|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 12, 2017 13:58:36 GMT
Russia is sort of the same except you know Putin isn't going to attack us, the US would retaliate and that would be it. Plus all his wealthy oligarchs like their money and London-based property too much to see it destroyed in a nuclear strike.
Surely the deterrent there is to wire up the housing in the posher post codes with explosives and make it known that the key will be turned if Russia looks a bit tasty in the weapons and attack department. Racing may not agree with that strategy. Oh I don't know. I'm quite fond of Chelsea, but if you blew it up, they'd all need to move to Fulham and my house might go up in value...
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jun 12, 2017 15:03:07 GMT
Surely the deterrent there is to wire up the housing in the posher post codes with explosives and make it known that the key will be turned if Russia looks a bit tasty in the weapons and attack department. Racing may not agree with that strategy. Oh I don't know. I'm quite fond of Chelsea, but if you blew it up, they'd all need to move to Fulham and my house might go up in value... That scenario had occurred to me as I wrote it
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 12, 2017 17:07:56 GMT
And we'd still be a member of NATO too. Russia haven't attacked Finland or Norway, neither of whom have nuclear weapons. I'm not a leftie, I just think that currently its a poor choice of thing to spend money on. That feeling's only going to get larger as we embark on the fiscal disaster that Brexit is going to be. Agree entirely - the V-Bomber fleet, Polaris and Trident were all sound choices at the time but the threat is different and, frankly, if North Korea want to go inter-ballistic then assuming they reach the UK what are we going to do about it anyway? Nuke East Asia (which includes mother Russia); no chance, it's a vanity project for willy-waving. And that's really what I was thinking. In a future where our country could be bought to its knees by a hacker sitting anonymously behind a computer screen on the other side of the world, how is a nuclear bomb really going to protect us? It is so far beyond the pail to think of a circumstance that justifies the use of such weapons that any aggressor knows it is a very very last and final resort. So why would they do anything to provoke such a response when they can take us down using cyber warfare tactics that leave us completely in the dark as to who our attacker is? I accept, however, that I'm no military expert (far from it) so maybe we are still at the stage where the traditional tactics of lobbing bombs at each other is still the way a Third World War will take place, but it does increasingly feel like the winds of change are in the air on this one. If you really believe all you read about Putin knowingly tampering with the electoral process of the US, maybe he is already at war with America, they just can't prove it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 20:18:00 GMT
We will NEVER be in the position of being able to launch trident or its replacement alone and independently. The ONLY way we will launch is as part of a proportional response and decided by the US/NATO. Just who is it that we would launch against as an independent nation? Do the Germans have nukes? No. Why not keep the small budget where it is best used? Conventional weapons. Do we even make ammunition for the few Challenger 2s we keep in service? No. We are increasingly reliant on the TA as they used to be called, now we have problems retaining trained senior soldiers and this was in the main caused by our own government when many soldiers were informed by email that they were being RIFFED or Reduction In Force Listed, made redundant and many of these were in Afghanistan at the time. Why do we need these weapons when we cannot use them alone? I have tried posting a pdf but this system will not let me right now.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2017 20:39:23 GMT
Wow. You've convinced me, it was the block caps that did it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 20:50:54 GMT
L11-30 Guns And Ammo.pdf (165.2 KB)I wish I could get a grip on these emoticon things otherwise I might come across as taking this seriously. OK, come up with a scenario where we might independently use our nuclear weapons in the real world without being part of a bigger dimension and only deciding for ourselves on their use. If you can.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2017 20:59:33 GMT
They're being used all the time as they force our enemies to think carefully about attacking us and they will continue to do so for threats we can't even imagine for the next thirty years.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jun 12, 2017 23:26:31 GMT
They're being used all the time as they force our enemies to think carefully about attacking us and they will continue to do so for threats we can't even imagine for the next thirty years. +1 That's the point of a nuclear deterrent. Russia is hardly an example of military restraint but they've not used theirs. They could have liquidised Georgia a few years ago and almost no one would have given a shit but they didn't because they don't know who's going to retaliate and with what weaponry.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 13, 2017 9:36:58 GMT
I don't think a nuclear deterrent is at the forefront of our enemies mind when they're plotting to attack, more likely economic considerations and the likely global reaction.
Our current enemies clearly don't give a shit - you can't drop a nuclear weapon on 3 men in a van in central London.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 13, 2017 9:43:33 GMT
I don't think a nuclear deterrent is at the forefront of our enemies mind when they're plotting to attack, more likely economic considerations and the likely global reaction. Our current enemies clearly don't give a shit - you can't drop a nuclear weapon on 3 men in a van in central London. We can't use fighter jets or Navy ships against those same men in a van in central London either so maybe we should get rid of them too?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 13, 2017 9:52:41 GMT
No, we can't use them against central London but they can be used against the supporters of that in other countries.
