observer Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 An independent(?) nuclear deterent is clearly an expensive piece of kit when the Country is skint; is it a worthwhile use of tax-payer's money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I believe so, bows and arrows and catapults are not much use to defend our shore today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Definitely. We cannot rely on our "partners" in Europe to assist us in time of trouble (Falklands). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Not only do we need to operate our own nuclear deterrent, as a country we need the skills and facilities to build it ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 First question: is it "indepenent", could we launch a nuke without US permission? Second question: under what circumstances would it be used? Third question: how have the rest of European Countries (except France), remained secure without such a weapon? As Albert Einstein said: "the fourth world war will be fought with bows and arrows!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Completely agree with inky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Kije discards his toga! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Obs the clue is in the word "deterrent". i.e. it isn't intended that it would ever be used. The rest of Europe has been under the protection of NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Not at all Obs, if we build our own, we are not beholden to the Americans, and the science and jobs are in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Asp; "deterents" only work when your dealing with rational people or States; why do you think the Israelis etc are panicking about Iran or Pakistan. Eventually more nutter States will get hold of these things, and who are we to deny them, when we have one. MAD means just that and the genies out of the bottle - thus such weapons only provide retaliation in kind, NOT security. Kije, I'm sure there are peacefull products that could engage our skilled workforce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Kije, I'm sure there are peacefull products that could engage our skilled workforce. windmills? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 An independent(?) nuclear deterent is clearly an expensive piece of kit when the Country is skint; is it a worthwhile use of tax-payer's money? Not much else to protect us these days Obs with the didminishing navy fleets, troups and figher jets etc etc (Yes I know we do still have quite a lot though ). The £350 million trident (or however much it's supposed to cost as I've not read anything other than one news report so I don't know much about it really or the relevance of your word 'independant' and too late to google ) might be part of the protection for the £20 billion pounds worth of investemnt the Jap company Hitachi are now reported as putting in after taking over from the other companies to building more new nuclear power stations in the UK. Any reason WHY they want to invest such large sums to build reactors over here rather than on their own turf in Japan where they would have full control ? Like I said I know nowt about it so that's just an off the cuff reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Kije, I'm sure there are peacefull products that could engage our skilled workforce. windmills? Didn't spot that one and just nearly choked on my drink. "I saw a mouse... where ? there on the stair....BOOM" bloody hell that song will be going around in my head all night now, cheer Baz !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Take it away Rolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 So Obs you think that giving up our nuclear deterrent will stop the nutcases using their own? Best of luck with that :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Well who are they going to use them on - is the first question, given that their arsenals will be fairly limited? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Although there are quite a few states around who appear to be "nutters" I am not convinced that, when it came to the crunch, they would behave like nutters if they knew that to do so would result in annihilation. But if they knew they could use their nukes against somebody who did not have the ability to hit back, they could act with impunity without really being nutters! In their own eyes, anyway. But I think all this is missing the point really. The immediate benefit is the jobs and the technology that a Trident replacement will bring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Take your point on jobs - but building subs, doesn't necessarilly mean they require nuclear warheads. There are cheaper, and much more deadly weapons options,without residual contamination or collateral damage; if the purpose is revenge or even premption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 There are cheaper, and much more deadly weapons options,without residual contamination or collateral damage More deadly than a set of 12 independently targetable nukes, each 6 times bigger than the one which took out Hiroshima, each accurate to within 100 meters, delivered at over 13,000mph from over 7000 miles away by a single ballistic missile which is invisible to radar????? With each of 4 subs carrying 16 such missiles????? :blink: :blink: :blink: Now I KNOW you've lost the plot!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 You mustn't have paid attention in your NBC course Ink! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Passed it with flying colours actually Obs. YOU specified "without residual contamination or collateral damage". Pretty much rules out all chemical or biological weapons. Doesn't leave that much from the NBC options! What else do you suggest? Thermobaric weapons? Useless against hard targets, nothing like as deadly. MOABS? Nice big bang, but a slow moving and vulnerable delivery system. GBU-57's? Localised hard targets only, no use against spread out areas. Lasers or particle beam weapons? Not as long range, and certainly not as deadly. Space based kinetic energy weapons? Banned by international law, much more expensive, and much easier to track and counter. At the end of the day nothing gives you quite as much bang for your buck as a good old fashioned nuke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Think you'll find that biological agents kill people (lots more than nukes), leaving the infrastructure intact, and they've designed organisms that will rapidly deplete, unlike radiation. And the beauty is, the recipients wouldn't know they've been attacked, untill the hospitals start filling up. btw, assuming some nut case terrorist would use a WMD against us, perhaps you could advise as to where to target our nukes?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.