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.

 

Renewal of Trident (Commons vote today)

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

The problem i have with nuclear weapons is also the U.K would not fair to well in any exchange that took place.

A handful of warheads detonated at sufficient altitude could destroy our info structure and communications capability's beyond repair. Allowing any other soviet attack to take place at there leisure.

We would be destroyed in a heart beat with little warning or no time to respond. I understand that's exactly why we have the Trident system in place, it being a MAD world. But at what cost should it all go south?
edit on 19-7-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

The problem i have with nuclear weapons is also the U.K would not fair to well in any exchange that took place.

A handful of warheads detonated at sufficient altitude could destroy our info structure and communications capability's beyond repair. Allowing any other soviet attack to take place at there leisure.

We would be destroyed in a heart beat with little warning or no time to respond. I understand that's exactly why we have the Trident system in place, it being a MAD world. But at what cost should it all go south?

You are right in that Trident is only for deterrent effect.
They aren't there to make us fare well.
They are there to put someone off attacking us with wmds.
If deterrence fails it's game over, trident isn't about winning a nuke war, it's about making sure the other side knows they're going down as well if they start.



For what it's worth, I agree with you. A nuclear war will definitely be the end of is here in the UK.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

That's a shame hope everything goes well regarding completion in September.

Kids are so important to our future and education must be paramount.



It's more than a shame, it's the reason public services are so stretched. Every pound that goes in, something like 80p is sucked out by business.

The same is true of the NHS and everything else.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

The mentality behind nuclear war these days simple does not bare reason.

Like someone else suggested, the world today is not the same as the 1950s. We are to connected and rely on trade with one another to survive and maintain our way of life. To consider such a conflict in this day of age is simply folly.


edit on 19-7-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

The mentality behind nuclear war these days simple does not bare reason.

Like someone else suggested, the world today is not the same as the 1950s. We are to connected and rely on trade with one another to survive and maintain our way of life. To consider such a conflict in this day of age is simply folly.



War is never sensible.
Germanys biggest trade partner before WW1 was France, japans in WW2 was the US.

Can't remember who said it but "War is madness".



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

War and conflict generally have an agenda and/or goal in mind through. Be it resources, land, religious reasons or over colour and creed.

Nuclear conflict however serves no other purpose than mutually assured destruction, there are no spoils or privileges to be had.

Nuclear conflict simply equates to racial suicide, planet wide.

What was it the AI said in war games "the only way to win in not to play".
edit on 19-7-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Well, it's pretty much taken as fact that the use of battlefield tactical nukes will lead to strategic ones.

I guess that's where the cutoff is.
Society could survive some tactical ones. Though it wouldn't stop there.
General Sir John Hacketts book is probably the text book for how WW3 would have gone down up to about 1990.

The point of the strategic arsenal is purely to deter anyone from using any nuke in a conflict.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
It appears to me when it comes to the question of Nukes there are two camps. Camp Destrution of society and Camp construction of society..I'm a firm believer in money wasted on War toys would be better spent constructing a society we could be proud of. As of right now, the dogs of war are winning.

The Cold war was about them pesky ruskies. Now that threat is over, we gotta keep the sheeple just paranoid enough to believe them nasty Iranians and North Koreans could attack us any minute.

Just 45 minutes from attack.





edit on 19-7-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Found this on another site but i thought i might share it to try and lighten the doom and gloom mood surrounding the subject matter on this thread.



On this day in 2153 - The UK government votes to renew the Starmageddon weapons program at a cost of £750 quintillion. Critics say the money would be better spent on conventional weapons like nuclear submarines, but the government insists the ability to destroy all matter within a range of 15 light years is needed to counter the threat posed by North Korea, Super-Isis, and bacterial life found in the Martian soil.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Found this on another site but i thought i might share it to try and lighten the doom and gloom mood surrounding the subject matter on this thread.



On this day in 2153 - The UK government votes to renew the Starmageddon weapons program at a cost of £750 quintillion. Critics say the money would be better spent on conventional weapons like nuclear submarines, but the government insists the ability to destroy all matter within a range of 15 light years is needed to counter the threat posed by North Korea, Super-Isis, and bacterial life found in the Martian soil.


