40 year projected running costs and decommissioning costs.
Last figures for replacement costs I saw were 23bn at 20014 prices - but these things always go way over budget, so up around 40bn is more likely imho.
Yes indeed, projected running costs which will not disappear
your figure of £40billion is within reason for supply of 4 subs, but complete fitting, commissioning, testing and initial launch will bring this figure much higher then on top of that annual running costs brings the figure well into £200 Billion
such as life.
.
would still rather recruit more army, navy & RAF and provide all with correct gear and back up support.
Perhaps then we could defend ourselves.
.
"
Ah yes that £205 Bn calculated by CND and happily reported by that bastion of truth The Guardian.
Apparently 43% of Scots actually think Trident is a good idea so you may want to go have word with them.
The capital cost of the subs will be £31 Bn and the Treasury has added £10 Bn 'Contingency' as they are obliged to do. All major capital projects have it.
And you quietly forgot to mention whatever the maintenance costs are they are spread over 30+ years. I think the amount currently spent on running Trident is about 6% of the Defence Budget. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yeah, they get the figure into the 100s bn by including the 40 year projected running costs and decommissioning costs.
Last figures for replacement costs I saw were 23bn at 20014 prices - but these things always go way over budget, so up around 40bn is more likely imho.
Yes indeed, projected running costs which will not disappear
your figure of £40billion is within reason for supply of 4 subs, but complete fitting, commissioning, testing and initial launch will bring this figure much higher then on top of that annual running costs brings the figure well into £200 Billion
such as life.
.
would still rather recruit more army, navy & RAF and provide all with correct gear and back up support.
Perhaps then we could defend ourselves.
.
"
So put your CV into the Ministry of Defence and then you can make decisions like that. Presumably you don't have a security clearance and don't be briefed weekly on all the ins and outs that our intelligence services pick up. Is it possible that those people that do might be better informed than the CND? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yeah, they get the figure into the 100s bn by including the 40 year projected running costs and decommissioning costs.
Last figures for replacement costs I saw were 23bn at 20014 prices - but these things always go way over budget, so up around 40bn is more likely imho.
Yes indeed, projected running costs which will not disappear
your figure of £40billion is within reason for supply of 4 subs, but complete fitting, commissioning, testing and initial launch will bring this figure much higher then on top of that annual running costs brings the figure well into £200 Billion
such as life.
.
would still rather recruit more army, navy & RAF and provide all with correct gear and back up support.
Perhaps then we could defend ourselves.
.
Ah yes that £205 Bn calculated by CND and happily reported by that bastion of truth The Guardian.
Apparently 43% of Scots actually think Trident is a good idea so you may want to go have word with them.
The capital cost of the subs will be £31 Bn and the Treasury has added £10 Bn 'Contingency' as they are obliged to do. All major capital projects have it.
And you quietly forgot to mention whatever the maintenance costs are they are spread over 30+ years. I think the amount currently spent on running Trident is about 6% of the Defence Budget."
The latter point is why scrapping it wouldn't save a penny. It's part if the MOD budget and it's up to them how they spend it. If they didn't spend it on Trident then they'd spend it on something else, such is their privilege |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
There's no way N. Korean nukes could reach us... unless they shipped them over in sea containers.
Today, no. Next year maybe.
Really?"
The greater threat is that they'd give a dirty bomb to a third party and maintain plausible deniability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
There's no way N. Korean nukes could reach us... unless they shipped them over in sea containers.
Today, no. Next year maybe.
Really?
The greater threat is that they'd give a dirty bomb to a third party and maintain plausible deniability. "
.
Trident can't deter that though!.
The only reasonable deterrence is China and Russia.
Besides the most likely place to have an all out nuclear war is India and Pakistan, in that scenario we'll all die horrible deaths still, only it will take a year or two.... And trident isn't a deterrent to that either |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money."
In addition it keeps people in work and we also have various spin off effects . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
There's no way N. Korean nukes could reach us... unless they shipped them over in sea containers.
Today, no. Next year maybe.
Really?
The greater threat is that they'd give a dirty bomb to a third party and maintain plausible deniability. .
Trident can't deter that though!.
The only reasonable deterrence is China.
"
True!!! I guess you lefties should stop giving China such a hard time then! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Trident means we never have to worry about a conventional threat. Lose it and that could change.
I used to be totally for unilateral disarmament, though my opinions have changed.
The world seems to be getting more dangerous with every month. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Trident means we never have to worry about a conventional threat. Lose it and that could change.
I used to be totally for unilateral disarmament, though my opinions have changed.
The world seems to be getting more dangerous with every month."
I'd go home, lie in your bed and be afraid, if I were you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Update:
The vote on Trident had bugger all to do with national security and everything to do with reassuring US and UK defence contractors.
Last Friday the Times published a letter signed by "top 20 American defence officials" urging the UK to continue its contribution to Atlantic security in uncertain times.
Signatories included: two board members from Lockheed Martin, one from Babcock (defence group), another from Sandia (Lockheed subsidiary) and one from EADS.
All companies have a vested interest in Trident renewal, though the corporate connection was not made explicit by The Times. Nor were the vested interests of the Snowcroft Group "premier advisory firm" which employs another 3 signatories.
US companies stand to make a mint from Trident renewal and the UK g'ment will cough up.
Our programme is heavily dependent on the American project to update its fleet of Ohio-class subs. And vice-versa. The two fleets will share a lot of technology. The UK ones share propulsion, hull, sensor & missile technology with the US ones, as well as Tridents D-5 missiles & warheads.
So why do the US subs cost around $4bn each and the UK ones £10bn?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Update:
The vote on Trident had bugger all to do with national security and everything to do with reassuring US and UK defence contractors.
Last Friday the Times published a letter signed by "top 20 American defence officials" urging the UK to continue its contribution to Atlantic security in uncertain times.
Signatories included: two board members from Lockheed Martin, one from Babcock (defence group), another from Sandia (Lockheed subsidiary) and one from EADS.
All companies have a vested interest in Trident renewal, though the corporate connection was not made explicit by The Times. Nor were the vested interests of the Snowcroft Group "premier advisory firm" which employs another 3 signatories.
