Hmm, why does the British Army still have to have a garrison in Germany?

[cHodAX]

I agree if they can just extend the service life of the existing stuff they should but if the running costs of the old subs is more than building new ones that might be why there is talk of replacing them.

Why have subs at all? Land based ICBM are just as effective and cost peanuts to maintain.

 

[soze]

There are several ways it can go :

1. No one will get rid of them til everyone else does, but no one is stupid enough to use them - result, nuclear escalation, but no one dies, just a lot of money wasted.

2. No one will get rid of them til everyone else does, but someone is stupid enough to use them, but no one else is - result, nuclear escalation, then a large % of the world gets wiped out, and we get a nice nuclear winter, losing a good % more.

3. No one will get rid of them til everyone else does, but someone is stupid enough to use them, and others do to - result, game over.

4. One country gets rid of them first, and no one else does, no one fires off nukes as a result - Good savings for the country that does it, reduced chance of nuclear escalation.

5. One country gets rid of them first, and others follow, no one fires off nukes as a result - Nuclear de-esclation, and lots of money saved.

6. One country gets rid of them first, and no one else does, they get nuked - a large % of the world gets wiped out, and we get a nice nuclear winter, losing a good % more.

Nuclear deterrance sort of worked during the cold war, as both sides seemed to be prepared to use them (and nearly did). It only works if other people believe your country to be led by the sort of person who'll massacre millions if they are provoked. I'm not sure that I'm happy with a world led by such people.

Darzil

But there is no way the yanks will disarm there nukes till they are the only people in the world with nukes even then they would not because of suit case nukes ect. And nobody will dis arm and leave the yanks with the only nukes. So i can't see everyone losing nukes any time soon. So should we? I do not think so.

And if the UK is ever Nuked as part of a war the last command sent to the subs will be where to strike back. How its supposed to work is North Korea launh a ICBM at us we launch one back we both self desruct them and there is no Nuclear Winter. Most countrys would never think of launching a Nuke but do you honestly think if Sadam had a ICBM he could have launched at the States he would have said no wait they will nuke back. He would have launched it in a second

I do not know what the correct answer is but we already have the smallest Nuclear arsenal and i do not think us losing ours will change the world.

Why have subs at all? Land based ICBM are just as effective and cost peanuts to maintain.

No idea I suppose because you cant bomb a sub

 

[Chronictank]

But there is no way the yanks will disarm there nukes till they are the only people in the world with nukes even then they would not because of suit case nukes ect. And nobody will dis arm and leave the yanks with the only nukes. So i can't see everyone losing nukes any time soon. So should we? I do not think so.

And if the UK is ever Nuked as part of a war the last command sent to the subs will be where to strike back. How its supposed to work is North Korea launh a ICBM at us we launch one back we both self desruct them and there is no Nuclear Winter. Most countrys would never think of launching a Nuke but do you honestly think if Sadam had a ICBM he could have launched at the States he would have said no wait they will nuke back. He would have launched it in a second

I do not know what the correct answer is but we already have the smallest Nuclear arsenal and i do not think us losing ours will change the world.



No idea I suppose because you cant bomb a sub

They will soon as they have their satelite defence system in place (skynet or something), thats why they were so pissed off when china succesfully tested its ability to shoot down satelites with ballistic missiles

 

[cHodAX]

No idea I suppose because you cant bomb a sub

85% of America's nuclear arsenal is land based, the whole point of having a silos is that they are hard to spot and even harder to damage. Subs are expensive and no where near as flexible as the armed forces would have you believe, they are also bloody slow and only having a fleet of 3 is bordering on pointless. The money would be better spent on building silos in remote parts of the country, the only way you are taking a silo out is with a tactical nuclear strike and there are only 2 nations on earth the with technology to deliver such a strike. To co-ordinate a strike on multiple silos at once requires extraordinary planning and resources, way beyond the scope of nations like Iran or North Korea. They are developing nuclear weapons for very different reasons, not to strike at America but to use as leverage against thier regional neighbours Israel, South Korea and Japan. They are accutely aware that any strike against a NATO country would result in total annihilation and any attempt to respond would be futile given thier limited technology and resources.

The biggest risk right now is Israel, they have thier own nuclear arsenal and will not allow any other country in the region to develop their own arsenal. As has happened in the past Israel will take pre-emptive action and launch surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities the second it can prove that Iran is diverting nuclear material into a secret weapons program. When that happens you can expect a very significant war in the region, if chemical and biological weapons are launched against the state of Israel it will respond in kind with it's nuclear arsenal and cities like Tehran will vanish from the face of the earth.

All that is why the international community is so worried about Iran developing nuclear capability, it is a catalyst for a series of events that can not be controlled and will result in a global oil crisis into the bargain.

 

[cHodAX]

They will soon as they have their satelite defence system in place (skynet or something), thats why they were so pissed off when china succesfully tested its ability to shoot down satelites with ballistic missiles

Skynet is a battlefield comms system, nothing to do with satelite defence. You might be thinking of 'Son of Star Wars' which is an anti-ICBM defence system? As for China's anti-satelite technology, it is antiquated at best, China is 25 years behind the U.S. missile technology and anything they can do the American's can more than match that technology plus 'Son of Star Wars' will be able to shoot those anti-satelite missiles down with ease when it goes live and I am sure the Americans are already developing counter measures for the satelites themselves as well.

