Posted March 11, 2007 There has been alot of talk about Britain reducing its Nuclear warhead count from 200 to 160. Many polictical parties and demostrators want to abolish nuclear warheads alltogether, but many argue that the Trident nuclear submarines are being used as a deterrent against the likes of Iran and North Korea. Due to the Nato agreement USA France and Britain must have nuclear deterrents, keeping them protected but making sure that the likes of Italy and Spain who do not have warheads can 'sleep soundly in their beds'. Discuss - Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 "If a women were president we would nuke a country every 24 hours!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 Isn't the best deterrent just to not piss people off? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 They're already there, it would pretty naive to destroy them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 These things are never gonna get fired. If they do it means someone else has launched theirs and were all fucked anyway. I dont see why people are against the only possible deterrant against people who may wanna nuke us. Nice pic of a Vanguard Class by the way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 They should just settle their differences with a bout of Table Tennis. Or Wii Sports Tennis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 This seems like such a waste of money to me. Like MunKY says, if we do get nuked having the Trident nuclear submarines are going to do diddly-squat to help us. All it will mean is that we will be able to retaliate with another round of mass slaughter. If we must spends this ridiculous amount of money on preventing nukes, it would probably be wiser to team up with America or the rest of Europe and spend it creating a realistic working anti-missile defence system. At least then we would have an actual defence rather then just a massive game of nuclear chicken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 This seems like such a waste of money to me. Like MunKY says, if we do get nuked having the Trident nuclear submarines are going to do diddly-squat to help us. All it will mean is that we will be able to retaliate with another round of mass slaughter. That's the reason we have them, to stop a country firing them at us in the first place. They know that we can retaliate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 160 nukes still can destroy the entire world. In fact, 10 nukes would suffice to wipe North Korea, Syria and Iran of the map. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 That's the reason we have them, to stop a country firing them at us in the first place. They know that we can retaliate. Pretty much. Thing is, the danger with having weapons is that weapons are there to be used. I suppose it always depends who has the weapon. Another question is, what happens if a country does fire on us, or we receive intelligence that they were planning something? I think it's a really complicated situation, quite a messy one at that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 Nuclear weapons are stupid, we have them to stop other people using them against us, yet they have them to stop the same thing, whats the point? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 Nuclear weapons are stupid, we have them to stop other people using them against us, yet they have them to stop the same thing, whats the point? It's a stalemate. "Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt." There may no be intention to use them, but they're there to say "don't try anything funny, because we can take care of ourselves, too." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 god damn you Britain! Hear hear! :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 We are safer with them than without them....Unfortunately Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 So, basically if Italy or Spain get Nuked, it's up to us to retaliate for them? So, in reality, does that make us a target for if Italy or Spain get involved in something? Nice Nuclear Wessel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 It's a stalemate. "Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt." We are scientists song? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 We are scientists song? Aye, that and just about every film that involves a bank robbery scene. Cube: That's a good point, didn't really think about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 Cube: That's a good point, didn't really think about that. I think the US wants to put some of their weapon bases in this country, too. Actually...where are our weapon bases exactly? I mean, the US ones are pretty much mapped out, even the "top secret bases that dont exist" have known locations...I can't really think of where our ones would be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 So, basically if Italy or Spain get Nuked, it's up to us to retaliate for them? So, in reality, does that make us a target for if Italy or Spain get involved in something? Nice Nuclear Wessel. I doubt that would happen, however, NATO has a deal between its members that if one is attacked, the others must support the attacked country / attack its enemy. But it doesn't mean either US, UK or France would nuke them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 I'm all for them. This country has gotten weaker and weaker through time, and not replacing our missiles is making it worse. Maybe if the Govt. wasn't wasting money on Domes & Olimpics, we wouldn't have to worry about the money issue quite as much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 11, 2007 I think the US wants to put some of their weapon bases in this country, too. Actually...where are our weapon bases exactly? I mean, the US ones are pretty much mapped out, even the "top secret bases that dont exist" have known locations...I can't really think of where our ones would be. There are nuclear subs (can't remember how many) going around the UK all the time. There is a submarine base in Loch Goil, although I doubt they're nuclear. The others will probably be somewhere in the North Sea. All are missiles are on the subs by the way. "During a routine 90-day patrol... Just a few of the most senior officers on board are allowed knowledge of their location." "Deterrence theory dictates if Britain's nuclear weapons cannot be located by an enemy, they cannot be destroyed." "The four Trident submarines are based in the west of Scotland." Source: A BBC article and http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5229e214-c6d0-11db-8f4f-000b5df10621.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 13, 2007 This seems like such a waste of money to me. Like MunKY says, if we do get nuked having the Trident nuclear submarines are going to do diddly-squat to help us. All it will mean is that we will be able to retaliate with another round of mass slaughter. If we must spends this ridiculous amount of money on preventing nukes, it would probably be wiser to team up with America or the rest of Europe and spend it creating a realistic working anti-missile defence system. At least then we would have an actual defence rather then just a massive game of nuclear chicken. It is illegal under international law to build anti-nuclear defences of that kind. For the very reason that it would start another arms race. Nuclear weapons are stupid, we have them to stop other people using them against us, yet they have them to stop the same thing, whats the point? A never ending stalemate where nobody moves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 13, 2007 It's important we keep them. People keep saying there is no direct threat to us right now and we should get rid of these Cold War purposed nukes. But on the 10th of September 2001 most people wouldn't think there was a direct threat against America. My point being that you really can't predict what is going to happen; so maybe it would be wise to keep deterrences we already have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