US companies stand to make a mint from Trident renewal and the UK g'ment will cough up.
Our programme is heavily dependent on the American project to update its fleet of Ohio-class subs. And vice-versa. The two fleets will share a lot of technology. The UK ones share propulsion, hull, sensor & missile technology with the US ones, as well as Tridents D-5 missiles & warheads.
So why do the US subs cost around $4bn each and the UK ones £10bn?
"
Headline: defence contractors lobby politicians!
In other news, the sun continues to rise... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Update:
The vote on Trident had bugger all to do with national security and everything to do with reassuring US and UK defence contractors.
Last Friday the Times published a letter signed by "top 20 American defence officials" urging the UK to continue its contribution to Atlantic security in uncertain times.
Signatories included: two board members from Lockheed Martin, one from Babcock (defence group), another from Sandia (Lockheed subsidiary) and one from EADS.
All companies have a vested interest in Trident renewal, though the corporate connection was not made explicit by The Times. Nor were the vested interests of the Snowcroft Group "premier advisory firm" which employs another 3 signatories.
US companies stand to make a mint from Trident renewal and the UK g'ment will cough up.
Our programme is heavily dependent on the American project to update its fleet of Ohio-class subs. And vice-versa. The two fleets will share a lot of technology. The UK ones share propulsion, hull, sensor & missile technology with the US ones, as well as Tridents D-5 missiles & warheads.
So why do the US subs cost around $4bn each and the UK ones £10bn?
Headline: defence contractors lobby politicians!
In other news, the sun continues to rise... "
Bit of a rip off, no, in these cash-strapped austeric times?
You'd think someone would notice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Update:
The vote on Trident had bugger all to do with national security and everything to do with reassuring US and UK defence contractors.
Last Friday the Times published a letter signed by "top 20 American defence officials" urging the UK to continue its contribution to Atlantic security in uncertain times.
Signatories included: two board members from Lockheed Martin, one from Babcock (defence group), another from Sandia (Lockheed subsidiary) and one from EADS.
All companies have a vested interest in Trident renewal, though the corporate connection was not made explicit by The Times. Nor were the vested interests of the Snowcroft Group "premier advisory firm" which employs another 3 signatories.
US companies stand to make a mint from Trident renewal and the UK g'ment will cough up.
Our programme is heavily dependent on the American project to update its fleet of Ohio-class subs. And vice-versa. The two fleets will share a lot of technology. The UK ones share propulsion, hull, sensor & missile technology with the US ones, as well as Tridents D-5 missiles & warheads.
So why do the US subs cost around $4bn each and the UK ones £10bn?
Headline: defence contractors lobby politicians!
In other news, the sun continues to rise...
Bit of a rip off, no, in these cash-strapped austeric times?
You'd think someone would notice."
Depends where you got your £10bn figure from |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Update:
The vote on Trident had bugger all to do with national security and everything to do with reassuring US and UK defence contractors.
Last Friday the Times published a letter signed by "top 20 American defence officials" urging the UK to continue its contribution to Atlantic security in uncertain times.
Signatories included: two board members from Lockheed Martin, one from Babcock (defence group), another from Sandia (Lockheed subsidiary) and one from EADS.
All companies have a vested interest in Trident renewal, though the corporate connection was not made explicit by The Times. Nor were the vested interests of the Snowcroft Group "premier advisory firm" which employs another 3 signatories.
US companies stand to make a mint from Trident renewal and the UK g'ment will cough up.
Our programme is heavily dependent on the American project to update its fleet of Ohio-class subs. And vice-versa. The two fleets will share a lot of technology. The UK ones share propulsion, hull, sensor & missile technology with the US ones, as well as Tridents D-5 missiles & warheads.
So why do the US subs cost around $4bn each and the UK ones £10bn?
Headline: defence contractors lobby politicians!
In other news, the sun continues to rise...
Bit of a rip off, no, in these cash-strapped austeric times?
You'd think someone would notice.
Depends where you got your £10bn figure from "
An insider |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Update:
The vote on Trident had bugger all to do with national security and everything to do with reassuring US and UK defence contractors.
Last Friday the Times published a letter signed by "top 20 American defence officials" urging the UK to continue its contribution to Atlantic security in uncertain times.
Signatories included: two board members from Lockheed Martin, one from Babcock (defence group), another from Sandia (Lockheed subsidiary) and one from EADS.
All companies have a vested interest in Trident renewal, though the corporate connection was not made explicit by The Times. Nor were the vested interests of the Snowcroft Group "premier advisory firm" which employs another 3 signatories.
US companies stand to make a mint from Trident renewal and the UK g'ment will cough up.
Our programme is heavily dependent on the American project to update its fleet of Ohio-class subs. And vice-versa. The two fleets will share a lot of technology. The UK ones share propulsion, hull, sensor & missile technology with the US ones, as well as Tridents D-5 missiles & warheads.
So why do the US subs cost around $4bn each and the UK ones £10bn?
Headline: defence contractors lobby politicians!
In other news, the sun continues to rise...
Bit of a rip off, no, in these cash-strapped austeric times?
You'd think someone would notice.
Depends where you got your £10bn figure from
An insider "
Inside someone's ass more like. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Update:
The vote on Trident had bugger all to do with national security and everything to do with reassuring US and UK defence contractors.
Last Friday the Times published a letter signed by "top 20 American defence officials" urging the UK to continue its contribution to Atlantic security in uncertain times.
Signatories included: two board members from Lockheed Martin, one from Babcock (defence group), another from Sandia (Lockheed subsidiary) and one from EADS.
All companies have a vested interest in Trident renewal, though the corporate connection was not made explicit by The Times. Nor were the vested interests of the Snowcroft Group "premier advisory firm" which employs another 3 signatories.
US companies stand to make a mint from Trident renewal and the UK g'ment will cough up.
Our programme is heavily dependent on the American project to update its fleet of Ohio-class subs. And vice-versa. The two fleets will share a lot of technology. The UK ones share propulsion, hull, sensor & missile technology with the US ones, as well as Tridents D-5 missiles & warheads.
So why do the US subs cost around $4bn each and the UK ones £10bn?
