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.

 

Blair's nuclear bombshell

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Tony Blair is facing a political backlash over his decision to order a new generation of nuclear weapons to replace the ageing Trident fleet at a cost of billions of pounds.



Rebel Labour MPs will meet tomorrow to coordinate their fight against his plans, which seem set to provoke one of the biggest shows of opposition to Mr Blair from inside his own party since the start of the Iraq war.

Opposition to an updated version of Trident goes far beyond MPs who object to nuclear weapons on principle. It includes senior figures in the military, who question whether this is the best way to spend a tight military budget.

A senior defence department source told The Independent that there was "a serious debate" going on "at all levels" over the long-term role of the armed forces and whether a nuclear deterrent was still needed. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, is believed to have privately queried the huge cost.

Three Labour MPs - Gordon Prentice, Paul Flynn and John Austin - have drawn up a resolution questioning the cost of Trident, and have demanded a vote on it at one of the meetings which Labour MPs hold every Monday. Mr Flynn, a member of the Defence Committee of the Western European Union, said: "We haven't got any enemies that we could possibly want to aim nuclear weapons at now. The case that John Reid has given for these weapons is that we might possibly have the right sort of enemy in 15 years time, which doesn't seem like a good reason for spending billions of pounds. Our future role is going to be as peacekeepers, in which we perform better than anyone else.'"

Source:
Independant

Does Blair have a Complex with the current UK Nuclear Armament? Maybe he feels Unadequate when talking to the US president, that has a huge nuclear arsenal? And with the Current Nuclear siutuation in Iran, I am sure that seeing UK Update their Nuclear Weapons is going to be Good Sign for the Bright and Peaceful Future.

Bomb's Away!




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Weapons like everything else has a finite shelf life. At some point it will begin to cost more than than simply producing new ones. It also takes time so the best bet is to start planning for it now as the US is doing.

Nuclear weapons will be with us for some time now albiet perhaps at reduced levels. Unless you can completly eliminate them from the world (not Likely) or perfect a spaced based system to detect and destroy them using directed energy weapons (Perhaps sooner than you think) so as to render them useless.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
knowing how Tight the MOD is
i would be suprized if they even accept this



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
He spends his formative years fighting for CND and preaching ban the bomb, and now he finds himself in charge he's asking for some new nuclear weapons.

I love it when Socialism meets reality, what is it they say about a conservative being a liberal who hasn't been mugged yet



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I read about this in the paper today, it is deeply disturbing.

It raises a number of issues as to why Blair is going abouts this NOW? The western world is trying to get Iran disarmed (if they are armed) and now Blair wants to build some new-and-improved WMD's?? Is he trying to provoke Iran? Is he trying to scare Iran? Perhaps he knows that a war is immenant and is taking to arms.

I think there is a lot more to be read into this beyond simply the replenishing of waining supplies...



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 05:17 AM
link   
why he is doing it is quite simple. The Vangard class SSBN subs were designed for a life of 30 years. The first was launched in the early 90's and is reaching the mid point of its life. If the uk is to continue to have nuclear weapons their replacements must be started down the design path now if there is to be any hope of having them ready when the vangards decommission between 2020 and 2025.


NR

posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Modulus
I read about this in the paper today, it is deeply disturbing.

It raises a number of issues as to why Blair is going abouts this NOW? The western world is trying to get Iran disarmed (if they are armed) and now Blair wants to build some new-and-improved WMD's?? Is he trying to provoke Iran? Is he trying to scare Iran? Perhaps he knows that a war is immenant and is taking to arms.

I think there is a lot more to be read into this beyond simply the replenishing of waining supplies...



Is everyhting about Iran??? Iran this Iran that and how can Blair be using that to scare us? remember all EU partys decided not to go to war and didnt you read the article? its to get rid off their old nuclear type weapons while they are telling us not to make one! not even for energy use



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Whislt people have an (understandable) objection to Nuclear weapons, this article/announcement does not entail building "more bombs".

Trident is merely the delivery mechanism and has been around for some decades, so it makes sense to make sure you missile systems are as up to date, reliable, accurate and cost effective as possible.

Alot of people seem to have taken this the wrong way and think we are building more bombs. We are always building more bombs, come to Aldermaston outside reading and there is a Nuclear bomb making factory.

All Blair is doing is making sure the replacement is there for when Trident (the misslile, not the warhead) is phased out.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I say it's about time Blair did something right. Theres no point having a bunch of nuclear warheads sitting around if your delivery system doesn't work right. If Britain wants to maintain it's status as one of the world's leading powers it needs a nuclear arsenal. And like I said, a nuclear arsenal is useless if you can't deliver them to the enemy's front door.

