|
Post by Big Blue on Jun 13, 2017 13:50:59 GMT
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 We're still 5th in the international GDP list; some of those countries with nuclear weapons may wish to redress that balance. France is my main suspect for that.... I think we're trying to rationalise the mechanics of warfare here, when there is no rationalisation of what is a pointless affair in the modern era when countries can be controlled from afar by internet-cowboy-ery or simply trade embargoes. North Korea would be a hell of a threat if 95% of its population weren't cowed by the other 5%, who are led by a maniac who in turn is restricted in their world influence by travel and trade embargoes. What we have in Nuclear weapons terms is a Mexican stand-off. No one will fire first because they know it'll all kick off but no one will be first to put their gun on the floor because they don't trust the others to let them leave the room holding their share of the gold in that there chest of loot that y'all have spent all year chasin' round the panhandle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 13:52:45 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? You have made my argument for me, in all those cases we would have to be part of a joint decision making process. In no case will we make an independent decision to strike. We are simply not big enough for the few weapons we have to deter anyone. In any instance you care to mention we would be part of a coalition/NATO.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Jun 13, 2017 14:05:55 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? You have made my argument for me, in all those cases we would have to be part of a joint decision making process. In no case will we make an independent decision to strike. We are simply not big enough for the few weapons we have to deter anyone. In any instance you care to mention we would be part of a coalition/NATO. Twaddle. 40, 100 kiloton warheads would devastate any country and that's only a single submarine. By comparison, Hiroshima was 15 kiloton.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 13, 2017 14:46:24 GMT
You have made my argument for me, in all those cases we would have to be part of a joint decision making process. In no case will we make an independent decision to strike. We are simply not big enough for the few weapons we have to deter anyone. In any instance you care to mention we would be part of a coalition/NATO. If we were attacked the least of our concerns would be asking for consent to respond in kind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 10:03:45 GMT
When the Russians and Chinese think of threats or deterrence, they do not think about us or the French, they think of the US. We do not even get into the box marked interesting but irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 14, 2017 12:04:38 GMT
When the Russians and Chinese think of threats or deterrence, they do not think about us or the French, they think of the US. We do not even get into the box marked interesting but irrelevant. I think we're an annoying little itch that occasionally needs to be scratched by sending an old Cold War bomber towards our airspace or having an aged aircraft carrier belch diesel smoke down the English Channel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 13:26:41 GMT
The intrusions could be just as easily aimed at Europe as a whole but yes, a minor itch rather than a nuisance.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 14, 2017 13:29:47 GMT
Why do you think Russia and others are developing more powerful weapons Mike?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 9:07:54 GMT
The Russians are countering Chinese and US developments, the Chinese are countering the Russians and the US and the US are countering the Chinese and Russians. We are irrelevant for the reason that we will never launch alone and have so few weapons as to be a minnow. Your scenario's included the US lobbing a weapon at us and us retaliating, sorry but that is patent nonsense as if the launch at us it will be so devastating to retaliate we might as well detonate our units over our own country but that scenario is so far off left field it is not even in the same galaxy. Why are you so convinced we are considered a real and credible threat? How many weapons do the major nuclear powers have? We by the way, are not a major player in any way.
Not even the UK AND France have enough weapons to be a deterrent to the major players and should it come to it with the North Koreans making a stike, it is more that probable that the major powers would ensure the demise of the leadership pdq. They would probably not use nukes even then.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Jun 15, 2017 9:14:19 GMT
The Russians are countering Chinese and US developments, the Chinese are countering the Russians and the US and the US are countering the Chinese and Russians. We are irrelevant for the reason that we will never launch alone and have so few weapons as to be a minnow. Your scenario's included the US lobbing a weapon at us and us retaliating, sorry but that is patent nonsense as if the launch at us it will be so devastating to retaliate we might as well detonate our units over our own country but that scenario is so far off left field it is not even in the same galaxy. Why are you so convinced we are considered a real and credible threat? How many weapons do the major nuclear powers have? We by the way, are not a major player in any way. Not even the UK AND France have enough weapons to be a deterrent to the major players and should it come to it with the North Koreans making a stike, it is more that probable that the major powers would ensure the demise of the leadership pdq. They would probably not use nukes even then .Bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 15, 2017 9:18:23 GMT
Not even the UK AND France have enough weapons to be a deterrent to the major players We have enough weapons to blow up 20% of Russia, at least 80% of Russia is not populated.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 15, 2017 9:27:58 GMT
The Russians are countering Chinese and US developments, the Chinese are countering the Russians and the US and the US are countering the Chinese and Russians. We are irrelevant for the reason that we will never launch alone and have so few weapons as to be a minnow. Your scenario's included the US lobbing a weapon at us and us retaliating, sorry but that is patent nonsense as if the launch at us it will be so devastating to retaliate we might as well detonate our units over our own country but that scenario is so far off left field it is not even in the same galaxy. Why are you so convinced we are considered a real and credible threat? How many weapons do the major nuclear powers have? We by the way, are not a major player in any way. Not even the UK AND France have enough weapons to be a deterrent to the major players and should it come to it with the North Koreans making a stike, it is more that probable that the major powers would ensure the demise of the leadership pdq. They would probably not use nukes even then. Any nuclear attack of any size on the UK would result in this country ceasing to exist as any sort of functioning entity (a handful of crofters in the Outer Hebrides might be able to continue on valiantly). That's why we must never allow it to happen. My grandad joined the Royal Navy in 1930 (it was that or go down the mines). When he joined the conventional thinking was that we didn't need large armed forces; the Great War had been won, the war to end all wars, and never again would mankind indulge in that sort of slaughter again. Germany was a military irrelevance, the Communists in Russia couldn't build a half functioning tank, and Europe was secure under the protection of France. We didn't need big capital ships or a large airforce - the army needed to return to its previous role as a small policing entity of the Empire. He eventually left the navy in 1946 and when talking to him in his latter years he always said; never rely on others for your protection as, invariably, they'll let you down. We don't know what the future threats will be but the MAD policy has served us well and I'm happy for it to continue. BTW I love the idea of a country having enough warheads to lay waste to much of China being classed as a minnow.
|
|