asperity Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 The same place you are going to target your bio weapons I suspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I mentioned them, merely cos they're a cheaper and more effective option for those who wish to eliminate enemy threats. But I wonder in what circumstances we would launch nuclear weapons (the US allowing of course) and just how they would actually safeguard our population? A terrorists attack: as I asked, where would you target your counter strike? An attack by a super-power: assuming Russia or China made a pre-emptive strike, to take out any nuclear threats to themselves; well we wouldn't be around to see how our Trident submarine counter strike faired anyway. A strike by a rogue State: would Korea or Iran target the UK, when the Yanks have enough nukes to evapourate them several times over. So, why do these emerging nuclear powers want these weapons too? Is it the same rational that we are using to keep ours, ie. a deterent; in which case, how can we deny them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 That is the idea of Trident Obs. Being on a submarine makes it difficult, if not impossible, for an agressor to take them out with a pre-emptive attack. The rogue state you have in mind is probably Iran which has Israel in their sights. If Iran were to threaten Israel with a nuclear attack I would hope that the fact that the USA and the UK have a nuclear arsenal would deter any attack. What does EI a deterent mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 But they don't save our population from a nuclear attack Asp; they only give some banzai satisfaction that we got them back; the subs would return to an island of rubble. As for Israel, they've got their own nukes, and are more than ready to use them in a premptive attack; which presumably justifies the Arabs wishing to have them to create the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction. And when eventually, everyone gets tooled up, some idiot will use them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 It would take a lot more than one nuclear missile to reduce this island to rubble. I think you over-estimate the power of nuclear weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 You think the old Soviets would have just dropped one on us? Now the cold war is over, where's the threat coming from? Everyone else in Europe, bar us and the French, seem to have remained perfectly safe without them, and havn't had to pay for their upkeep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Well following your logic through, why not scrap all the armed services completely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Asp I have been following your posts on this thread and agreeing with you, up till the last one, where you slipped up badly, you used the word logic when talking about Observer. Now I get pulled up for my spelling, so it is only right that I take issue with your use of words. I am sure it was just an error on your part. But due to the massive size of said error, I felt steps had to be taken 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 lmaotih! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 It's about "defence" Asp, actually protecting the civil population from harm; conventional forces traditionally do that; nuclear weapons don't. The logic lies in the fact Kije, that your mates in Europe (except the French), havn't paid a penny in taxes towards the political kudos of having nukes, but have enjoyed peace for 60 years. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 lmaotih! tih ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 till it hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Wow, that was really profound for you Cleo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 Why, thank you dear nobserver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 sure your not really blonde? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 I mentioned them, merely cos they're a cheaper and more effective option for those who wish to eliminate enemy threats. Wrong as usual Obs. Bio weapons are AT LEAST as expensive to design, manufacture and store safely as nuclear warheads, and FAR more unpredictable when used. It only takes a couple of infected people from a target area to get on planes, boats or trains and flee to other countries and you've got epidemics popping up all over the world. Plus they have the major drawback that if you DO use them then by infecting your enemies population you've just given them perfectly viable samples of your bio weapon, which your enemy can fairly easily harvest and fire straight back at you! The vast bulk of the cost in Trident or its replacement is in the delivery system, the subs and the missiles. This is the only sort of delivery system which is guaranteed capable of getting a warhead accurately to any point on the globe - UK land based missiles couldn't do it, neither could bomber aircraft - and yes that sort of capability is very expensive. But these costs are fixed regardless of what sort of warhead you strap onto the top of your missile - nuclear, chemical, biological, or anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 You presume the same delivery system would be required for bio agents as nukes, you also presume the nature of the bio-weapons we have in stock; the details of which will be highly classified. But as I said, that's an option for those who wish to put their reliance in WMDs; the rest of Europe (bar France) have no such weapons and thus don't have to pay for the expense of delivering them, and have remained perfectly safe for 60 years. Interestingly, Michael Prtillo, ex-Defence Minister, seems to agree with me; as he said last night on TV, an independent nuclear deterent was concieved as, and remains a political status symbol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 Michael Portillo said that? Oh well end of argument then Obs, we must all admit our mistake! :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 Thought so, he is a Tory after all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 And there was me thinking you never agreed with anything a Tory said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 I do in his case, as, like many ex-politicians, he tends to talk a lot of sense, now he's been set free from Party constraints! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 That is a matter of opinion, and you probably agree with him because he says what you want to hear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Don't we all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 You presume the same delivery system would be required for bio agents as nukes, you also presume the nature of the bio-weapons we have in stock; the details of which will be highly classified. But as I said, that's an option for those who wish to put their reliance in WMDs; the rest of Europe (bar France) have no such weapons and thus don't have to pay for the expense of delivering them, and have remained perfectly safe for 60 years. Interestingly, Michael Prtillo, ex-Defence Minister, seems to agree with me; as he said last night on TV, an independent nuclear deterent was concieved as, and remains a political status symbol. So how else would you guarantee the survivability, accurate targeting, delivery, and dispersal of a bio weapon to any point on the globe at mere minutes notice? I would point out that I'm probably far better placed than you to be familiar with current classified weapons systems - unless of course you also spent years being trained in their characteristics, effects, limitations and delivery systems, and still hold a relatively high level security clearance? And of course an independent nuclear deterrent is a political status symbol. It is symbolic of our ability to blow the crap out of anyone who tries sufficiently hard to p*** us off! 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.