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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Hmmm need to acquire weapons in your line of work...sounds strange to say the least.Your either trained to use them and carry them or your not...For example im trained on 9mm Browning Pistol and HK MP7 and go through monthly Dry Run Training as well as six monthly qualification shoots to be able to carry those weapon systems....




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
You "need" to acquire weapons in your line of work?


He is an investigator and enforcer, based in the UK I beleive.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
If he did have a 'need' then I imagine he'd actually be fmiliar with the law in the UK on firearms.

But......



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



You can't have a pistol for targets in the UK it's not a 'need'.

Apart from long barrels and black powder all pistols are banned unless you have special permission from the Home Secretary or an FAC (currently only a few issued for humane despatch of deer)

Ammunition is based on your FAC - most people can have 1200/1000 (hold/buy) per type/calibre - so potentially a licensed shooter can have c. 5K rounds.

Pump actions are not banned

Upto 3 shot shotguns on SGC, over that on FAC - 7 shot shotguns are fairly easy to own if you know how. I've shot mossberg 5 shot pump with solid slug - is that 'assault' enough for you?

'All sniper rifles....' - rubbish! what do you think they use to shoot deer with? Shotguns? BTW what, exactly, is a 'sniper rifle' not a technical / legal term.


Originally posted by Hazard
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.


Yes you can use a gun, the same law on self-defence applies, people have shot people and used this defence successfully. You can shoot someone in self-defence even if they're not armed with a gun but you would be relying on the court to agree with your defence. You couldn't be more wrong.

If, as another poster suggests, you're an investigator then I would have thought you'd be very familiar with the UK laws on self-defence.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
They'll do what the British usually do with military procurement decisions that are not co-dependant on partners (where they have to fulfill obligations).

Namely, they will "cheap out".

Expect to see nuclear cruise missiles included in the armament of all their SSNs, much easier and much cheaper, and largely pointless.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
You forgot obsolete calliber revolvers, they are legal as well.
Anyway lets stick to the subject.
If anyone has any more questions about UK firearms laws just check the www.met.police.uk... website.

Now you can find submarines with sonar, and when the missile has been fired a computer can pin point the location it was launched.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hazard
Now you can find submarines with sonar, and when the missile has been fired a computer can pin point the location it was launched.

And this helps the forces how? Knowing WHERE in a massive ocean it came from? Lol come on man, theres no chance in hell of them finding it without atleast a good few days headstart.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
SSBNs are designed by the very nature to be stealthy platforms so you would need to have a general idea of its operating area to even give you a slight start.Even if a boomer launched a SLBM unless you have the equivalent of a US/USSR Space Based Ballistic Missile Warning system you aint gonna get detection until the one or more MIRV warheads enter the range of your ground based radar systems.Even if you could get a shot off in the general area of launch im assuming the SSBN would have gone deep and fast to exit the area....



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Whilst I agree with some comments I am afraid I simply cannot get my head around the fact that Brits on this site are saying we should buy American, create American jobs and support the American economy whilst allowing ours to suffer.

Trident is a weapon of the Cold War and was designed to kill millions of people in hundreds of cities in the former Warsaw Pact and of course China. But the Cold War, as everybody knows, no longer exists. Neither does the threat. Therefore Trident is now obsolete! The threat if it does exist, is from so-called ‘rogue states’ [Nation States] who seek to, or have acquired nuclear weapons.

Trident was, at best, a very large and expensive shotgun, capable of spraying MIRVS all over the place. What we require now, is a nuclear weapon system that can deliver a single surgical strike. There is no longer a need to amputate the limbs, when one can directly remove the head.

Brits have been world leaders in electronic surveillance, radio and radar technology, have a pretty good track record with missile technology and have designed some pretty useful military hardware in the past. So why can't we design a cruise missile based nuclear weapon that can be air, sea or submarine launched? What I am trying to advocate, albeit very badly, is a less expensive, nuclear armed, super cruise missile, perhaps with a variable yield warhead.

As I have repeatedly said, the technology exists that will enable a cruise missile to fly 5,000 + miles to it’s target and yes, I know that they are slow, but the technology is ‘there’ which will enable them to fly faster and each missile could be equipped with countermeasures.

What's wrong with that?



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
IIRC our Trident SSBNs are equiped to deal with a number of target options ie single warhead SLBMs so there wont be any "spraying" warheads around as you indicated.
You would need to fire your A/SLCMs from over the ocean as i dont think countries would be too amused at the UK launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles over their airspace as well as the possibility of it being intercepted by that countries own air defences.So your going to have to have your SSN platform or whatever air platform in theatre to be able to respond effectively...
All im saying is that at this moment an SSBN based deterrent seems more logical in terms of target time response and as well as platform stealthiness..for the moment at least

In addition the development costs of a supersonic cruise missile would be very high as only the former USSR considered the development of such a systems the P-750 Grom/ AS-19 KOALA and even that was cancelled.From what ive read the US is already considering a Trident D6 variant as well as possible SLIRBM with both conventional/nuclear variants..