 

[Jeremiah]

Really, what I dont understand is why the UK feels the need to pretend to be a super power. Our economy, population, armed forces and even land mass is so much less than the real European super powers, and yet we try to keep up with the US. Who in their right mind would waste a nuke on the UK, the blast radius itself would probably be larger than the country.

 

[cHodAX]

Really, what I dont understand is why the UK feels the need to pretend to be a super power. Our economy, population, armed forces and even land mass is so much less than the real European super powers, and yet we try to keep up with the US. Who in their right mind would waste a nuke on the UK, the blast radius itself would probably be larger than the country.

Lol, no. The blast radius of nuclear weapons is much smaller than you might imagine. For instance it would probably take at least 5 x 100 megaton detonations to flatten London. Well over 100 similair sized detonations to take out every major town and city in the United Kingdom. The real damage from nuclear weapons is the fallout, we are talking literally thousands and thousands of square miles of land made unusable from the fallout. In that regard a dozen or so detonations would render the British Isles un-inhabitable for hundreds of years if the wind is blowing in an unfavourable direction. Think of it this way, the two nuclear blasts in Japan at the end of world war two didn't wipe out either city and didn't make massive amounts of land unusable. Yes those bombs were much smaller than current bombs but the blast principle is the same, the radius of any such device is always much smaller than the general public assumes.

 

[Solo]

You might be thinking of 'Son of Star Wars' which is an anti-ICBM defence system?

I always thought the 'son of star wars' aka the star wars kid was a fat nerd with a plastic lightsabre, how wrong I was.

 

[Imgormiel]

There are several ways it can go :

1. No one will get rid of them til everyone else does, but no one is stupid enough to use them - result, nuclear escalation, but no one dies, just a lot of money wasted.

2. No one will get rid of them til everyone else does, but someone is stupid enough to use them, but no one else is - result, nuclear escalation, then a large % of the world gets wiped out, and we get a nice nuclear winter, losing a good % more.

3. No one will get rid of them til everyone else does, but someone is stupid enough to use them, and others do to - result, game over.

4. One country gets rid of them first, and no one else does, no one fires off nukes as a result - Good savings for the country that does it, reduced chance of nuclear escalation.

5. One country gets rid of them first, and others follow, no one fires off nukes as a result - Nuclear de-esclation, and lots of money saved.

6. One country gets rid of them first, and no one else does, they get nuked - a large % of the world gets wiped out, and we get a nice nuclear winter, losing a good % more.

Nuclear deterrance sort of worked during the cold war, as both sides seemed to be prepared to use them (and nearly did). It only works if other people believe your country to be led by the sort of person who'll massacre millions if they are provoked. I'm not sure that I'm happy with a world led by such people.

Darzil

The world we live in is rather ambivalent to say the least :s

 

[cHodAX]

I always thought the 'son of star wars' aka the star wars kid was a fat nerd with a plastic lightsabre, how wrong I was.

 

[soze]

85% of America's nuclear arsenal is land based, the whole point of having a silos is that they are hard to spot and even harder to damage. Subs are expensive and no where near as flexible as the armed forces would have you believe, they are also bloody slow and only having a fleet of 3 is bordering on pointless. The money would be better spent on building silos in remote parts of the country, the only way you are taking a silo out is with a tactical nuclear strike and there are only 2 nations on earth the with technology to deliver such a strike. To co-ordinate a strike on multiple silos at once requires extraordinary planning and resources, way beyond the scope of nations like Iran or North Korea. They are developing nuclear weapons for very different reasons, not to strike at America but to use as leverage against thier regional neighbours Israel, South Korea and Japan. They are accutely aware that any strike against a NATO country would result in total annihilation and any attempt to respond would be futile given thier limited technology and resources.

The biggest risk right now is Israel, they have thier own nuclear arsenal and will not allow any other country in the region to develop their own arsenal. As has happened in the past Israel will take pre-emptive action and launch surgical strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities the second it can prove that Iran is diverting nuclear material into a secret weapons program. When that happens you can expect a very significant war in the region, if chemical and biological weapons are launched against the state of Israel it will respond in kind with it's nuclear arsenal and cities like Tehran will vanish from the face of the earth.

All that is why the international community is so worried about Iran developing nuclear capability, it is a catalyst for a series of events that can not be controlled and will result in a global oil crisis into the bargain.