Careful, if some of our American friends see that pic they are going to want to buy one for home defence.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The argument that nuclear weapons are no use against the enemies we face today completely misses the point. There is no way of knowing what is around the corner. There are examples of dictators using weapons of mass effect against their enemies and their own people in the last 30 years.

Just because our current conflicts are not against nuclear powers doesn't mean that we won't be in the future.

A military force should be prepared and trained for the next fight, not the last one. That is why the UK military has been re-focussing on 'contingency' (i.e. conventional) war in the last few years.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf

But if we ever use our nuclear deterrent there wont be any future. No matter the scenario once those things fly humanity's screwed.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

That's the point of a deterrent. As I stated there have been world leaders who have demonstrated willingness to use WME. A deterrents role is to make them think twice before using them on us. However it is not a deterrent if there is no perceived willingness to use it.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
All weapons are a deterent but it doesn't stop countries with deterrents being attacked invaded and destroyed. Saddam was fireing scuds into Israel, did Israel's Nukes deter that.? 19 men flew 4 jets into the heart of America, did America's Deterrent prevent that. ?.......7/7 bombings,....... France under constant attack....... Pakistan...... india..Iran. The list goes on of countries with Nuclear deterrants under attack that will never ever use them because they know the concequences if they do.

And lets say some nutjob group gets their hands on a Nuke or Nuclear material and uses it against us....who we gonna attack.?

Can you imagine the UK dropping a Nuke on say Pakistan or Iran, Russia, North Korea or China because the material used for a dirty bomb was traced back to one of them. Think about that for a moment.

Pointless Waste of Money and the scenarios of what could go wrong are just horrendous..

Get them to #.
edit on 20-7-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
All weapons are a deterent but it doesn't stop countries with deterrents being attacked invaded and destroyed. Saddam was fireing scuds into Israel, did Israel's Nukes deter that.? 19 men flew 4 jets into the heart of America, did America's Deterrent prevent that. ?.......7/7 bombings,....... France under constant attack....... Pakistan...... india..Iran. The list goes on of countries with Nuclear deterrants under attack that will never ever use them because they know the concequences if they do.

And lets say some nutjob group gets their hands on a Nuke or Nuclear material and uses it against us....who we gonna attack.?

Can you imagine the UK dropping a Nuke on say Pakistan or Iran, Russia, North Korea or China because the material used for a dirty bomb was traced back to one of them. Think about that for a moment.

Pointless Waste of Money and the scenarios of what could go wrong are just horrendous..

Get them to #.


Exactly. The scenario where there would be an actual possibility of us using Nuclear seems so unlikely to be almost inconceivable. Anyone state willing to launch an all out nuclear strike against the UK is not going to be deterred by the threat to their own citizens from one nuclear submarine. And we are never going to use them on anything less than a mass nuclear strike from a hostile nation ass the potential to escalate the situation is just too high.

I cant think of any other area where the government would be willing to spend that kind of money on that remote a possibility.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
All weapons are a deterent but it doesn't stop countries with deterrents being attacked invaded and destroyed. Saddam was fireing scuds into Israel, did Israel's Nukes deter that.? 19 men flew 4 jets into the heart of America, did America's Deterrent prevent that. ?.......7/7 bombings,....... France under constant attack....... Pakistan...... india..Iran. The list goes on of countries with Nuclear deterrants under attack that will never ever use them because they know the concequences if they do.

And lets say some nutjob group gets their hands on a Nuke or Nuclear material and uses it against us....who we gonna attack.?

Can you imagine the UK dropping a Nuke on say Pakistan or Iran, Russia, North Korea or China because the material used for a dirty bomb was traced back to one of them. Think about that for a moment.

Pointless Waste of Money and the scenarios of what could go wrong are just horrendous..

Get them to #.



That argument can equally be countered by pointing out that even though the USSR had a bajillion missiles ready to go, even in the darkest moments of the cold war, they refrained.