Headline: defence contractors lobby politicians!
In other news, the sun continues to rise...
Bit of a rip off, no, in these cash-strapped austeric times?
You'd think someone would notice.
Depends where you got your £10bn figure from
An insider
Inside someone's ass more like. "
It sounds a cop-out but it's a Pariliamentary insider |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just read through this and found it very interesting.
My view is I'm glad we are renewing Trident. 40bn spent to give up 30 years of insurance against nuclear attack is good value.
What I don't think is good value is giving away 10bn+ a year on foreign aid. If we stopped that we could pay for Trident in 4 years..! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just read through this and found it very interesting.
My view is I'm glad we are renewing Trident. 40bn spent to give up 30 years of insurance against nuclear attack is good value.
What I don't think is good value is giving away 10bn+ a year on foreign aid. If we stopped that we could pay for Trident in 4 years..! "
It's militarily pointless.
It's all about the politics of the Top Table and keeping defence contractors happy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Those that voted for it are welcome to it .... Get it the f&@k off my doorstep.
We don't want it, need it and didn't vote to renew it. "
The vote is carried out in Parliament and the Yes vote won.
So we do want it, we need it and we have it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just read through this and found it very interesting.
My view is I'm glad we are renewing Trident. 40bn spent to give up 30 years of insurance against nuclear attack is good value.
What I don't think is good value is giving away 10bn+ a year on foreign aid. If we stopped that we could pay for Trident in 4 years..! "
Does make you laugh, some on here saying we are paying £40 billion for trident, and I am saying £200 billion when we take in all the years maintaining it as well
but regardless of the cost, what is the point when we have Captains who cannot drive the things
even on a training exercise they bloody collide with a tanker, have you seen the size of the tanker, its huge, how can they not know it was there.
(HMS Ambush struck one of tankers Vemaoil XXI).
.
Incompetent assholes in charge if £billions & nuclear warheads
.
if it wasn't so serious it would be funny.
.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
"
This is exactly why the trident system is required.
Having at least one multi-warhead missile system available even if the whole of the UK is wiped out gives the protection before any war is started.
The trident system provides that the aggressor will not escape if they do attack and wipe out the UK's land based resources.
In the past (50s & 60s) the fact that the air launched weapons could take off from their airfields in time to escape destruction was enough, the latest weapons reduced the warning time and that could no longer be assured.
As a result a remote at sea deterrent was required.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
This is exactly why the trident system is required.
Having at least one multi-warhead missile system available even if the whole of the UK is wiped out gives the protection before any war is started.
The trident system provides that the aggressor will not escape if they do attack and wipe out the UK's land based resources.
In the past (50s & 60s) the fact that the air launched weapons could take off from their airfields in time to escape destruction was enough, the latest weapons reduced the warning time and that could no longer be assured.
As a result a remote at sea deterrent was required.
"
nah its a huge waste of money as no one would ever use it anyway even if someone did send a bunch of nukes at it.
please tell me who would press the nuke button to retaliate?
Ok lets say north korea for example had nukes capable of reaching us and wiping us out... we are doomed regardless of our next action....are you telling me that the person who is in charge at the time in his last action on this earth before facing what ever comes next (who knows maybe meeting his maker), that he will push the button to condemn many millions of innocents to their deaths just because they have a insane leader who was crazy enough to start nuking.
NO I would like to think that no sane person would condemn innocent millions just out of vengence because we are doomed.
not the last thing id want to do before I leave this world and nor should it be any right minded person.
also as been stated many many times before there is hundreds of countrys without nukes and they do fine and arnt getting blown up.
someone eventually will need to take the lead and say hey if we want a nuke free world its gotta start somwhere so why not with us, we are disarming our nuclear capacity and using those billions saved on making the country and world a better place.
maybe just maybe others will follow.....but whilst we just keep renewing or stock piling more thats only going to make others get more and make countrys without nukes want them themselves for their own "insurance policy".
It just makes the world a more darker evil place and I think us renewing trident is the wrong decision...we should have stepped up and said no we no longer want to be apart of this.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For those saying we do not need Trident then save yourselves a load of cash and cancel all your insurance policies.
Trident is our national insurance policy against nuclear attack. And for what it costs and what it delivers it is great value for money..
No it's fucking not, if we get nuclear attacked we get blown the fuck up and nothing and nobody will stop that!.
This is exactly why the trident system is required.
Having at least one multi-warhead missile system available even if the whole of the UK is wiped out gives the protection before any war is started.
The trident system provides that the aggressor will not escape if they do attack and wipe out the UK's land based resources.
In the past (50s & 60s) the fact that the air launched weapons could take off from their airfields in time to escape destruction was enough, the latest weapons reduced the warning time and that could no longer be assured.
As a result a remote at sea deterrent was required.
nah its a huge waste of money as no one would ever use it anyway even if someone did send a bunch of nukes at it.
please tell me who would press the nuke button to retaliate?
Ok lets say north korea for example had nukes capable of reaching us and wiping us out... we are doomed regardless of our next action....are you telling me that the person who is in charge at the time in his last action on this earth before facing what ever comes next (who knows maybe meeting his maker), that he will push the button to condemn many millions of innocents to their deaths just because they have a insane leader who was crazy enough to start nuking.
NO I would like to think that no sane person would condemn innocent millions just out of vengence because we are doomed.
not the last thing id want to do before I leave this world and nor should it be any right minded person.
also as been stated many many times before there is hundreds of countrys without nukes and they do fine and arnt getting blown up.
someone eventually will need to take the lead and say hey if we want a nuke free world its gotta start somwhere so why not with us, we are disarming our nuclear capacity and using those billions saved on making the country and world a better place.
maybe just maybe others will follow.....but whilst we just keep renewing or stock piling more thats only going to make others get more and make countrys without nukes want them themselves for their own "insurance policy".
It just makes the world a more darker evil place and I think us renewing trident is the wrong decision...we should have stepped up and said no we no longer want to be apart of this.
"
I admire you stance.
But I'd still want the bastards oblitetated |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Have just read this thread and I find the lack of understanding amazing.
Firstly to answer Diamond Joe's questions:
"
1/ how much will it cost?