[edit on 26-11-2006 by bmdefiant]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Fritz, taking down a ICBM or a SLBM is not easy, hell hitting anything going at mach 4-5 is not easy but hitting something at say mach 2-3 (cruise missile speed) is much easier and is what most carriers have defences for (google russian missile defence system)

yes the ICBM is a large deadly weapon but would you rather have a hammer or a knife? Yes theres need for both but frankly IMO we need a hammer more than we need a knife, IMO it doesnt matter if we use either. When nukes start dropping we're all screwed because the genie is out of the bottle and wont go back in.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
One large nuke will not work, england needs lots of silos, like the US has, otherwise the first nuke sent out would be destroyed by missile defense systems.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazard
One large nuke will not work, england needs lots of silos, like the US has, otherwise the first nuke sent out would be destroyed by missile defense systems.


Just as well we have 300+ then and the capability to make more.




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazard
One large nuke will not work, england needs lots of silos, like the US has, otherwise the first nuke sent out would be destroyed by missile defense systems.

England has 0 nukes, infact it does not have any nukes in its soil or probably in its waters.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Hazard
One large nuke will not work, england needs lots of silos, like the US has, otherwise the first nuke sent out would be destroyed by missile defense systems.

England has 0 nukes, infact it does not have any nukes in its soil or probably in its waters.


I sense your doing your doing your the UK is not England things again, DW
. I also sense your going to claim the Nukes are based in Scotland.

But, your are wrong though, I am afraid.

Aldermaston and Burghfield are both in England. In fact, they are just down the road from where I live. At these locations, they assemble the UK's nuclear warheads, so, technically, England does have Nukes on it's soil.

Also, whilst the Active Vanguards are based in Faslane, Scotland, the refitting and maintainence takes place in Devonport, England.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Hazard
One large nuke will not work, england needs lots of silos, like the US has, otherwise the first nuke sent out would be destroyed by missile defense systems.

England has 0 nukes, infact it does not have any nukes in its soil or probably in its waters.


I sense your doing your doing your the UK is not England things again, DW
. I also sense your going to claim the Nukes are based in Scotland.

But, your are wrong though, I am afraid.

Aldermaston and Burghfield are both in England. In fact, they are just down the road from where I live. At these locations, they assemble the UK's nuclear warheads, so, technically, England does have Nukes on it's soil.

Also, whilst the Active Vanguards are based in Faslane, Scotland, the refitting and maintainence takes place in Devonport, England.


So Mr Stu Mason, that explains everything! You're a bit of a dark horse aren't you?


Tsk! Tsk!

No wonder you were extolling the virtues of Newbury and Thatcham! You ever so Bad Bugger!


I bet you even used to work at Thatcham!



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I sense your doing your doing your the UK is not England things again, DW
. I also sense your going to claim the Nukes are based in Scotland.

How did you guess?



But, your are wrong though, I am afraid.

Aldermaston and Burghfield are both in England. In fact, they are just down the road from where I live. At these locations, they assemble the UK's nuclear warheads, so, technically, England does have Nukes on it's soil.

.....Yes but are you willing to lob them several thousand miles by yourself?




Also, whilst the Active Vanguards are based in Faslane, Scotland, the refitting and maintainence takes place in Devonport, England.

Yeah but then again are you seriosly going to trust taking several nukes into the heart of southern england....I wouldnt trust them with a pea shooter down there



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

posted by Fritz
So Mr Stu Mason, that explains everything! You're a bit of a dark horse aren't you?

Tsk! Tsk!

No wonder you were extolling the virtues of Newbury and Thatcham! You ever so Bad Bugger!

I bet you even used to work at Thatcham!



Close, but no tobacco product rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins, I'm afraid! I am originally a pad-brat, as my dad was in REME. Moved to Arborfield, nr Reading in 1991 and I know live in Reading itself. Only been to Thatcham when I played for Reading RFC as a lad.

Although I did once apply for a job at AWE......



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
How did you guess?



I know ye better than you think, DW



Originally posted by devilwasp
.....Yes but are you willing to lob them several thousand miles by yourself?



It's a team effort
. Get together a bunch of young men who like living in a metal tube for 6 months, doesn't matter if they're skirt-wearing, haggis munchers or wether they're real men, though



Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah but then again are you seriosly going to trust taking several nukes into the heart of southern england....I wouldnt trust them with a pea shooter down there


Hey, you guys up North (N. England included) make good infantry. Slightly easier to train than a dog and with less brains
. Thats why you might be more weapon profficient.

Us Southerners, we are the Engineers and Officers
Your just jealous.. Hehehe

(Just in case anyone but DW takes this the wrong way, me and him have a little jibe thing going on from time to time. He thinks Scotland is better, but I know England is....)



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I know ye better than you think, DW


Ok now I'm going to panic room, stu actually knows me...



It's a team effort
. Get together a bunch of young men who like living in a metal tube for 6 months, doesn't matter if they're skirt-wearing, haggis munchers or wether they're real men, though


Lol you going to steal a submarine out of devonport lol?



Hey, you guys up North (N. England included) make good infantry. Slightly easier to train than a dog and with less brains
. Thats why you might be more weapon profficient.

Yes well we tend not to cause a riot up here when we WIN a football match.


Us Southerners, we are the Engineers and Officers
Your just jealous.. Hehehe

There are advantages to not being an officer, like not getting shot at.
Why do you think the RAF sends the officers to war and the infantrymen stay back in nice warm billets with cable tv?

Besides dont you know if you dig a hole in scotland a chief engineer will pop out of it?


(Just in case anyone but DW takes this the wrong way, me and him have a little jibe thing going on from time to time. He thinks Scotland is better, but I know England is....)

You wish, atleast our lion isnt slacking off on the job.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join