That is the true power of a viable deterrence.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
All weapons are a deterent but it doesn't stop countries with deterrents being attacked invaded and destroyed. Saddam was fireing scuds into Israel, did Israel's Nukes deter that.? 19 men flew 4 jets into the heart of America, did America's Deterrent prevent that. ?.......7/7 bombings,....... France under constant attack....... Pakistan...... india..Iran. The list goes on of countries with Nuclear deterrants under attack that will never ever use them because they know the concequences if they do.

And lets say some nutjob group gets their hands on a Nuke or Nuclear material and uses it against us....who we gonna attack.?

Can you imagine the UK dropping a Nuke on say Pakistan or Iran, Russia, North Korea or China because the material used for a dirty bomb was traced back to one of them. Think about that for a moment.

Pointless Waste of Money and the scenarios of what could go wrong are just horrendous..

Get them to #.



That argument can equally be countered by pointing out that even though the USSR had a bajillion missiles ready to go, even in the darkest moments of the cold war, they refrained.

That is the true power of a viable deterrence.


And the reason the USSR had those 'Bajillon' missiles is that the USA had already developed, used and massively produced nuclear weapons. From a Soviet Point of view America and NATO were the aggressors and their weapon stockpiles where there to deter attacks from us.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
All weapons are a deterent but it doesn't stop countries with deterrents being attacked invaded and destroyed. Saddam was fireing scuds into Israel, did Israel's Nukes deter that.? 19 men flew 4 jets into the heart of America, did America's Deterrent prevent that. ?.......7/7 bombings,....... France under constant attack....... Pakistan...... india..Iran. The list goes on of countries with Nuclear deterrants under attack that will never ever use them because they know the concequences if they do.

And lets say some nutjob group gets their hands on a Nuke or Nuclear material and uses it against us....who we gonna attack.?

Can you imagine the UK dropping a Nuke on say Pakistan or Iran, Russia, North Korea or China because the material used for a dirty bomb was traced back to one of them. Think about that for a moment.

Pointless Waste of Money and the scenarios of what could go wrong are just horrendous..

Get them to #.



That argument can equally be countered by pointing out that even though the USSR had a bajillion missiles ready to go, even in the darkest moments of the cold war, they refrained.

That is the true power of a viable deterrence.


And the reason the USSR had those 'Bajillon' missiles is that the USA had already developed, used and massively produced nuclear weapons. From a Soviet Point of view America and NATO were the aggressors and their weapon stockpiles where there to deter attacks from us.


There were hawks on both sides.
Don't forget that the US developed nukes in WW2 and then improved the designs while kind old uncle Joe Stalin was in charge of the peaceful USSR.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
All weapons are a deterent but it doesn't stop countries with deterrents being attacked invaded and destroyed. Saddam was fireing scuds into Israel, did Israel's Nukes deter that.? 19 men flew 4 jets into the heart of America, did America's Deterrent prevent that. ?.......7/7 bombings,....... France under constant attack....... Pakistan...... india..Iran. The list goes on of countries with Nuclear deterrants under attack that will never ever use them because they know the concequences if they do.

And lets say some nutjob group gets their hands on a Nuke or Nuclear material and uses it against us....who we gonna attack.?

Can you imagine the UK dropping a Nuke on say Pakistan or Iran, Russia, North Korea or China because the material used for a dirty bomb was traced back to one of them. Think about that for a moment.

Pointless Waste of Money and the scenarios of what could go wrong are just horrendous..

Get them to #.



That argument can equally be countered by pointing out that even though the USSR had a bajillion missiles ready to go, even in the darkest moments of the cold war, they refrained.

That is the true power of a viable deterrence.


And the reason the USSR had those 'Bajillon' missiles is that the USA had already developed, used and massively produced nuclear weapons. From a Soviet Point of view America and NATO were the aggressors and their weapon stockpiles where there to deter attacks from us.


There were hawks on both sides.
Don't forget that the US developed nukes in WW2 and then improved the designs while kind old uncle Joe Stalin was in charge of the peaceful USSR.


By the time Russia tested its first atomic weapon the US already had a couple of hundred nuclear bombs.

Who was deterring who?



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Great article here about how many of our politicians profit from trident

www.thecanary.co...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join