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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Okay a compromise.
We have nukes on US soil controlled by us.
Fairs fair




posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: crazyewok

Wind your neck in, crazy - your surely old enough to have an adult debate without resorting to such childishness?

I get your point about the foreign WMD, but you're all missing the obvious point - in the event of the US using it's nuclear weapons, it would be a global exchange anyway. It matters not, at the end of the day, whether they're on UK soil or not, as we're targets regardless and we'll be joining in the thermonuclear fun regardless.

So all your complaining about the "warmonger" US (like we're any better) is moot.


Its the principle that matters.

No foreign wmds on UK soil. Not in my name!



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

We already do


How do you think the warheads are put on the Trident missiles? It's not done in the UK....



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SecretFace

originally posted by: alphastrike101

originally posted by: justwokeup
a reply to: alphastrike101

The article is talking about returning the shorter ranged tactical weapon capability to Europe. The capability that was previously removed at the end of the cold war. Exactly as I said. Whether thats an IRBM or nuclear armed cruise missile doing a similar job is not relevant.

The fact that the Russians feel sufficiently insecure about Nato to need these weapons doesn't mean that we should respond in kind. We should be working to fix the ongoing diplomatic disaster that led to the current state of tension.

I'm happy that Trident functions as the deterrent against nuclear attack on the UK and I support its follow on development. I want no part of whats proposed in the article. I do not want this class of weapons put back on UK soil and i will not support it.


All IRBMs were removed from the USSR and NATO before the end of the cold war. I do not know what you consider a "tactical" nuke but the gyphon and the pershing2 each had 150kt war heads that were infact strategic nuclear weapons. The missiles in question are not at all .5kt battlefield warheads(aka tactical)

And NATO is simply looking at options based on deterring Russia from further violating the INF treaty the USSR signed in 87'. Russia has been test launching IRBMs well before the whole Ukraine deal. This is more about strategic military planning and counter measures. When Russia has its IRBMs deployed we need a military countermeasure to it as a back up plan.

We need to make putin remember why his former commrads signed the INF treaty in the first place.

Miss clintons restart buttion clearly did not work.


America and NATO have been heading towards Russia's border since 1990, so it could be argued that Russia's test launching of the IRBM's, although I've been told they have been testing multiple TBM range ballistic missiles, is a direct reaction to American lead NATO pretty much violating every single paragraph of the NATO-Russia Act. I certainly don't believe Russia is the aggressor here, I don't see Russian bases spreading westwards, with Crimea, Russia was simply protecting its major asset with regards to defence and also economy, but also it's people, from the American instigated fascists of Kiev. I'm not fan of Russia's past, far from it, but at present, Russia is simply reacting to what can only be seen as provocation from multiple superpowers. Had America been in Russia's position, we would all be dead by this point.


I was only pointing out that you incorrectly called these tactical nukes. I also pointed out the reason for their deployment being russias violation of the INF treaty that was signed before the fall of the USSR.

Russia is giving its neighbors good reason to join NATO. Can you really blame Poland and other Baltic states for their fear of putin given his invasion and annexation of other countries.

Putin has single handedly brought NATO back from the cript.
What violation do you see NATO breaking its treaties?
Who was the one who used their military to annex other nations land?



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Since the fall of the USSR the west/USA has been pushing Russia's periphery into the EU/NATO, has been attempting to build "missile shields" around Russia.

This is an attempt to nullify Russia's nuclear capabilities. To make a (western) first strike option viable. If that scenario manifests Russia would lose bargaining power as far as geopolitical and economic decisions.

It's all very troubling. I'd much rather
live in a world where cooperation took the place of competition. This sort of nationalistic competition led to WW1. We seem to learn nothing from history.

I think China is updating/expanding its military in order to maintain nuclear capabilities. Both Russia and China are fixated on building submarines and other naval capabilities. Mostly subs but also aircraft carriers. There's a lot of military build up going on. It makes me feel uneasy.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101

originally posted by: SecretFace

originally posted by: alphastrike101

originally posted by: justwokeup
a reply to: alphastrike101

The article is talking about returning the shorter ranged tactical weapon capability to Europe. The capability that was previously removed at the end of the cold war. Exactly as I said. Whether thats an IRBM or nuclear armed cruise missile doing a similar job is not relevant.

The fact that the Russians feel sufficiently insecure about Nato to need these weapons doesn't mean that we should respond in kind. We should be working to fix the ongoing diplomatic disaster that led to the current state of tension.

I'm happy that Trident functions as the deterrent against nuclear attack on the UK and I support its follow on development. I want no part of whats proposed in the article. I do not want this class of weapons put back on UK soil and i will not support it.


All IRBMs were removed from the USSR and NATO before the end of the cold war. I do not know what you consider a "tactical" nuke but the gyphon and the pershing2 each had 150kt war heads that were infact strategic nuclear weapons. The missiles in question are not at all .5kt battlefield warheads(aka tactical)

And NATO is simply looking at options based on deterring Russia from further violating the INF treaty the USSR signed in 87'. Russia has been test launching IRBMs well before the whole Ukraine deal. This is more about strategic military planning and counter measures. When Russia has its IRBMs deployed we need a military countermeasure to it as a back up plan.

We need to make putin remember why his former commrads signed the INF treaty in the first place.

Miss clintons restart buttion clearly did not work.


America and NATO have been heading towards Russia's border since 1990, so it could be argued that Russia's test launching of the IRBM's, although I've been told they have been testing multiple TBM range ballistic missiles, is a direct reaction to American lead NATO pretty much violating every single paragraph of the NATO-Russia Act. I certainly don't believe Russia is the aggressor here, I don't see Russian bases spreading westwards, with Crimea, Russia was simply protecting its major asset with regards to defence and also economy, but also it's people, from the American instigated fascists of Kiev. I'm not fan of Russia's past, far from it, but at present, Russia is simply reacting to what can only be seen as provocation from multiple superpowers. Had America been in Russia's position, we would all be dead by this point.


I was only pointing out that you incorrectly called these tactical nukes. I also pointed out the reason for their deployment being russias violation of the INF treaty that was signed before the fall of the USSR.

Russia is giving its neighbors good reason to join NATO. Can you really blame Poland and other Baltic states for their fear of putin given his invasion and annexation of other countries.

Putin has single handedly brought NATO back from the cript.
What violation do you see NATO breaking its treaties?
Who was the one who used their military to annex other nations land?


Who made the first move in Ukraine? The west/US or Russia?



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Why would you need nukes in the uk? To cut down on the 30 min. Warning of stateside launches?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join