"
Potentially a lot less than not having them
"
2/ what is its use?
"
Just by being there they reduce our need to have very large standing defence forces.
"
3/ what are the alternatives?
"
Keeping millions of men under arms and a navy big enough to protect all our shipping around the globe.
"
4/ just how 'independent' is it?
"
Very! although it is called a 'dual key' system and in theory we need the USA to agree before we can launch our missiles the fact is the 'dual keys' that actually launch the missiles are held by the captain and another senior officer on board the boats and they can arm and fire the missiles at any time.
Now to deal with a total fallacy. Atomic weapons are NOT weapons of mass destruction! Conventional weapons ARE weapons of mass destruction!
Since their invention atomic weapons have killed somewhere between 150,000 and 500,000 people over 70 years. In the same time conventional weapons have killed is estimated between 20 and 40 million!
In 1945 when Germany was totally defeated gangs of SS field courts roamed Berlin killing any refusing to fight. The result was 50,000 Russians lost their lives storming the city (they are buried in 5 mass graves in Treptower Park), German deaths were not recorded...
The taking of Okinawa cost 14,000 allied lives and over 220,000 Japanese lives including at least 150,000 civilians. The planners estimated that invading the home Islands would cost at least 1 million dead 2 million wounded allied troops. There were no estimates (in numbers) of Japanese dead, just between 70 and 95% of the population!
I could expand further with examples of how Pakistan and India have halted their war over Kashmir since both sides successfully exploded atomic bombs, and then contrast that with what has happened to Ukraine since it unilaterally disarmed, but if I have not already convinced those opposed to atomic weapons that they are misguided then there is no point.
The simple fact is that although you may not like atomic weapons ironically they save lives.
The only people to really benefit from the removal of atomic weapons from earth are the arms and munitions manufactures and dealers (and of course the power hungry they supply). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Seeing as the tridents are old, they should be used on countries like n. Korea before they become a threat, plus any other countries that could be a threat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In the cold war period, mutually assured destruction was the rational idea that kept the peace. In relation to North Korea ol Mr Kim strikes me as anything but rational. Same as any fundamentalist group acquiring nuclear weapons. Also if North Korea did launch you would not be able to retaliate because of their close proximity to China.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seeing as the tridents are old, they should be used on countries like n. Korea before they become a threat, plus any other countries that could be a threat"
I truly hope you wasn't serious with that statement.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the cold war period, mutually assured destruction was the rational idea that kept the peace. In relation to North Korea ol Mr Kim strikes me as anything but rational. Same as any fundamentalist group acquiring nuclear weapons. Also if North Korea did launch you would not be able to retaliate because of their close proximity to China.
"
China has often shown a willingness to f North Korea in the a, whether it's the personal humiliation of Kim Jung Il by Zhu Rongi or Xi Jin Ping shutting down the countries Internet for 2 days after they hacked Sony.
China is the only reason the Kim family stays in power, the Kim's know this and they don't push China too far accordingly. If North Korea launched anything then the Kim dynasty would be gone within weeks because China doesn't pussy foot around. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Captain Corbyn will be sailing them, but not firing from them
But it's a reasonable question to ask, whatever your political persuasion, under what circumstances would the UK ever use nukes? "
Peter Hennessy's book, The Secret State, is newly updated with more declassified documents about UK planning for nuclear war.
Horrific stuff.
Retaliation against a nuclear attack is the only circumstance in which a UK Prime Minister, or their nominated deputy, would authorise the firing of the nuclear arsenal.
The UK arsenal is intended to kill 8 million people and cause 8 million more casualties.
That is what they call the deterrent effect.
A UK PM who ever authorised the firing of the UK arsenal would do so in the knowledge that the UK was about to be turned into an un-inhabitable wasteland.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Its a huge amount of money for something that really is a last resort and would effect the whole planet,
Its going to cost X amount to replace the trident or X amount to upgrade it, If they do neither what is the alternative ?
Having no deterrent to any future/potential "rogue countries" and leaving it to diplomacy ?
Another type of defence system ?
Relying on our "friends" to back us up ?
I don't really no much about the subject myself but always find it interesting reading other peoples comments/facts on these type of topics "
Think of it as house insurance you get it hoping that your house doesnt burn down and never have to use it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Captain Corbyn will be sailing them, but not firing from them
But it's a reasonable question to ask, whatever your political persuasion, under what circumstances would the UK ever use nukes?
Peter Hennessy's book, The Secret State, is newly updated with more declassified documents about UK planning for nuclear war.
Horrific stuff.
Retaliation against a nuclear attack is the only circumstance in which a UK Prime Minister, or their nominated deputy, would authorise the firing of the nuclear arsenal.
The UK arsenal is intended to kill 8 million people and cause 8 million more casualties.
That is what they call the deterrent effect.
A UK PM who ever authorised the firing of the UK arsenal would do so in the knowledge that the UK was about to be turned into an un-inhabitable wasteland.
"
Indeed, that's the entire reason for having Nukes, insurance policy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The Maybot said she would use it as a “First strike weapon “ in some circumstance.
So it isn’t just a deterrent if the PM would use it as a first strike option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I prefer no War at all !!!
But I strongly suspect it’s Unusable ?
Do you Seriously think the Yanks would sell us it if it either Worked or they couldn’t stop us Using It !
Yes I’m Serious !!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
So it isn’t just a deterrent if the PM would use it as a first strike option."
It would take a particular kind of person to authorise the slaughter of 8 million people. I don't think she was one of those.
Grand-standing for the Tory backbenches and an attempt to look tough opposite Mr Corbyn.
"I'm willing to slaughter 8 million people. Are you?"
"Er, no"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This has surfaced from over a year ago.
Lets go back to the 60's
What would the world be like today ?
If CND and the liberal socialists, and dope smoking, lsd taking hippie leftists managed to ban the BO*B in the USA and UK
would our countries be still in tact today. After the Cuban missile crisis.
And now the leftist liberals socialist democrats want to hand everything over to the EU.
What planet are you idiots on.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Never underestimate human stupidity . "
And that really was a stupid thing for Mrs May to say.
