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.

 

Nuclear weapons in the UK and another referendum

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Perhaps it hasn't sunk into the British mind that Iran will have nukes, and the means to deliver them, one day soon, the Iranians keep saying 'death to America', who's next?




posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
Perhaps it hasn't sunk into the British mind that Iran will have nukes, and the means to deliver them, one day soon, the Iranians keep saying 'death to America', who's next?


Iran dont have Nukes and they are not trying to acquire them either, that's just western propaganda just like Saddam's WMD's.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

The use of the US missiles is based on cost. The UK, along with most Western nations, is fully capable of developing missiles. In fact, the UK once had a decent industry around this until it was "cut". There are also several Western nations who could produce nukes - Japan, Australia, Germany, Canada etc...

Regardless, the fact is that the UK deterrent is fully independent.

My car's made in France. I can still drive it.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

Iran dont have Nukes and they are not trying to acquire them either, that's just western propaganda just like Saddam's WMD's.


Iran - A negotiated pause in Iranian (alleged) ambition to develop nukes.
Iraq - Did have and use WMD in GW1 and previously against the Kurds with horrific effect. He did not have them by the time GW2 came along.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Original decision was partly based on cost but once you stop making them it is not a simple matter to restart. It would take years to develop a replacement (inferior) ICBM even if we had the budget to it. Also it is not just the missiles the warheads while made in the UK require US expertise.
Your car analogy would only be accurate if it had to go back to France to be serviced and MOT'd and the only car manufacturers were French.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

Iran dont have Nukes and they are not trying to acquire them either, that's just western propaganda just like Saddam's WMD's.


Iran - A negotiated pause in Iranian (alleged) ambition to develop nukes.
Iraq - Did have and use WMD in GW1 and previously against the Kurds with horrific effect. He did not have them by the time GW2 came along.

What WMDs did Iraq use in GW 1?



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Get rid of all but a handful

1) The US stores loads on secret UK bases
2) Russia isn't the main threat to the UK, terror attacks in London are and nuking London would be stupid
3) If Russia were crazy enough to launch nukes, what makes you think they'd care about whether we have any?
4) £100bn (pretty sure it's £72Bn before overheads) goes a long way and can be far better spent than on weapons that will probably/hopefully never be used.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
What WMDs did Iraq use in GW 1?


SCUD missiles are considered to be WMD. 80+ were fired into Israel and Saudi Arabia by the dictator Saddam.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: ScepticScot
What WMDs did Iraq use in GW 1?


SCUD missiles are considered to be WMD. 80+ were fired into Israel and Saudi Arabia by the dictator Saddam.

Scuds are capable of carrying WMD, I have never heard that they are considered WMD themselves. If they were would tomahawks' not also be considered WMD making coalition forces equally guilty?



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot
SCUDs are ballistic missiles. As such, they are considered to be WMD. They can carry nasty warheads, but even the conventional warhead - imprecisely aimed - is considered WMD.

I don't make the rules.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Scuds don't seem to meet the definition of mass destruction used by most sources (although there is no 100% formal definition) the exception seems to be the definitions used by the US and UK military which strikes me as slightly self serving.
There seems to be a degree of hypocrisy in the US/UK, both countries willing to spend billions on creating and upkeep of the most deadly weapons and delivery systems in the world, defining what is basically glorified V2s as weapons of mass destruction.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Just to add but does,this mean the US has used WMD?en.m.wikipedia.org...



edit on 2-9-2015 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

MLRS are not ballistic missiles. Like I say, I am just going by several definitions of WMD which may/may not be US/UK defined. You can like it, or lump it. That's life. But, it's for another thread. I jus made a clarification several posts ago.

I guess this OP is about the ultimate WMD - a nuke. Something if used, would signal things have got really bad for the world, making discussions such as ours seem rather petty.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Well its described by janes, who I assume would get the terminology correct, as a tactical ballistic missile. However you are quite correct that we have wandered a little off topic.

To be a bit more on topic I think it is ridiculous of the UK to lecture other countries on non proliferation while we are almost certainly going to go ahead with a massive upgrade of our own nuclear deterrent.


edit on 2-9-2015 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol



Iran dont have Nukes and they are not trying to acquire them either, that's just western propaganda just like Saddam's WMD's.


One of those rare occasions where we are both in total agreement.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Soloprotocol



Iran dont have Nukes and they are not trying to acquire them either, that's just western propaganda just like Saddam's WMD's.


One of those rare occasions where we are both in total agreement.

So what? The UK does not retain a nuclear capability because of Iran.
The world is actually bigger than Persia lol.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

I've made my viewpoint on the UK's independent nuclear capability perfectly clear.

I was just pointing out that for once I agree with Solo about the absolute bollocks spouted about Iran's nuclear programme and Saddam alleged possession of WMD.

I never stated anything about the UK maintaining its nuclear weapons because of Iran.

So what?
So why are you so frigging interested in me agreeing with Solo?
What's your problem?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

Wow, you had a pint? Chill man.
at?



at?
So why are you so frigging interested in me agreeing with Solo?
That is your invention alone.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
Get rid of all but a handful

1) The US stores loads on secret UK bases
.


Do they? Where are those secret UK bases?

The key to nuclear weapons storage facilities is the infrastructure and specially built storage igloos. The RAF base that the current USAF use is RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk. There is no other base in the UK where the US have such facilities.

fas.org...

www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I have a better proposal - instead of the rest of us being dictated to by a handful of socialists north of the border, we hold a referrendum to decide on whether or not we eject Scotland from the union.

I'd be for it so we don't have to listen to wiggy lecturing us like she has some right to dictate to the entire UK. Odious little woman.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join