Britain to waste fortune on new nuke subs

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by Matth, Dec 4, 2006.

  1. Matth

    Matth Flash Banner Hater

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    58
    While keeping an independent "nuclear deterrent" means a place at the negotiating table, it seems an expense that we can ill afford, specially considering the lamentable state of the equipment for forces that are engaged at the moment, and will be for some considerable time to come.

    Are the basic requirements for a valid nuclear deterrent (independent) still met:

    1. A credible opponent is, or will be targeting you with nukes.
    2. You WILL be prepared to deliver nuclear retaliation (polluting not only the intended target, but friendly territories nearby).
    3. There is a target and adminstration that it is reasonable to retaliate against.
     
  2. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    23,723
    Likes Received:
    3,497
    Trophy Points:
    153
    1. So the reason to have nukes is to use them? Deterrent means not having to use them. If you don't have them, you don't have a deterrent.
    2. If a country nukes say Bham, you think the british will not want to retaliate?
    3. What if there is a target and administration but you do not have nukes because few years ago you thought it would be a good idea to not upgrade your nukes or proceed alone on nuke disarmament?

    Do you think that if the UK says no more nukes for us, the rest of the world will follow? Seriously? Nukes and the close relationship to the USA is the only thing still allows the UK to remain a country with as much influence as it does now.

    Just because there is a possible increase of asymentric threats, even from the inside, it doesn't make the nuclear arsenal obsolete. If the other side has it (no matter now or in 20 years) and you don't, what stops them on using them on you? Tell you what would happen if say Iran used nukes on a non nuclear UK, nothing. None else will nuke back. Oil is too important. If you don't defend yourself, others will not defend you.
     
  3. Maddogg6

    Maddogg6 Tail Razer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I completely agree - the retaliation would more likely be in a more covert way (in attempt prevent oil field suicide by the Iranians, and an all out WW) - if not more traditional bombing/air raids by MANY UN abiding countries. But I believe more emphasis would be on the avoiding a WW than the ramifications on oil alone when you think about the cumulative affects a WW would bring.

    Anyone remembering WWII in the US - meant rationing (if not all out banning) of many things, like food (particularly meat and dairy), silk (and WWIII would most likely mean oil too) etc.. and anything else not necessary to sustain life becomes something quickly dropped in order for companies to shift focus to support the war, that would again, most likely be fought abroad - and thus more difficult to rely on allied support for the basic necessities for troop support. Then theres the post world war economic fall out - recovering our lost 'way of life' would be almost impossible afterwards - and no ones looking forward to that again either. Not to mention the likelihood of Israel (as well as our other allied and yes - oil rich nations there) being completely obliterated in the process.

    Even the 'radical Iranians' know that being the 'bad guy' and first to fire a nuke would cause much negative impact on them world wide. Otherwise - their message for the west/infidels to 'stay out of Iran' would have already been a nuclear one - but they DID use diplomatic channels first didn't they??. Now its all a matter of if we listen to their warnings or not.
     
  4. SFOSOK

    SFOSOK 939 Goin Strong

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,005
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Without Nuclear weapons, nations could wage all out wars (World Wars) when ever they felt like expanding their borders without fear of being anihalated.

    They only thing that stops humanity from destroying itself is the fear of being obliterated. Sure it would be nice if we live in a perfect world, but we don't and never will. Someone will always want more and humans are never satisfied by nature.
     
  5. OmegaRED

    OmegaRED Relapsed Gamer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,704
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    73
    The only thing that bothers me about acquiring nukes is that if they were attacked it would be without warning and no one would claim responsiblilty. You can't nuke a terrorist group that has no country backing and there would be a need to strike back, probably at an innocent nation. The days of ICBM's showing the launch origin are over.
     
  6. Pompey

    Pompey New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would like to see the worlds nuclear arsenal decommissioned, but there're still too many threats. Disarmament wont bring peace.

    Disarmament will come when/if the world is stable enough.
     
  7. SFOSOK

    SFOSOK 939 Goin Strong

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,005
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't believe it ever will be stable enough. Any small chance of that happening would probably not be in any of our lifetimes.
     
  8. ZzzombieBunny

    ZzzombieBunny Cake or Death?

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If global warming doesnt get us first, I think we will eventually blow ourselfs off this planet.
     
  9. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    23,723
    Likes Received:
    3,497
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Nah, aliens will get us.
     
  10. ZzzombieBunny

    ZzzombieBunny Cake or Death?

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whos to say global warming isnt caused by aliens? *insert dramatic music*
     
  11. SFOSOK

    SFOSOK 939 Goin Strong

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,005
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0

    A "dun Dun DUN!" would have done fine
     
  12. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    The UK has always been one of the world's most powerful superpowers.. It really should have a nuclear arsenal, and as modern as possible.
     