Britain's justification for possession of nuclear weapons - indeed, every country's justification - is that it deters a pre-emptive nuclear attack.
By declaring your own willingness to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack, you give every other country justification to deter you by obtaining possession of nuclear weapons.
She really did not think that through. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
And now the leftist liberals socialist democrats want to hand everything over to the EU.
"
Under the UK war plan, Britain already has handed over its nuclear weapons.
Their deployment comes under NATO command.
There is a clause somewhere that allows the UK to act unilaterally when the "supreme national interest" is at stake, but this is not defined.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Under the UK war plan, Britain already has handed over its nuclear weapons.
Their deployment comes under NATO command."
Not so...
At all times the UK retains final say as to the deployment of ALL UK forces. It is only AFTER deployment has been authorised by the UK government does operational command of a weapon system pass to the relevant theatre commander.
The only things known about our submarine borne nuclear deterrent is that on assuming office each PM gives sealed written orders that are locked in the commanders safe for auctioning by the On Patrol commander of an SSBN if the UK is hit by a preemptive strike and command and control is lost. And that when these orders are updated the previous orders are destroyed unopened, so no body but the PM giving the orders knows what orders have been given. Or at least that is the official line... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Under the UK war plan, Britain already has handed over its nuclear weapons.
Their deployment comes under NATO command.
Not so...
At all times the UK retains final say as to the deployment of ALL UK forces. It is only AFTER deployment has been authorised by the UK government does operational command of a weapon system pass to the relevant theatre commander.
The only things known about our submarine borne nuclear deterrent is that on assuming office each PM gives sealed written orders that are locked in the commanders safe for auctioning by the On Patrol commander of an SSBN if the UK is hit by a preemptive strike and command and control is lost. And that when these orders are updated the previous orders are destroyed unopened, so no body but the PM giving the orders knows what orders have been given. Or at least that is the official line..."
Yes, in the final stage of World War III, that is correct - authorisation to launch comes from the PM or their deputy, failing which those letters come into play.
In the transition to war, however, they come under the NATO command.
The General War Book advises the PM to consult the President of the US prior to authorising their launch.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Britain's use of the Polaris, and now Trident missile, also has an interest political consequence.
If a UK submarine launched a Trident missile from the North Atlantic, the enemy cannot tell whether it belongs to the UK or the US.
British strategic thinking around Polaris and Trident, therefore, was to believe it locked the US into the security of Europe.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In the transition to war, however, they come under the NATO command.
The General War Book advises the PM to consult the President of the US prior to authorising their launch.
"
You're missing my point. What you are describing is after the PM has handed control of forces to the military. The first decision to deploy ANY military force is always with the Government and ultimately the PM. The government may seek parliamentary approval, but only the PM (or their deputy if they are lost) can give the first order to use force, and only the PM can set the terms and limits of engagement.
I know we are arguing over technicalities, but its the very important technicality of who has the power to take us to war and who says what forces should be used from once we go to war. NATO doesn't and never has had those powers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Yes, I agree, the ultimate launch authority sits with the PM alone.
I'm talking about the lead-up to that.
Let's say Germany came under nuclear bombardment.
Under the NATO Treaty, NATO is obliged to defend Germany with nuclear retaliation.
That is where the non-nuclear members of NATO get the guarantee of their security from.
That is why in peace-time, and even in a period of heightened tension, all nuclear weapons are said to be under the command of NATO.
The UK responds to NATO command when it comes to deploying conventional and non-convential forces.
While there is a General War Book for the transition to war and the outbreak of WWIII, the reality is it would be uncharted territory for any UK PM faced with such a situation.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have we been attacked yet? No. So they are working and have done for decades.
That is the point. It is a deterrent. It deters people from starting something that will damage them more. Insurance."
Correlation is not causation.
I own a dog. My house hasn't been broken into. This is because of my dog. Is it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Not really.
There is no defence against nuclear bombardment.
Only a threat that wiping out 28 million Britons will result in the extermination of 8 million citizens of the enemy in return, and a calculation that no enemy is willing to pay that price.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Deterrent is the dig that stops burglars coming into your house. Insurance is what buys you new jewellery after the burglars have been.
There is an argument that having nuclear capability deters others from attacking you.
But those missiles do bugger all to fix the place up again if someone ignores your deterrent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Deterrent is the dig that stops burglars coming into your house. Insurance is what buys you new jewellery after the burglars have been.
There is an argument that having nuclear capability deters others from attacking you.
But those missiles do bugger all to fix the place up again if someone ignores your deterrent."
*dog !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not really.
There is no defence against nuclear bombardment.
Only a threat that wiping out 28 million Britons will result in the extermination of 8 million citizens of the enemy in return, and a calculation that no enemy is willing to pay that price.
"
Eh?
It was a simple statement, for a long time now the term Insurance policy & Deterrent have gone hand in hand as the reason for having Nuclear weapons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Yes, if your deterrent fails to deter, you are fucked, basically. Well and truly.
"
more chance of being fucked if you dont have one though.Every country can be a freloader and hope someone will stick up for them.Not a great fan of trump but i can see his point on NATO, countries are not putting what they should be putting in on defense and he is getting pissed off the usa bearing the cost. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correlation is not causation.
I own a dog. My house hasn't been broken into. This is because of my dog. Is it? "
Sorry you are totally incorrect in your belief that there is no evidence to prove the effectiveness of nuclear deterrents.
To put it simply (without going into the history of warfare dating back to the Hoplites of Ancient Greece), between the industrialisation of slaughter with the perfection of the of the Maxim Gun by Vickers (round 1900) and 1945 the official death tole in war is nearly 135,000,000. From 1945 to present the number is less than 8,000,000. That's approximately 3 million deaths a year due to warfare from the perfection of the machine gun till the detonation of nuclear weapons in war, and less than 110,000 a year from that point on.
The numbers are stark, and the conclusions are unambiguous, nuclear weapons are genuinely a necessary evil. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Yes, if your deterrent fails to deter, you are fucked, basically. Well and truly.
more chance of being fucked if you dont have one though.Every country can be a freloader and hope someone will stick up for them.Not a great fan of trump but i can see his point on NATO, countries are not putting what they should be putting in on defense and he is getting pissed off the usa bearing the cost."