Im not arguing with you you are correct silos would prolly be the better way to go i am just saying i do not think we should lose the subs and not have anything if they lose 3 subs for 48 Silos that will be fine

I think the good thing about a sub was meant to be if we went to war with Germany and Japan a sub can hit one go to the other and hit that but a real ICBM silo can do that to so who knows

 

[Chronictank]

Skynet is a battlefield comms system, nothing to do with satelite defence. You might be thinking of 'Son of Star Wars' which is an anti-ICBM defence system? As for China's anti-satelite technology, it is antiquated at best, China is 25 years behind the U.S. missile technology and anything they can do the American's can more than match that technology plus 'Son of Star Wars' will be able to shoot those anti-satelite missiles down with ease when it goes live and I am sure the Americans are already developing counter measures for the satelites themselves as well.

yeah thats the one
Yep they very likely are doing osme counter measure considering the size of their "defence" budget

 

[Jeremiah]

If one were to land where I live, Scotland would probably die Its right inbetween a power plant and a petroleum refinery

 

[Marc]

Really, what I dont understand is why the UK feels the need to pretend to be a super power. Our economy, population, armed forces and even land mass is so much less than the real European super powers, and yet we try to keep up with the US. Who in their right mind would waste a nuke on the UK, the blast radius itself would probably be larger than the country.

I reckon the english army are the cock of the world where armed forces are concerned

 

[soze]

I reckon the english army are the cock of the world where armed forces are concerned

I was going to say we might not be the biggest country but our army are prolly up in the top 3 most respected in the world.

 

[chretien]

World's seventh biggest economy too. Being small doesn't mean you have no influence. Japan isn't very big either....

 

[cHodAX]

I was going to say we might not be the biggest country but our army are prolly up in the top 3 most respected in the world.

One of the worst armed out of the top 10 now though sadly Spending £20 billion on new nukes we don't need and yet our soldiers get no body armour and have to buy thier own boots if they want suitable ones. Then you have tanks and helicopters not kitted out for desert combat, it really takes the piss.

 

[soze]

One of the worst armed out of the top 10 now though sadly Spending £20 billion on new nukes we don't need and yet our soldiers get no body armour and have to buy thier own boots if they want suitable ones. Then you have tanks and helicopters not kitted out for desert combat, it really takes the piss.

Aye Best trained armed force shame we do not have the equiptment to match. Things are only getting worse its coming to the point where spending money on the defence of our contry is a no no. The spinless tossers who let any one into this contry also now say we should not spend money on guns because we should never go to war

But if you read the BBC site Blair has said what is happening today will not cost 20 billion it is just to decide if the situation needs to be looked at. So if its a yes today they will look at the best way of doing things. And then in about 2012 arange to spend the money so it might not be subs yet.

 

[Thadius]

I was going to say we might not be the biggest country but our army are prolly up in the top 3 most respected in the world.

Repected yes, respect counts for beans though when you face a battlion of angry Iraqis and you have just a pair tweezers for a weapon

 

[old.Tohtori]

Repected yes, respect counts for beans though when you face a battlion of angry Iraqis and you have just a pair tweezers for a weapon

Well, finnish military could probably still give ze germans, UK or even US a run for their money with those tweezers. But don't know how much "respect" it has. Hell, i don't think of UK's military as anything special so...why should UK about ours.

Hell, we fought against tanks, with success, with a crowbar and a molotov cocktail. You figure that one out. Or how about taking 200 soviets out with sausage soup? We are the cheatorz! :kissit:

 

[cHodAX]

Well, finnish military could probably still give ze germans, UK or even US a run for their money with those tweezers. But don't know how much "respect" it has. Hell, i don't think of UK's military as anything special so...why should UK about ours.

Hell, we fought against tanks, with success, with a crowbar and a molotov cocktail. You figure that one out. Or how about taking 200 soviets out with sausage soup? We are the cheatorz! :kissit:

The Finns are exceptional forest warfare specialists no doubt about that, the winter war was probably the most one sided invasion in recent history and yet the Finns managed to keep the Soviets at bay. Impressive stuff.

 

[Rookiescot]

Well, finnish military could probably still give ze germans, UK or even US a run for their money with those tweezers. But don't know how much "respect" it has. Hell, i don't think of UK's military as anything special so...why should UK about ours.

Hell, we fought against tanks, with success, with a crowbar and a molotov cocktail. You figure that one out. Or how about taking 200 soviets out with sausage soup? We are the cheatorz! :kissit:

Think the terrain may have helped a bit. Either that or they were all Bonedancers and Warlocks and the only thing the Russians sent were ...well...tanks.

 

[Saggy]

Most countrys would never think of launching a Nuke but do you honestly think if Sadam had a ICBM he could have launched at the States he would have said no wait they will nuke back. He would have launched it in a second

Erm, Saddam having weapons of mass destruction was the reason US collation invaded Iraq in the first place, no?

Bush: "Damn! That Saddam mate has weapons of mass destruction! We are so doomed :<"
Blair: "Calm down George megamate, we can bomb his ass off!"
Bush: " Yeah! No wait, he will use the weapons of mass destruction against us if we bomb him :<"
Blair: "Wanna hear a secret? Saddam mate has fuck all so we can bomb his ass off, destroy their culture and get home with tons and tons of oil "
Bush: "LOL! Letz do it!"
Blair: "No wait... how do we justify this attack? UN and rest of hippies wont let us to just go and take the oil :S"
Bush" Hmmmm... I got it! Saddam has weapons of mass destruction so we must disarm him!"
Blair:" Oh yeah, LOL, lets do it "

...and repeat.