I figure it's about time the MOD upgraded it's Tridents, out here in the states I get the feeling it's time we start upgrading our missiles too. It's not like we can exactly count on FedEx to deliver these warheads to their targets.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   


I figure it's about time the MOD upgraded it's Tridents, out here in the states I get the feeling it's time we start upgrading our missiles too. It's not like we can exactly count on FedEx to deliver these warheads to their targets.


As far as I understand it, the Tridents are on lease to the Brits from the US. So it makes sense for us to look at an independant missile system..plus it will boost the economy...someone will have to build them...


Not sure how you lease a missile, as it's a "one use" thing, you can't give it back....
.....



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I know what this is all about, as Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, said:

"This is at a time when they are going to cut down on both the navy and the air force. It requires a whole review of the nuclear stock and what it is for, when even the Americans are developing different types of nuclear weapons."

It's about Keeping up with the Americans!

I think the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations is getting to Tony and he thinks he can't handle the Tasks that the president Bush is giving to him. One of Points of this Doctrine:



  • If an adversary intended to use WMD against the U.S. multinational or allied forces or a civilian population;
  • In cases of an imminent attack from an adversary's biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy;
  • Against adversary installations, including WMD; deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons; or the command-and-control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the U.S. or its friends and allies; and
  • In cases where a demonstration of U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons would deter WMD use by an adversary.

"The new doctrine reaffirms an aggressive nuclear posture of modernized nuclear weapons maintained on high alert."

You might also want to know that,

In mid-2004, according to national security analyst William Arkin, Rumsfeld approved a top-secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" that directed the military to be prepared to attack potential adversaries, notably Iran and North Korea, that are developing WMD.

So this Modernisation of UK's Nuclear capabilities Does have to do with Iran and North Korea.

Furthermore, the New Doctrine gives the Power to use nuclear force against any Nation or State that has "Suspected" WMDs in possession:

"What we are seeing now is an effort to lay the foundations for the legitimacy of using nuclear weapons if [the administration] suspects another country might use chemical weapons against us. Iraq is a perfect example of how this doctrine might actually work; it was a country where we were engaged militarily and thought it would deploy chemical weapons against us."

And we all know that vice-presidents Dick Chaneys Office had asked from US Strategic Command to draw up a Plan of a "Large Scale Air Assault on Iran, using BOTH Convention and Nuclear Weapons", since many of the targets are deep underground, too far for conventional weapons to penetrate.

Sources:

Pentagon Foresees Preemptive Nuclear Strikes

Pentagon turns heat up on Iran

Chane y Plans to Nuke Iran

Also you might want to check out this ATS thread:

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The puppet Blair had better watch out, because according to Rumsfeld and Cheney (a creditable double-act[?]), we will be developing WMDs and, as such, we are a viable target.

Could this mean that the special relationship is not so special after all. Is Toenail Blair simply a prawn in a very big pond and out of his depth.

Many people do not know this, but we supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, with the US so obviously supporting Iraq.

Are we about to put our neck on the chopping block?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
The puppet Blair had better watch out, because according to Rumsfeld and Cheney (a creditable double-act[?]), we will be developing WMDs and, as such, we are a viable target.

Could this mean that the special relationship is not so special after all. Is Toenail Blair simply a prawn in a very big pond and out of his depth.

Many people do not know this, but we supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, with the US so obviously supporting Iraq.

Are we about to put our neck on the chopping block?


Not that I advocate war with the US (or even think it is ever likely)...

But..

We haven't been invaded successfully in over 1000 yrs. Not even the Nazi war machine could do it. I have every confidence we would repel any such attempt at regime change. We just not that an invadeable island.

There are few beaches suited to an amphibious assault and those that could be used are either in narrow channels (say the Irish Sea) or near Naval Bases. The rest are all scraggy little beaches that would not be suitable to any large landing, unless you want another Omaha.

The best one to do, IMHO, from the standpoint of ease of access from open sea, position to nearby military and sizeable enough to accomadate any large landing would be Western Super Mare.

Nice big flat beach there, fairly clear run to the Atlantic and no sizeable nearby military presence. However, from there, it's a long way to London and the Army would fight tooth and nail.

Then you have London itself. You think Baghdad is bad? Whoooaah.....

Anyway, I digress.....It won't happen, just postulating as its a quite day at work.....



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
It's about Keeping up with the Americans!

No, its keeping what useful long range weapons we have LEFT!



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
"We haven't been invaded successfully in over 1000 yrs."

Tell that to William the Conqueror!
He didn't do badly 940 years ago...