There is no logic to that.
There are five declared nuclear powers - USA, Russia, China, UK and France.
Plus Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea.
9 out of 192 have nuclear weapons.
The justification of every nuclear country is to deter attack by another country WITH nuclear weapons, i.e. your enemy comes from one of those 9, not one of the 192.
Of the 9 countries, some have used overwhelming conventional forces since 1945 to achieve their military objectives in foreign states.
None has used nuclear weapons, except one.
The principle of deterrence means that possession of nuclear weapons by one country becomes the justification for another to deter you from attacking them with nuclear weapons.
The reality is that a nuclear exchange between the P5 will devastate a large number of the 192 countries who do not possess weapons.
This was one of the startling conclusions of the General War Plan of the US, which presumed launching every single warhead in its arsenal simultaneously at targets in China and Russia.
The resulting firestorm would flatten western europe, even without retaliation from the USSR.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Another fascinating bit of anorak stuff I discovered.
After the Japanese detonations in 1945, some of the scientists from the UK and US developed serious conscience issues.
The US now had a terrible advantage over the rest of the world, and the hawks in Washington wanted to blitz the USSR before it got the technology, too.
This was the reason some of the scientists gave for giving the secrets to the USSR - for reasons of humanity rather than ideology.
By creating what they called a 'balance of terror', neither side could ever seriously contemplate attacking the other.
Had they not, and the hawks had got their way, next up was a genocidal attack on the Soviet Union.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another fascinating bit of anorak stuff I discovered.
After the Japanese detonations in 1945, some of the scientists from the UK and US developed serious conscience issues.
The US now had a terrible advantage over the rest of the world, and the hawks in Washington wanted to blitz the USSR before it got the technology, too.
This was the reason some of the scientists gave for giving the secrets to the USSR - for reasons of humanity rather than ideology.
By creating what they called a 'balance of terror', neither side could ever seriously contemplate attacking the other.
Had they not, and the hawks had got their way, next up was a genocidal attack on the Soviet Union.
"
There is just a couple of problems with that postulation...
Fat Man and Tall Boy were the only built nukes in 1945. There was possibly enough enriched fissile material to build 1 more Uranium bomb but it would take about 3 months to put it together and then it would have taken around 30 months to produce the material to build the next batch of 5 or 6 bombs. It was not until the early 50's that there was the production infrastructure to ramp up production seriously. Plus the Soviets had moles within The Manhattan Project from its inception. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another fascinating bit of anorak stuff I discovered.
After the Japanese detonations in 1945, some of the scientists from the UK and US developed serious conscience issues.
The US now had a terrible advantage over the rest of the world, and the hawks in Washington wanted to blitz the USSR before it got the technology, too.
This was the reason some of the scientists gave for giving the secrets to the USSR - for reasons of humanity rather than ideology.
By creating what they called a 'balance of terror', neither side could ever seriously contemplate attacking the other.
Had they not, and the hawks had got their way, next up was a genocidal attack on the Soviet Union.
There is just a couple of problems with that postulation...
Fat Man and Tall Boy were the only built nukes in 1945. There was possibly enough enriched fissile material to build 1 more Uranium bomb but it would take about 3 months to put it together and then it would have taken around 30 months to produce the material to build the next batch of 5 or 6 bombs. It was not until the early 50's that there was the production infrastructure to ramp up production seriously. Plus the Soviets had moles within The Manhattan Project from its inception."
I agree with Will.
Fookin 'ell. I've said that twice in less than a week. DOCTOR! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
There is just a couple of problems with that postulation...."
Yes, the US had used up its available weapons on Japan.
The US assessed how many years it would be before the USSR had the bomb.
I cannot remember the exact figure - let's say the US calculated 1952.
The hawks wanted to ramp up production in the US to create enough weapons to obliterate the USSR before the Soviets got their hands on one.
The secret data that was passed from the US and UK to the USSR is thought to have accelerated the USSR process by about three years.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
There is just a couple of problems with that postulation....
Yes, the US had used up its available weapons on Japan.
The US assessed how many years it would be before the USSR had the bomb.
I cannot remember the exact figure - let's say the US calculated 1952.
The hawks wanted to ramp up production in the US to create enough weapons to obliterate the USSR before the Soviets got their hands on one.
The secret data that was passed from the US and UK to the USSR is thought to have accelerated the USSR process by about three years.
"
Of course there were some "Hawks" that talked about such things. But to try to insinuate that it was US policy is nonsense.
They could have listened to George Patton who wanted to re-arm the Germans in 1945 to make a joint attack on the Soviets.
He died in a "car crash" shortly after making the statement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I agree with Will.
Fookin 'ell. I've said that twice in less than a week. DOCTOR! "
Don't worry, its only a temporary aberration, normality will return as soon as the subject isn't defence related.
"
There is just a couple of problems with that postulation....
Yes, the US had used up its available weapons on Japan.
The US assessed how many years it would be before the USSR had the bomb.
I cannot remember the exact figure - let's say the US calculated 1952.
The hawks wanted to ramp up production in the US to create enough weapons to obliterate the USSR before the Soviets got their hands on one.
The secret data that was passed from the US and UK to the USSR is thought to have accelerated the USSR process by about three years.
"
You are correct in most of what you say Sara. But you have got a couple of things wrong, I expect because the history has been very much downplayed.
Before the detonation of the first (test) device (Trinity) at White Sands the soviet courier being used by the Rosenburgs had been discovered and US military intelligence (there's an oxymoron if ever there was one) knew that the Manhattan Project was completely compromised and production had been accelerated as much as possible. Until the invention of the high speed nuclear centrifuge in the 50s it was not possible to produce fissile material fast enough to mass produce nukes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Correlation is not causation.
I own a dog. My house hasn't been broken into. This is because of my dog. Is it?
Sorry you are totally incorrect in your belief that there is no evidence to prove the effectiveness of nuclear deterrents.