We've had the opportunity to use nuclear weapons overseas and never done it - see my earlier comments about Libya in 2011. The reason we haven't used them is because we never will except in an end of the world doomsday scenario and in those circumstances we'll just be adding to what everyone else has done so why bother.
Germany don't have nukes and last time I looked they weren't overrun by the Russians. Not sure who else - Poland, Italy, Greece, Czech?
I think we're just holding onto them so we have a seat at the top table in some weird throwback to The Empire and the immediate post-war era. It's the past, move on, let our allies stand the cost and we can spend our 2% on expanding the conventional force and perhaps actually buying them decent kit that works in a real war rather than some that might work in a completely hypothetical one.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 13, 2017 10:03:51 GMT
I am fairly sure that the non-nuclear European countries are comfortable not having nukes because they know that, within Europe, the French and British do.
In fact rather than detailing who doesn't have nuclear weapons, it's easier to list who does (it's a short list):
USA Russia China UK France Israel India Pakistan North Korea
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 13, 2017 10:03:58 GMT
The threat isn't just Russia, although they do seem to be developing new and more powerful weapons - I wonder why? Those countries (maybe not Czech) do have a nuclear deterrent as they're part of NATO and as mentioned earlier it is being used all the time as a deterrent. Are you seriously suggesting you'd like the USA to be the defender of last resort for Europe?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 13, 2017 10:05:47 GMT
And then there's Iran which has had a bloody good crack at getting them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 10:07:19 GMT
But we can use those items as well as ground forces against their leadership. Drones make a nice example of those who would indiscriminately kill.
Given the amount of money spent on acquiring, maintaining and updating the nuclear deterrent, what could we really do with the money? Lots of really needed defence projects that would employ a lot more people in the defence industry for a start.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 13, 2017 10:15:30 GMT
Are you seriously suggesting you'd like the USA to be the defender of last resort for Europe? Sure, why not. They're just as trigger happy as the Russians, if one fires they both will and we'll all be toast - apart from the arseholes who started it in the first place, they'll be nice and safe in their bunkers.
Iran might be seen to be a threat but I'm sure the Israelis have that one more than covered.
I just don't see the need for us to have them anymore. Yes, they're a deterrent but our most powerful ally has them and would be happy to use them in the ultimate scenario. I'm not suggesting we remove them from our borders, I 'd be happy to allow the Yanks to station them here.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 13, 2017 10:22:41 GMT
The Americans are increasingly voicing concerns that they are footing the bill for everybody else. Would you be happy to pay the USA a fee in order that they can station their weapons here that we have no control over?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 13, 2017 10:48:57 GMT
They're increasingly voicing concerns that NATO countries aren't spending 2% of their GDP on defence. We are ok in that measure (as, weirdly, are Greece!).
I don't see that allowing them to station nukes over here would cost us much, if anything. We already provide them the use of some installations and I'm sure they would be happy to have a forward line to have the weapons.
As for having no control, well we don't have that anyway and don't forget that nuclear weapons are a global weapon, not just regional. If the button gets pressed we're all in the shit.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 13, 2017 10:56:53 GMT
We have complete control of our nuclear deterrent as we decide when the keys are turned and what happens when they are. I find it astonishing that you would be happy to hand over our ultimate defence to a foreign power for the next thirty years and also expect them to pay for it. Remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 13, 2017 11:07:08 GMT
Just on the stationing argument, they wouldn't be stationed here. They wouldn't need to be as they'd be submarine based. I would guess our subscription to a US 'protection' service would be similar to what we pay for our own weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 13, 2017 11:26:54 GMT
The UK independent nuclear deterrent ensures this country can never be held to ransom by any other nation. Yes, if they fire on us and we fire on them then we all disappear in a huge fireball but it's like the sting of a bee - if it has to use it then it dies, hence it doesn't need to use it in its environment.
Trident is like my house buildings insurance - I don't seriously expect my house to burn down and in real life the chances of that happening are very, very small but I still pay my premiums every year. Trident works out to about 2% of the health budget or 5% of the defence budget - most of the money being recycled back into the economy through the high tech supply chain that builds and maintains it - and their supply chain, and their supply chain.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jun 13, 2017 11:33:17 GMT
Just on the stationing argument, they wouldn't be stationed here. They wouldn't need to be as they'd be submarine based. I would guess our subscription to a US 'protection' service would be similar to what we pay for our own weapons. I have that feeling too. A bit like the EU aren't going to let us keep the bits of the EU we like without paying just as much as we do now to be full members.
