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.

 

Vote on UK Nuclear Arms Expected Next Year

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hazard
Mmm, says the guy who lives in a country with no right to self defense and laws against even having a gun on your person on your own property.

The UK submarine fleet is old and needs updating.

Riight
Obviosly your someone from america right?
Actually we have quite broad allowance for self defence (Ie if you come at me with a knife I could happily break your arms and legs with a large 2 by 4 and stil be ok in court)




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sepiroth
that link is totally off the mark, britain conducted it's first nuclear test by ourselfs in the 50's and we developed our own nuclear weapons for 25 years....that link is totally wrong, britain was working on developing the atom from as early as WW1 era when it was first descovered there could be an ULTIMATE WEAPON....1939 churchill felt if we dropped the bomb on germany it would end the war (tube alloys project) - which developed into the 'manhattan project' worked on by mostly british and canadian scientists (commonwealth), in that link it's saying we realied on american help from day1, nowhere in that link it says the truth and the truth is all or 90% of atomic weapon research came from the united kingdom and the british commonwealth.

the americans mainly funded it being put together as britain could no longer afford to.


SOME research came the UK.
Not trying to step on your ego here but most of the theoretical research was german where most of the actual engineering research and development was American. I think the implosion design was oppenheimer's idea.

I alos know that the US traded thermonuclear technology with britain in exchange for the formulas for VX.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazard
The UK submarine fleet is old and needs updating.

I already said I want the SSBNs to be replaced if needed.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I think we need to step back from the rhetoric and take a very long, hard look at the issues.

1. We (Brits) all agree that Trident - for whatever reason, is nearing it's use by date;

2. Some of us (Brits) think we need a nuclear weapon of some type whilst others also think that we should scrap our nuclear arsenal;

The question is, what type of delivery system do we go for?

1. Do we replace Trident with the upgraded Trident III/IV or whatever it's called?

This would keep American contractors in jobs for several years, contribute to the American economy to the tune of upwards of 25 Billion dollars, whilst burning a hole in our taxes and defence dudget.

2. Do we go for an air or sea launched cruise type missiles with a small warhead?

I favour option 2 for very obvious reasons.

a. Jobs would be created in this country to design, develop and manufacture said cruise missiles at BAe, Vickers etc. Local economy booms as a result;

b. AWRE at Aldermaston would continue it's defence work on smaller variable yield nuclear warheads and should be able to deliver a system (warhead) quite soon and this in turn would make Thatcham and Newbury very nice places to live in
;

c. Jobs would be created in our few remaining dockyards to rework the Trident missile boats and convert them for tube launched cruise missiles.

It seems so simple to me. It is all about keeping Britain's nuclear deterrent. In effect, we are tied to the White House about when or where we could deploy a nuclear weapon.

I think we should go down the French route:-

1. Stay within NATO - but keep any future British nuclear weapon system out of NATO;

2. Retain our ability to deploy when we (Brits) see fit and not have to ask our American friends for permission to use it - as is the case at the moment;

3. Build and maintain a smaller nuclear weapon system that is lightweight but accurate with smaller 'dial a yield' thermonuclear device.

If we take this path, we will create jobs in this country, boost local economies in the areas where manufacturing will take place and give our defence industry a much needed shot in the arm.

If we go down the Trident route, all we are doing, is pumping billions of dollars into the US economy, providing defence contractors with jobs at the cost of our own.

This is not another anti-yank bashing post. We have relied on our American cousins for far too long and it is high time, that we learnt to stand up on our own.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   


1. Do we replace Trident with the upgraded Trident III/IV or whatever it's called?

This would keep American contractors in jobs for several years, contribute to the American economy to the tune of upwards of 25 Billion dollars, whilst burning a hole in our taxes and defence dudget.

*snip*

And YES, we should choose the T3. Why? Because maintaining just one of our bureaucratic govt. institutions like the Dept. of Culture costs more than $25 billion. Let's reduce our government significantly and there'll be money for strategic weapons.


Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


[edit on 2006/11/25 by Hellmutt]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazard

Mmm, says the guy who lives in a country with no right to self defense and laws against even having a gun on your person on your own property.



Outstanding ignorance!

Another person living an ocean away who is an expert on UK law / firearms policy!!

Tell you what why don't you do some basic research or look at the many 'gun control' threads on ATS, find out what the laws actually are in the UK and then come back and join in this debate - m'kay??



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DissolveTheCND


1. Do we replace Trident with the upgraded Trident III/IV or whatever it's called?

This would keep American contractors in jobs for several years, contribute to the American economy to the tune of upwards of 25 Billion dollars, whilst burning a hole in our taxes and defence dudget.

*snip*

And YES, we should choose the T3. Why? Because maintaining just one of our bureaucratic govt. institutions like the Dept. of Culture costs more than $25 billion. Let's reduce our government significantly and there'll be money for strategic weapons.


Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


[edit on 2006/11/25 by Hellmutt]


Are you really saying that we should support the US economy and create and maintain jobs in America over our own economy and defence industries?

I simply cannot understand your logic!



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   

posted by Hazard
The UK submarine fleet is old and needs updating.


No it isn't.

The Vanguards have only been insv for a decade or so and they're expected to remain insv for another 2 decades. The rest of the Submarine Fleet is top of the line too. We have new sub's coming online soon as well.

Fritz.

It's a common misconception that because we "lease" the missiles of the US, they control them. They do not. We do not need US permission to fire our Nukes.

I just expect that if one was fired, they wouldn't give us back the security deposit, seeing as it would be in slightly worse condition than when we borrowed it...
(twas a joke, by the way...I know some people don't get my humour...)

With regards to developing our own missile, I think we should. We used to world leaders in Rocket technology, but it got binned in the 50's/60's as the Government deemed it an unneccessary expense.

As for that link to the CND provided earlier, it's utter BS. That's all I have to say on the matter.

PS: Thatcham and newbury are nice places to live. It's Reading that is a dive. Too many Poles and Asians..But that's another thread...



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
SOME research came the UK.
Not trying to step on your ego here but most of the theoretical research was german where most of the actual engineering research and development was American. I think the implosion design was oppenheimer's idea.

I alos know that the US traded thermonuclear technology with britain in exchange for the formulas for VX.


SOME research, yeah the 2 German scientists (Rudolph Peierls and Otto Frisch) - the main dudes responsible for the atom, but in what country was their work taken again?


and m8 your not stepping on my ego, to be honest i don't care for it - the only thing that irrates me when people say something was 'American' invented when infact america 'funded' it being put together.

en.wikipedia.org... (the big one)

en.wikipedia.org... (british research) - also look at the 'post war' paragraph in this article - "britain classed the atom as a 'joint' discovery" but the americans stalled us at the last minute (sounds familar)


. also look at work from Edward Victor Appleton (worked on British atomic research in the early 1900's)
. John Douglas Cockcroft - British scientist (first man splitting the nucleus of the atom)

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Sepiroth]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I dont believe an airlaunched trident replacement would be superior to a SSBN based Trident replacement.Just in terms of the stealth of a SSBN platform, plus the 30 mins tops time on target for an SLBM as well as existing naval infrastructure at Faslane/Coulport makes me think this would be far superior to an air launched deterrent.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I say replace it with directed energy satellites. There is the tech, just unveil it.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I agree with Fitz.

If you are going to spend all of that money, you might as well keep spending in country as much as possible.

I would rather help my enconomy and tech.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bmdefiant
I dont believe an airlaunched trident replacement would be superior to a SSBN based Trident replacement.Just in terms of the stealth of a SSBN platform, plus the 30 mins tops time on target for an SLBM as well as existing naval infrastructure at Faslane/Coulport makes me think this would be far superior to an air launched deterrent.


Oh come on! Do you really believe that a submarine launched ICBM is STEALTHY?

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? A submarine is only stealthy until it rises up to firing depth and, at the moment of launch, it is not stealthy.

Add to that, the missile launch bloom and you have one very detectable target.

True, the submarine can then escape by diving under the thermal layer, but even at top speed, they would not be able to outrun an incoming nuclear equipped torpedo. You see my friends, to defeat a missile boat with a nuclear torpedo, all you need is the approximate range, bearing and depth then - KA-BOOM! One very dead stealthy nuclear armed submarine.

Now air launched nuclear armed cruise missiles are the obvious deterrent as how do you know when one has been launched? How do you differentiate between a normal H.E cruise missile and one with a nuclear warhead?



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous

Originally posted by Hazard

Mmm, says the guy who lives in a country with no right to self defense and laws against even having a gun on your person on your own property.



Outstanding ignorance!

Another person living an ocean away who is an expert on UK law / firearms policy!!

Tell you what why don't you do some basic research or look at the many 'gun control' threads on ATS, find out what the laws actually are in the UK and then come back and join in this debate - m'kay??


Hate to rain on your parade, but I live in England not America.
You cannot beat someone with a '4 by 4' as this has been done before and will result in jail.
You can only use equal force, but you cannot use a gun even if the enemy has a gun.

[edit on 25/11/06 by Hazard]

[edit on 25/11/06 by Hazard]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
True, the submarine can then escape by diving under the thermal layer, but even at top speed, they would not be able to outrun an incoming nuclear equipped torpedo. You see my friends, to defeat a missile boat with a nuclear torpedo, all you need is the approximate range, bearing and depth then - KA-BOOM! One very dead stealthy nuclear armed submarine.