  13. MrSpock2002

    MrSpock2002 Because I said so!

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find it funny as hell that the United States beat the piss out of the British for our independance, and we have become THE MOST powerful nation on the planet. Even if every other nation on the planet wanted the US gone, they wouldnt be able to do a damn thing about it.. A few tactical nukes off the west and east coast, and boom no more rest of the world. All this in less then 300 years. No other nation on the planet could ever say the same. I do find it puzzling though how the US has the most powerful military, and most technalogicly inclined one at that on the planet in such a short time, when other nations like China, UK, etc have been around for much more of a time.

    I personally don't see the point for Nuclear weapons however. If you use them, especially on a large scale (that would be the definate result if a strike was launched) the entire planet is going to suffer. Including the Nation who used them to start with... Kinda pointless to have weapons that could whipe out the entire planet.
     
  14. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    The point of having them isn't to use them though. it is a deterrent. Kind of like having a gun in the house. You don;t want to use it, but maybe the criminal won't break in if he knows you might shoot him.

    Having all these nukes is dangerous though. Russia and the US still have nukes pointed at each other, and one wrong move could still mean global thermonuclear war. It is almost a necessary evil though I guess. What worries me more is crazy suicidal dictators having them.
     
  15. pr0digal jenius

    pr0digal jenius Delete Me

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    14,526
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are things far scarier then nukes, but we just sort of pretend they don't exist...nukes are big and easy to blame. [the US & Russia both still have viles of bubonic plague, small pox, and all other manner of nasty strains of flu, etc on ice]


    As for britain needing so many...well...large world power...tiny island....it's like the guy with a small penis buyign a ferrari. Ya gotta have the bluffing power before you approach the table, or you're sunk.



    Also, nukes are a big nasty form of broad destruction, but msot countries could be knocked out cold in a matter of hours anyways by less messy bombs....in the US, washington DC, new york city, Atlanta, Conyers, GA [not kidding.....it's strategically important], and Los Angeles would pretty much do us in....and LA would just be overkill, really....NYC is the monetary center, DC is the government center, Atlanta is the CDC [all those nasty diseases], and conyers is the telephone trunk line/IPX hub for the entire south eastern united states [atlanta, orlando, and miami, and miami & orlando house some of the largest datacenters in the country, as well as both atlanta and miami having federal reserve banks]...


    ...so yea....nukes are nasty, but really shouldn't be our biggest fear, I don't think....and whether we like it or not...space, not the ocean, is next
     
  16. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    What about an EMP bomb that takes out all of the USA's electronics? That would be worse than a nuke of one city almost.
     
  17. pr0digal jenius

    pr0digal jenius Delete Me

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    14,526
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yep


    EMP, microwave bombs [yes..they're looking into those...they melt everything within a long range], military grade cloaking devices, viral warheads, etc...nukes are old school, and IMO will be obsolete as weapons within 20 years [still very viable powerplants for submarines, boats and possibly in the future, planes, however]
     
  18. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    The EMP bombs I heard about were actually nukes, but just designed to make a huge EMP blast, and very little heat, etc.. The higher over the earth they detonate, the wider the effective range, basically, that means one could take out all the electronics in the US.

    It was on "Future weapons" on the discovery channel or wherever that show is. This one guy (US weapons specialists) was saying that the Russians have already made them the size of a coke can, and they have a hard time keeping track of them.. Scary. Just imagine the chaos if all the computers (or even a large % of them) just stop working. That would be a nightmare.
     
  19. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    23,723
    Likes Received:
    3,497
    Trophy Points:
    153
    We (as world) have become too dependant on too delicate technology. If aliens attacked just few emp "bombs" and they would just parade the next week.
     
  20. Zelig

    Zelig Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Nah, would take 2 wrong moves, one wrong move isn't going to launch nukes from both sides. ;)

    We succesfully eradicated smallpox, and the bubonic plague is still around, but kills almost nobody compared to diseases such as malaria. I'm far more worried about things like bird flu spreading to humans, or Staphylococcus aureus strains that are resistant to almost all of our drugs because of antibiotic abuse.

    The UK is still one of the most influential countries in the world, nobody is in the same class as the US (and China and India soon) in terms of global influence.

    Yeah, the idea for EMP bombs originate from the observations of the electromagnetic pulses that atmospheric nuclear tests created.

    Keep in mind that civilian technology is far less robust than military and other equipment where downtime has serious consequences. Check out the hardware NASA uses if you're interested, it's far slower than cheaper civilian systems, but they never have debilitating problems with it. All in all, alien invasion comes rather low on my own list of things to worry about. ;)
     

Share This Page

visited