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Nothing lasts forever, and Nukes are no exception to that rule. Not manufacturing new ones increases the chances of undesirable consequences to occur. And besides, most of the Nukes from the cold war era are in the multiple megaton rage, very unnecessary in today's world.


Not that I advocate war with the US (or even think it is ever likely)...

But..

We haven't been invaded successfully in over 1000 yrs. Not even the Nazi war machine could do it. I have every confidence we would repel any such attempt at regime change. We just not that an invadeable island.


So... tempting, so, so, tempting.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Several posters mentioned shelf life on weapons ..agree...all high tech weapons have shelf lives and many require constant checks on test bench machinery. Guided missles often must be hooked up to test equipment to run programs and self checks.
Nuclear weapons have just such a shelf life. Also the state of the art changes with new technology.
I know that at one time the Nike Hercules anti aircraft missles of a certain series had nuclear warheads They would leak after awhile and spread contamination in the silos or launch areas. Same with nuclear torpedos. Like any system after so many hears you spend more time on repairs and maintnence than in service on line ready to go.
New designs have been developed since this series of weapons talked about on this thread. Not much has been said about them in public but no doubt they are effecient.
While it is not nuclear weapons...I am going to use in this example..the Brits got pretty much caught with their pants down in the fighter arena...having to few Hurricanes and Spitfires to go around when the crunch came. This because of tight budgets and spending on anything but thier military. Got the point you Tommys???? Wake up...dont get caught with your pants down..you cant afford another Nevil Chamberlin. Also our congress is not made up of the stuff we had in our grandfathers time. Too many wimps on this side of the pond. Remember that!! Our congress today is so stupid..they will debate something to death and hope it dies on committee while they wait for the poll results. Astonishing.!!! They may as well be reading tea leaves or tossing the bones. Wake up you Tommys.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   

posted by Wembley
Tell that to William the Conqueror!
He didn't do badly 940 years ago...


Bah! Someone had to nit pick....940 years, 1000 years....honestly....




posted by Westpoint23
So... tempting, so, so, tempting


Hehe.....The funny thing is though, we probably wouldn't mind a "regime change"...so if your feeling up for it, chances are we would open the gates and let you in



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Bah! Someone had to nit pick....940 years, 1000 years....honestly....


A lot can heap in 60 years mind you, only 60 years ago we were in WWII.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Indeed, alot did happen in 60 years. Viking invasions and some guy who was unfortunate enough to be named Cnut




Invaders
Swein and Cnut 1013


Image from the Danelaw period In 1013, King Swein of Denmark (with his son Cnut) sailed up the rivers Humber and Trent to be accepted as king in the Danelaw. By Christmas, all England submitted to Swein, and King Ethelred had fled to Normandy. In 1014, Cnut became the leader of the Danes on his father's death. Ethelred returned to England, but was so ill that his son Edmund Ironside had to assume responsibility for defence of the country against Cnut.

At a truce after Ethelred's death, Edmund and Cnut agreed to divide the kingdom between them, but Edmund died shortly after, and Cnut became king of the whole country (marrying Ethelred's widow). The brief reigns of his two successors were undistinguished, and in 1042, Ethelred's son, Edward, was invited to return from Normandy as king, despite other claimants to the throne existing.



Source





Invaders
Edward the 'Confessor' 1042


King Harold, final Anglo-Saxon king of England The new English King, known as 'the Confessor' - one who suffered for his faith - is often portrayed as a weak ruler. Yet he kept his kingdom intact during his troubled rule and reconciled the English and Danish elements in the aristocracy. He also introduced regular cultural and political contact with the continent, particularly with Normandy and the Papacy. The English court underwent a certain amount of Normanisation during this period, due to the introduction of Norman favourites and the influence of Edward's prolonged exile in Normandy.



Edward's reign was dogged by the ambitions of his father-in-law, Earl Godwin of Wessex. The Earl and his family played a significant role in defending the realm and in pacifying the Welsh border but in 1051 their quarrels with Edward's authority led to the exile of the whole family. They returned the following year and in 1053 Godwin's son, Harold, acceded to the earldom of Wessex to become the second most powerful man after the king.


On Edward's death, a power-struggle ensued between Harold Godwinson (brother-in-law of Edward and nominated by the members of the Witan council to be his successor), King Harald of Norway (supported by Harold Godwinson's brother, Tostig), and Edward's young kinsman, Duke William of Normandy. Harold Godwinson became the last Anglo-Saxon King in 1066 but his reign was cut short by the Norman invasion led by Duke William and he was killed at the battle of Hastings.



Source




new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join