Lol WHAT?
How are they going to hit it if they cant find it?
No offence fritz but a nuclear submarine is the stealthiest thing in the world , a boomer is the stealthiest of the lot.



Now air launched nuclear armed cruise missiles are the obvious deterrent as how do you know when one has been launched? How do you differentiate between a normal H.E cruise missile and one with a nuclear warhead?

One fatal flaw with your plan, we have niether the bases, planes or equipment for this. The naval option IMO is the best and stealthiest option, very few countries have the ability to track and attack a nuclear submarine.


Originally posted by Hazard


Hate to rain on your parade, but I live in England not America.
You cannot beat someone with a '4 by 4' as this has been done before and will result in jail.
You can only use equal force, but you cannot use a gun even if the enemy has a gun.

[edit on 25/11/06 by Hazard]

[edit on 25/11/06 by Hazard]

Yes knife vs a 2 by 4 , that is equal force.
Lol what would you be doing with a gun anyway?
Apart from shot guns, bolt action sniper rifles and target pistols where are you going to get one LEGALLY?
The self defence act allows you to respond to threats with equal level of force if there is no possible chance of flight.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
True, the submarine can then escape by diving under the thermal layer, but even at top speed, they would not be able to outrun an incoming nuclear equipped torpedo. You see my friends, to defeat a missile boat with a nuclear torpedo, all you need is the approximate range, bearing and depth then - KA-BOOM! One very dead stealthy nuclear armed submarine.



Not sure I understand your logic here, Fritz. The sub has launched it's missiles, so what happens after is strategically irrelevant.

If it's stealthy pre launch, thats all that matters. Once the birds are flying, what difference will it make if the sub is then taken out? It'll be bad for the guys on board, granted, but the missiles have been launched.

Job done.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Dont really understand your logic fritz,the very range and stealthiness of an SSBN means it doesnt need to be anywhere near the target to launch...unlike your airlaunched option which dependent on range might take a lot longer to reach the target,never mind penetrate any SAM defences.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
*2 x 4 rather, thanks for the correction.
Anyway target pistols need a licence to buy and own, plus you cannot horde ammunition, you are only allowed certain civilian shotguns, no assault shotguns and most pump actions are banned, and all sniper rifles except for those used at a target range are banned.
I need to acquire weapons in my line of work and I know how to handle firearms, so yes I do need them.

But as for the submarine, once the missile is launched you can track where it came from. But if an enemy was attacked by a submarine nuke they would just aim their missiles at the mainland and send out boats or planes to find and destroy the submarine.


IV

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
There's no doubt a submarine based deterrent is the most surviveable .... land based missiles & aircraft are vulnerable to attack and can be taken out by conventional weapons let alone nuclear ones. During the cold war it was estimated that the warning times of attack against the UK could be as little as two minutes .... with possibly no warning time whatsoever if the UK were attacked by SLBMs from submarines in nearby waters.

I think the choice is between submarine based systems, either a Trident type SLBM replacement or nuclear armed cruise missile. Each has their own advantages. The SLBM could give the UK a much more lethal deterrent, greater range & number of targets - but for something which hopefully will never be used it really does cost a fortune to buy & maintain.

The alternative cruise missile option can be bought off the shelf and equipped with a fairly "bog standard" warhead although to ensure the attack pattern anticipated in "Operation Visitation" is fulfilled (30 Russian cities destroyed) the cruise missiles would have to be fitted in perhaps 3 submarines at sea simultaneously whereas with Trident we only need a minimum of one at sea ....

I reckon once deterrence fails it doesnt really matter whether we retaliate in 30 mins or 3 hours ... the fact we can retaliate is the main thing. A submarine based deterrent is our only option. Although which option we go for comes down to ££.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hazard
*2 x 4 rather, thanks for the correction.
Anyway target pistols need a licence to buy and own, plus you cannot horde ammunition, you are only allowed certain civilian shotguns, no assault shotguns and most pump actions are banned, and all sniper rifles except for those used at a target range are banned.

Yes I am quite familiar with the weapon laws in this country thank you.
BTW a civilian shot gun IMO is still a very dangerous weapon.
Yes and target ranges can go up to and over 1000 meteres.



I need to acquire weapons in my line of work and I know how to handle firearms, so yes I do need them.

You "need" to acquire weapons in your line of work?
Funnily enough I to have firearms experience and for my job need to know them.


But as for the submarine, once the missile is launched you can track where it came from. But if an enemy was attacked by a submarine nuke they would just aim their missiles at the mainland and send out boats or planes to find and destroy the submarine.

Thing is hazard, chances of a nuclear submarine firing while anywhere near a coastline or near enemy forces are rather slim. Even against the US the ocean is a BIG place and very difficult to find one lone submarine.
Planes can be heard miles out the same with boats, the boomer is one of the only weapons that can probably escape destruction in a nuclear war.







 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join