It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Nukes Could Be Deployed to UK to Target Russia

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
This is like the 80's again.
I didn't want anyone else's nukes here then and I don't now.

Trident is good enough to dissuade any other nation from nuking us. We don't need any extra deterrent and we certainly don't need to be a launch pad for anyone else either.

SSBN's are probably the safest way of maintaining a nuclear capability, much less likely to be taken out by a 1st strike than any land based ones, whether silo launched or air launched.




posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: spirit_horse

I care because I, as a British citizen, do not want US WMD's in my home country.

And I did check a map, looks like the USA is far closer to Russia than the UK, the USA is only 60 miles from Russia, the UK is 1100 miles.


I wasn't thinking about Alaska and the Bering Straight when I wrote that. I stand corrected. However, it is sparsely populated. Britain and Europe are closer to Moscow. I can understand not wanting foreign weapons on your soil. Make sure you let your leaders know that are the ones in the article considering asking the US to deploy them. I don't think it will matter anyway with NATO and all the warheads, Russia sees NATO as the enemy as we saw WARSAW Pact as the enemy not Russia in particular. NATO has been making Russia nervous since the cold war ended.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: spirit_horse

Surely deploying nuclear weapons in sparsely populated areas would be better than a smaller country with a larger and closer together population?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: spirit_horse

Surely deploying nuclear weapons in sparsely populated areas would be better than a smaller country with a larger and closer together population?


You miss the point. It assures mutually assured destruction if Putin is forced to target high population centers in a first strike as opposed to vast wilderness locations or the open ocean where nobody would be effected.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: spirit_horse

Surely deploying nuclear weapons in sparsely populated areas would be better than a smaller country with a larger and closer together population?


I agree with that! I myself live directly in the center of 4 primary nuclear targets with Russian subs cruising just 15 miles from my house. I figure if there is an exchange then I won't have to worry about survival and the terrible calamity that will be left after. There wouldn't be much left of the UK as Russia would take you out as well. You may not believe that, but as close as the US and the UK military are they wouldn't leave anyone, including other nuclear powers, to be around for a second strike or invasion. Sad as it is M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) in alive and well between Russia and the West.


edit on 10/6/15 by spirit_horse because: typos



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: spirit_horse

Surely deploying nuclear weapons in sparsely populated areas would be better than a smaller country with a larger and closer together population?


I think all nukes should be deployed nearest all government locations. For example in the USA on the withouse lawn, capital building grounds. Pentagon, CIA headquarters etc.

That way if somehow an enemy is provoked, or compelled to target those nukes, those most responsible for them are the first to go...




posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: spirit_horse

Surely deploying nuclear weapons in sparsely populated areas would be better than a smaller country with a larger and closer together population?


I think all nukes should be deployed nearest all government locations. For example in the USA on the withouse lawn, capital building grounds. Pentagon, CIA headquarters etc.

That way if somehow an enemy is provoked, or compelled to target those nukes, those most responsible for them are the first to go...



LOL! I think that policy should be in effect immediately!



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I see the op left out a critical element of the reason the US is considering redeployment of such missiles.

Russia violated the INF treaty when they test launched a new ground launched cruise missile with an intermediate range.

The NATO has to do something about Russia violating treaties it signed off on.

This is just one option the US is looking at.
edit on 10-6-2015 by alphastrike101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Like a fair few on here I lived through part of The Cold War - it wasn't a particularly pleasant experience at times.
Any deployment of US nukes on UK soil takes us another step towards a return to such times.

I fully support the UK maintaining and upgrading our independent nuclear capability.
But I absolutely will not support another nations nuclear weapons in my country.

Russia will not make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on any NATO country - they are fully aware of the MAD scenario and have no more desire to see the majority of the world turned to glass than any of us do.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Why does EVERYONE think nukes are the most powerful and effective weapons we have?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I would like to think you are wrong, unfortunately I suspect you may be correct.

And the scariest thing about that is eventually, one day, such a weapon will be used in anger and only then will we all be fully aware of the devastating effect of such a weapon and then seek to ensure that its not used again.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Why does EVERYONE think nukes are the most powerful and effective weapons we have?


Because anything more destructive than an explosive weapon rated in MEGATONS is unthinkable.

But you know, if they could, they would and probably already have...

The scariest weapons are those that can kill targeted populations without destroying anything...



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK




This is like the 80's again. 


More like October 14 1962 except in reverse.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
NO, just no...I will personally go to London and throw the first punch (should I get the chance).

Anyway, why move them to the UK when the USA is closer to Russia?? (It is isn't it?)

Shemya Island - Not the end of the world but we can see it from here . It is actually further from the US to the Russian targets than the UK . Also , this would give a lot more leverage as Russia would have incoming from multiple directions.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
a reply to: SprocketUK




This is like the 80's again. 


More like October 14 1962 except in reverse.


Not really. There was no INF treaty to be broken then. Russia is building and testing missiles in violation of a treaty they agreeded on.

NATO is simply looking at options to counter intermediate range missiles that were previously ban. But since Russia has violated its treaty, NATO must do something.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: wasaka

“We would look at all the pros and the cons and come to a conclusion.”



Whilst weighing up the pros and cons Philip Hammond would do well to watch this scientific docu-drama.



Threads

Threads is a 1984 BAFTA award-winning British television drama, produced jointly by the BBC, Nine Network and Western-World Television Inc. Written by Barry Hines and directed by Mick Jackson, it is a docudrama account of nuclear war and its effects on the city of Sheffield in Northern England.



Starvation, radiation sickness, nuclear winters, cannibalism and deformed births within years if not months - genuinely horrific stuff.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
scary times indeed. must be the hot weather messing with peoples heads. i hope obama doesnt do anything stupid.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Yeah yeah..
Hold your EU Referendum (and possible leave the EU) as soon as possible, your american friends will take care of a bright future for the UK :/
Man, now we are really deep into Cold War Mk2 but I think this one will end badly for everybody.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: spirit_horse

The UK Vanguard subs are not US Ohio Class. It is a different design. The missile tube system is obviously the same as would be expected sharing the same missile, but the subs are completely different.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: wasaka
The UK already has a nice arsenal of nukes. They don't need our assistance.




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join