I think the percentage of GDP that would need to be spent (if the US accept the position of protector to the "free" world) would be significantly higher than 2%. It might also come with the requirement that we increase the number of our troops significantly and be ready to deploy them wherever required, instead of the US troops who tend to make up the majority in number terms in these situations. That then places many more British servicemen and women in danger on a more regular basis. I'd really prefer not to place the members of my family in the forces, in more immediate danger than they need to be in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 11:35:59 GMT
The subscription does not supply US protection, there is a core stock of weapons and carrying missile systems, we get the weapons rotated, serviced and upgraded. We do not have total control nor can we decide when to use them outside of a NATO/US proportional response. I find it surprising that you do not know this. Who is handing over protection of this country to the US? We are living in a totally different political landscape to that when we first developed our own nuclear non deterrent. Do you think that the Russians or Chinese even give a single thought to those weapons we have in our submarines? The weapons held by the US are ample to supply any needed deterrent. We just have a political system that likes the suggested prestige, pointless willy waving as has been mentioned.
Michael, did you come up with a scenario where we might use our weapons independently?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 13, 2017 11:39:35 GMT
We have complete control of our nuclear deterrent as we decide when the keys are turned and what happens when they are. I find it astonishing that you would be happy to hand over our ultimate defence to a foreign power for the next thirty years and also expect them to pay for it. Remarkable.
You're talking about it as if it might happen! I wouldn't expect the Yanks to add extra weapons to the ones they already have, I assume they'd just change the positioning.
I used to believe in the nuclear deterrent and I acknowledge that it's provided us with some fantastic things - the V force bombers for a start - but I think the threat has changed.
In fact looking at it in financial terms the threat has changed to something that's much, much cheaper for the enemy to procure. It appears as if we, as a country, are struggling to cope with the threat of this new enemy and we could really do with focussing more resources on countering it. It's much more likely that you're going to get run over by a knife-wielding person with mental health issues than get fried in a nuclear attack.
I think we have to make a choice. Raise taxes, cut services even more and have a nuclear deterrent AND counter the terrorism threat from individuals and small groups. OR leave taxes where they are and cut something out.
Anyway, we're wasting energy on this, we're not going to agree.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 13, 2017 11:49:01 GMT
Michael, did you come up with a scenario where we might use our weapons independently? Let me give you ten: Russia fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. China fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. France fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. Israel fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. India fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. Pakistan fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. North Korea fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. The USA fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. A hostile alien appears and parks its space ship on our turf, fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. Point ten, and the scenario where we are using our weapons independently right now is that they are providing a deterrent to most of the above and tempering their global ambitions. Can you outline how you clearly identify and mitigate the global risks for the next thirty years without a nuclear deterrent or failing that outline why nukes aren't simply awesome to have?
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Jun 13, 2017 11:57:20 GMT
The general answer is simple: Nuclear weapons, especially ICBMs are a strategic and political weapon. Anything else, from aircraft carriers to the aircraft that fly from them to soldier on the ground or MI5's agents in the UK are tactical weapons. The nuclear deterant factor works. Gulf War 1, when Saddam had plenty of chemical & biological weapons and the will to use them, Bush Snr told him in no uncertain terms that any use of WMD would be met in kind. As the NATO alliance has (officially) any chemical or biological weapons even that madman knew what line not to cross.
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Jun 13, 2017 12:22:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 13, 2017 13:05:47 GMT
I can see the argument and logic for MAD, I just can't see how in 2017 it presents a rear deterren Can you see how it presents a deterrent in 2047?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 13, 2017 13:43:51 GMT
So you can rule out with absolute certainty that Iran, China, North Korea or Russia aren't going to be a nuclear threat in the next thirty years? I agree that there are also other types of threat but to cancel the deterrent because of those is like saying we're not going to invest in cancer treatment because affects of obesity kills more people.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 13, 2017 13:47:25 GMT
Let me give you ten: Russia fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. China fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. France fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. Israel fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. India fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. Pakistan fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. North Korea fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. The USA fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. A hostile alien appears and parks its space ship on our turf, fires a nuclear missile at us or our allies, we fire ours at them. Point ten, and the scenario where we are using our weapons independently right now is that they are providing a deterrent to most of the above and tempering their global ambitions. Can you outline how you clearly identify and mitigate the global risks for the next thirty years without a nuclear deterrent or failing that outline why nukes aren't simply awesome to have? All technically possible but on the world stage we over-state our size and importance both in terms of the scale of out 'Roar' and width of our chest - we are a little island bobbing off the coast of Europe, no more or less - are we likely to be involved in an international argument with a nuclear power alone that requires us to act alone - I would imagine that Israel or the US in particular will be in that argument (and pressing the button) well before us - which states are we likely to be at loggerheads with? I can see the argument and logic for MAD, I just can't see how in 2017 it presents a rear deterrent. Hmm...but like it or not we only pay the blindest bit of attention to North Korea (and assuredly Mr Kim is only still in power) because they've developed nuclear weapon technology.
The difference with ours is that we buy it in from the USA, which must render it utterly useless in the event the USA went rogue.
|
|