Andy North Croy Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I never really took much notice of the nuclear weapons issue until I suppose, my children appeared. On looking into the whole farcical situation a lot more you kinda realise the whole folly of them at all in the UK, can any experts explain if the following are right or wrong? 1. Est. cost of replacing Trident is 100 BILLION!! 2. UK nuclear weapons CANNOT be fired unless permission given by the President of America, or the Head of NATO in Europe (American General) 3. If those big bad Russians fired nuclear weapons at the UK (and why would they want to anyway?) would the fallout from the blasts not find it's way back to Russia/rest of Europe/World in a way similar to contamination from Chernobyl did, only on a HUGE scale. Experts, please enlighten me..................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teecee- Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Russia has ten times GB fire power. Makes renewing them pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy North Croy Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 Aren't all nuclear weapons pointless because of point 3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasMc1973 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 the submarines are basically ####ed, mate works on one and it's stuck in dock in the USA (they almost lost it returning to Faslane after some service work in Jacksonville) - at any one time 2 of them are ####ed and needing urgent repairs...why is it in the US? basically the missles and the system is owned by the US. Complete waste of money and will never be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalmahoy Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Add the mix - the cost of replacing them doesn't include the cost of getting rid of the old ones. They have yet to suitably come up with a suitable process for decommissioning - the 4 pre-trident subs (Polaris) are still floating at Rosyth next to Dreadnought (that's been there for approx 30 years now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) I never really took much notice of the nuclear weapons issue until I suppose, my children appeared. On looking into the whole farcical situation a lot more you kinda realise the whole folly of them at all in the UK, can any experts explain if the following are right or wrong? 1. Est. cost of replacing Trident is 100 BILLION!! 2. UK nuclear weapons CANNOT be fired unless permission given by the President of America, or the Head of NATO in Europe (American General) 3. If those big bad Russians fired nuclear weapons at the UK (and why would they want to anyway?) would the fallout from the blasts not find it's way back to Russia/rest of Europe/World in a way similar to contamination from Chernobyl did, only on a HUGE scale. Experts, please enlighten me..................... Apparently the bit about the President is not correct. If only one nuclear weapon is used anywhere in the world the fallout (pardon the pun) would be horrific (given that nuclear weapons today are many times more powerful than those used against Japan) - this is why there is so much determination to stop the Iranian nuclear programme. I'd personally opt for instant incineration as a result of a direct hit on Glasgow as opposed to a lingering death. Point 3. is bang on, but Putin and co. would be safely ensconced in their bunkers. Edited October 20, 2015 by Charlie Endell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Apparently the bit about the President is not correct.* If only one nuclear weapon is used anywhere in the world the fallout (pardon the pun) would be horrific (given that nuclear weapons today are many times more powerful than those used against Japan) - this is why there is so much determination to stop the Iranian nuclear programme. I'd personally opt for instant incineration as a result of a direct hit on Glasgow as opposed to a lingering death. Point 3. is bang on, but Putin and co. would be safely ensconced in their bunkers. *Although it's a moot point as to whether the UK could actually launch them without US assistance - only one way to find out I suppose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Iran aren't making a nuclear weapon. Since something like 1990's folk have been saying Iran are years away from having nukes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoYdKaoSdG8 It's the nuclear power, it'll free up all their oil dependency enabling them to sell much more to China, making them an economic power-house in the region. Something the Sunni Saudi's don't want and also Israel. Although Israel and Iran used to be a lot friendlier see iran-contra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zidane Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 We either press the button first and are, therefore, the aggressor, or we press it second, in which case it wasn't really a deterrent after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy North Croy Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 Either way Zidane, we're f*cked....killed by bombs or fallout from our own. The human race is run methinks................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zidane Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The human race is run methinks................... Well this is almost certainly true. But a lot of shareholders are gonna have some pretty healthy looking equity just beforehand. So that's something at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Nukes were good for the Yanks when they were fighting the USSR, its the countries equivalent of saying you have a bigger cock than the other country, thats all. Nukes can never be used these days, and as such are a monumental waste of money, we should never renew them, its just utterly pointless, well apart from these small islands clinging to some strange notion that we are an important world power. If we learned our place in the world, it would be much better for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertsscot Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I've never agreed with these weapons of mass destruction from a moral point of view now from a practical, military point of view I'm sure money could be better spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunchy Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I think at one time the owning of nukes could have been justified. The whole mutual destruction did hold some sway. At this time if the cold war did erupt it would have been a more conventional big scale battle across Europe. These days the type of fights we would be looking at would be small scale localised fights rather than the big scale fights of before. There for nukes are, IMO, no longer needed as you can't use a large nuke against what is effectively a guerilla force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I think Putin's quote when asked if Russia would ever attack NATO was something like "only in the dreams of a lunatic". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Russia spend $50bn per year on defence USA spends $500bn per year (although when you include all the secret shit it could be as high as $1600 billion per annum). Russia has less than 5 overseas bases while the USA has 800-1000. The pattern is the bases are gradually encircling Russia (and China). I mean come on folks. If I was Russian I'd be tooling up, you cant blame them. Then when you actually listen to what Putin says versus Dave, Obama, Merkel... It is like he is the decent human being and they are all fakers. But of course that would be the exact opposite of everything we are told right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The Russian military dude Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov had big baws, when his early warning system malfunctioned and reported multiple Launches of ICBM from the US just after an international incident. He decided it was a flase alarm and never contacted anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I'd like to hear Cameron and defence sec tell us in what circumstances they'd want to use the nuclear weapons, and in what circumstance the Americans would let us use them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The Russian military dude Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov had big baws, when his early warning system malfunctioned and reported multiple Launches of ICBM from the US just after an international incident. He decided it was a flase alarm and never contacted anyone else. How frightening is that though End of the World caused by a mistake Surely it will be a Scot that does it if anyone ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes56 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 oops, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 oops, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 How frightening is that though End of the World caused by a mistake Surely it will be a Scot that does it if anyone ....... Plus nobody knew it happened for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave78 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 How frightening is that though End of the World caused by a mistake Surely it will be a Scot that does it if anyone ....... Scotland win the world cup in Russia. The team are invited to Number 10. Alan Hutton goes to shake Cameron's hand - trips over himself. Hits the red button and starts WW3 with his forehead.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilser Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Everyone knows it's inconceivable that the British PM would fire a nuclear weapon. The ones that said/say they would were/are lying. The Russians know they're lying too. Corbyn gets pilloried for telling the truth while the ones that tell lies are held up as having what we need in a leader. Meantime we waste billions on our pretend deterrent at the same time as the poorest and weakest members of society are targeted for brutal cuts. A sick joke of a country... 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.