To put it simply (without going into the history of warfare dating back to the Hoplites of Ancient Greece), between the industrialisation of slaughter with the perfection of the of the Maxim Gun by Vickers (round 1900) and 1945 the official death tole in war is nearly 135,000,000. From 1945 to present the number is less than 8,000,000. That's approximately 3 million deaths a year due to warfare from the perfection of the machine gun till the detonation of nuclear weapons in war, and less than 110,000 a year from that point on.
The numbers are stark, and the conclusions are unambiguous, nuclear weapons are genuinely a necessary evil. "
Your numbers are shite, though. 2.5m dead in Vietnam. Another 3.5m deaths in Congo. 3m in Korea. That's 9m dead right there - and those numbers are nowhere near the high estimates of how many died in those wars. And that's without taking into account 75 years of other wars with horrendous numbers of dead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your numbers are shite, though. 2.5m dead in Vietnam. Another 3.5m deaths in Congo. 3m in Korea. That's 9m dead right there - and those numbers are nowhere near the high estimates of how many died in those wars. And that's without taking into account 75 years of other wars with horrendous numbers of dead. "
They are not my numbers. You are taking the maximum in the death range, I am taking the mean. There are differences depending on which source you use but regardless of the source quoted they all show the same reduction in war deaths since the introduction of nuclear weapons.
Fact is without nuclear weapons superpowers would be in direct conflict and the death toll would be magnitudes higher. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Your numbers are shite, though. 2.5m dead in Vietnam. Another 3.5m deaths in Congo. 3m in Korea. That's 9m dead right there - and those numbers are nowhere near the high estimates of how many died in those wars. And that's without taking into account 75 years of other wars with horrendous numbers of dead.
They are not my numbers. You are taking the maximum in the death range, I am taking the mean. There are differences depending on which source you use but regardless of the source quoted they all show the same reduction in war deaths since the introduction of nuclear weapons.
Fact is without nuclear weapons superpowers would be in direct conflict and the death toll would be magnitudes higher. "
I'm absolutely not. High numbers for Korea are 4.5m, Congo 6m, Vietnam 3.5m.
Your numbers are wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There is no insurance policy.
Only a calculation that an enemy with nuclear weapons is unwilling to bear the cost of retaliation.
"
The "insurance policy" bit is the upfront cost you bare in acquiring the Nuclear weapons, not taking out an actual insurance policy with the bloody TSB  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We will own the submarines but only rent the missiles. Lockheed and US still control the missiles.
We would need permission from US to fire them. So not independent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The UK's strategic nuclear weapons are a lot like the Royal Family.
They have no practical use but they're less expensive and more popular than common sense would indicate.
Both are likely to still be on the go long after all of us are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
'Gestapo in Britain if Socialists win"
Daily Express headline, quoting Winston Churchill, in the 1945 General Election campaign.
Labour won a landslide.
Mr Corbyn admires the Atlee government.
In addition to the welfare state, nationalised industry, state education, council housing and the NHS, it gave us the atom bomb, too.
Quite a lot from the ruins of war.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"There is no insurance policy.
Only a calculation that an enemy with nuclear weapons is unwilling to bear the cost of retaliation.
The "insurance policy" bit is the upfront cost you bare in acquiring the Nuclear weapons, not taking out an actual insurance policy with the bloody TSB "
Insurance guarantees you against financial loss when things go tits up.
When Britain has been flattened and currency is what you find blowing in the wind in a field in Anglesy, where do you go to recover your loss?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"I agree with Will.
Fookin 'ell. I've said that twice in less than a week. DOCTOR!
Don't worry, its only a temporary aberration, normality will return as soon as the subject isn't defence related.
There is just a couple of problems with that postulation....
Yes, the US had used up its available weapons on Japan.
The US assessed how many years it would be before the USSR had the bomb.
I cannot remember the exact figure - let's say the US calculated 1952.
The hawks wanted to ramp up production in the US to create enough weapons to obliterate the USSR before the Soviets got their hands on one.
The secret data that was passed from the US and UK to the USSR is thought to have accelerated the USSR process by about three years.
You are correct in most of what you say Sara. But you have got a couple of things wrong, I expect because the history has been very much downplayed.
Before the detonation of the first (test) device (Trinity) at White Sands the soviet courier being used by the Rosenburgs had been discovered and US military intelligence (there's an oxymoron if ever there was one) knew that the Manhattan Project was completely compromised and production had been accelerated as much as possible. Until the invention of the high speed nuclear centrifuge in the 50s it was not possible to produce fissile material fast enough to mass produce nukes."
I'm sure you are right.
It was the perception of the hawks and their eagerness for nuclear war with the USSR that some scientists said was their justification for sharing the scientific data.
Their sense of guilt about Hiroshima and Nagaski reached tipping point when exposed to the bellicosity in some quarters about how the US could now conquer the world.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Scientists generally think their work is helping humankind advance.
Many of them had fled central Europe because science was being directed for purposes morally reprehensible.
America put them to work on a programme that was so compartmentalised that very very few knew the true objective.
When that emerged into sight in 1945, for many it was equally morally reprehensible - the slaughter of innocent citizens in cities.
Imagine discovering the task you have worked night and day at the frontier of science for years was to result in the death of 200,00-250,000 people.
It may have felt little different for a scientist from being put to work in a death camp by the Nazis where 200,000-250,000 people perished.
They were being asked to do things they found morally reprehensible - slaughter.
Who do you turn to next?
For some it was the USSR.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There is no insurance policy.
Only a calculation that an enemy with nuclear weapons is unwilling to bear the cost of retaliation.
The "insurance policy" bit is the upfront cost you bare in acquiring the Nuclear weapons, not taking out an actual insurance policy with the bloody TSB
Insurance guarantees you against financial loss when things go tits up.
When Britain has been flattened and currency is what you find blowing in the wind in a field in Anglesy, where do you go to recover your loss?
"
You're just been pedantic over a well used saying / term but be totally literal if you so need and we'll agree to disagree
Be totally literal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Scientists generally think their work is helping humankind advance.
Many of them had fled central Europe because science was being directed for purposes morally reprehensible.
America put them to work on a programme that was so compartmentalised that very very few knew the true objective."
Absolutely agree with you.
"When that emerged into sight in 1945, for many it was equally morally reprehensible - the slaughter of innocent citizens in cities."
Innocents? Really? I am afraid that here we will have to agree to disagree. There were no innocents above the age of 6 or 7 in Japan. There were non combatants, but all contributed to the war effort (even those in 'The Peace Party'), because that was the nature of the Japanese State.
"Imagine discovering the task you have worked night and day at the frontier of science for years was to result in the death of 200,00-250,000 people.
It may have felt little different for a scientist from being put to work in a death camp by the Nazis where 200,000-250,000 people perished.
They were being asked to do things they found morally reprehensible - slaughter.
"
You are overestimating the death toll by between 80 and 110 thousand. Remember the figures you quote include the 80 to 110 thousand who have died from radiation linked cancers in the 74/5/6 years since the Manhattan Project, and you really can't count deaths that were unknown and for the most part in the future when justifying treason.
Now I fully accept that those who were caught blurred the timeline to justify their actions just like all those whose betrayals are exposed do when it is possible to do so. But that does not mean their dissemination should be left unchallenged. This last sentence is, of course, my opinion nothing more.
"
Who do you turn to next?
For some it was the USSR.
"
Just to be clear, these 'people of conscious' claim that they found the ending of the war by the killing of around 140,000 Japanese so wrong that they were 'forced' to break oaths and betray their countries to a threat (the USSR) that was just as sinister as the Nazis to the free world. But this justification requires those accepting it to ignore the fact that the Pacific war was played out on graphic newsreels that showed the cost being paid in US and Allied lives in the island hopping advance towards the Japanese home islands. All heard 'Tokyo Rose's' broadcasts and knew that the Japanese people would kill and maim millions of Allied troops as well as slaughter all POWs if it became necessary to invade the home islands. So the successful use of atomic weapons was not viewed as morally reprehensible at the time, that came later as the horrors of the conventional war faded (as they always do). But it has made a perfect foil to be used with greater and greater effect over decades as the memories those who lived through that chapter in history diminish as they die off and the legends invented by those who wish to shade history get to gain traction. Again this last part is my opinion, nothing more.
But you may well be right. Those who disseminated nuclear secrets, be it to the USSR or china or Israel or India or Pakistan or Iran may have done so for the purest of motives and to bring balance to the world.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The reason that the US wanted the war over quickly was to do with the fact that the USSR had sent it's armies to the far East and was was conquering all in front of it. US didn't want far East to be annexed by USSR as had happened in eastern Europe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The reason that the US wanted the war over quickly was to do with the fact that the USSR had sent it's armies to the far East and was was conquering all in front of it. US didn't want far East to be annexed by USSR as had happened in eastern Europe. "
The historical papers don't really agree with you.
The USSR had no intention of going to war with Japan, in fact the Stalin resisted all attempts by the Western allies to give any assistance in the Pacific war right up to him being informed of the successful Trinity test. It was only then that Stalin mobilised troops on the Eastern seaboard and that sparked the race to drop the bomb before Stalin could make a move that would give him a claim on his Eastern seaboard and in SE Asia. In fact in the winter of 41 through till the battle of Stalingrad Stalin was so concerned that Japan would attack his Eastern seaboard he kept many of his best troops in Siberia just in case, in fact he came close to loosing in the winter of 41 because of his reticence to release any of the Siberian divisions to defend Moscow and Leningrad which were the 2 points of resistance that managed to fix the German invaders and allow the Russian winter (January and February) and the mud of the March spring to do its worst and decimate General Guderian's 2nd Panzer Army. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
I believe only one country has disarmed - South Africa.
Three countries renounced weapons development programmes - Libya, Syria and Iraq.
All three subsequently the subject of western aggression.
A lesson not lost on Iran and North Korea.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I believe only one country has disarmed - South Africa.
Three countries renounced weapons development programmes - Libya, Syria and Iraq.
All three subsequently the subject of western aggression.
A lesson not lost on Iran and North Korea.
"
You forgot Ukraine from your list. Giving up the Nukes they inherited when the USSR disintegrated did not work out well for them, ask the people living in the Crimea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"True.
They did ask the people of Crimea.
95% asked Russia for protection from Ukraine.
"
Did they?
Who are they?
Would that have been the Russian troops masquerading as Crimean militia? And how would you vote when men with guns tell you to vote for them and the naval guns of the Russian Black Sea fleet are pointing at your coastal cities and towns? (For your protection and security of course.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Crimea is ethnic Russian predominantly.
Under an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, Russia retained a naval base and the right to deploy troops within a certain radius of it.
When the neo-fascists in Ukraine started to march on Crimea with their promises of ethnic cleansing - remember the cinema fire? - who else were the ethnic Russians going to turn to for protection?
Or were you happy to sit back and see Crimea cleansed of everything Russian?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Ukraine really was just part of a pattern that keeps repeating over and over again.
Outside interference to bring about regime change, destabilising countries and allowing ethnic hatreds to rise to the surface in an uncontrolled way.
Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia, Ukraine.
You can argue the same thing is now happening to the UK.
Russia and the US helping to ferment unrest and destabilisation in the UK, bringing ethnic tensions to the fore amidst the chaos.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The reason that the US wanted the war over quickly was to do with the fact that the USSR had sent it's armies to the far East and was was conquering all in front of it. US didn't want far East to be annexed by USSR as had happened in eastern Europe.
The historical papers don't really agree with you.
The USSR had no intention of going to war with Japan, in fact the Stalin resisted all attempts by the Western allies to give any assistance in the Pacific war right up to him being informed of the successful Trinity test. It was only then that Stalin mobilised troops on the Eastern seaboard and that sparked the race to drop the bomb before Stalin could make a move that would give him a claim on his Eastern seaboard and in SE Asia. In fact in the winter of 41 through till the battle of Stalingrad Stalin was so concerned that Japan would attack his Eastern seaboard he kept many of his best troops in Siberia just in case, in fact he came close to loosing in the winter of 41 because of his reticence to release any of the Siberian divisions to defend Moscow and Leningrad which were the 2 points of resistance that managed to fix the German invaders and allow the Russian winter (January and February) and the mud of the March spring to do its worst and decimate General Guderian's 2nd Panzer Army."
Post the collapse of Germany May 1945. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
