Britain could possibly reduce Nuclear Fleet

Call me crazy Waynos but I don't think that many warheads (98), even if everything went according to plan, is enough to completely destroy a nuclear power, and I'm not talking about North Korea.

Also, North Korea has not been attacked for a host of reasons, most of which concern how Soul and South Korea will come out, the rest concern China and the fact that there is little to gain form a geological standpoint. I doubt it's .5kt nuclear weapon which can't even be delivered anywhere is the main reason.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Call me crazy Waynos but I don't think that many warheads (98), even if everything went according to plan, is enough to completely destroy a nuclear power, and I'm not talking about North Korea.

i believe it is, infact i suspect between 1 or 5 will be enough.

of course they are going to hit you back, but nothing will go beyond that before 1 party surrenders, i know ive mentioned it already in this thread but take a look at ww2....that killed 80,000 in hiroshima alone.

2006 atomic weapons the big5 nulcear powers have are a lot more powerful than 1945 - korea/iran (if they have them) are even weaker than hiroshima.

anyway i think if another cold war situation happens again britain have the capablity to produce more weapons at short notice, japan are classed as a 'near-nuclear state' which means they are not a nuclear power (don't intend to be) but they have the capablity to produce nuclear weapons at short notice.

i'm sure britain could (already a nulcear state).

[edit on 4-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Call me crazy Waynos but I don't think that many warheads (98), even if everything went according to plan, is enough to completely destroy a nuclear power, and I'm not talking about North Korea.

Also, North Korea has not been attacked for a host of reasons, most of which concern how Soul and South Korea will come out, the rest concern China and the fact that there is little to gain form a geological standpoint. I doubt it's .5kt nuclear weapon which can't even be delivered anywhere is the main reason.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by WestPoint23]

98 cities wiped out is a considerable detterent to any but the insane. Not to count the considerable fallout from 100 nukes going off around your country. Any power, be it even the US or Russia, would think twice before sacrificing 98 cities.

As waynos said, if attacked, the detterence has failed anyway.

Besides, I bet my bottom dollar that the UK has nukes ready to go at a hardened facilty, so a second strike would not be inconceiveable.

Originally posted by st3ve_o

anyway i think if another cold war situation happens again britain have the capablity to produce more weapons at short notice, japan are classed as a 'near-nuclear state' which means they are not a nuclear power (don't intend to be) but they have the capablity to produce nuclear weapons at short notice.

i'm sure britain could (already a nulcear state).

[edit on 4-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

I bet those nukes that we "dissmantled" can be "remantled" (is that even a word?) at short notice.

Only problem I see if a nuclear war kicks off is that i live 15 minutes down the road from the AWE and Reading is a tansport and communications hub. I'll be glowing green with "45 minutes" , assuming I survive the attack, that is.

Originally posted by stumason
Besides, I bet my bottom dollar that the UK has nukes ready to go at a hardened facilty, so a second strike would not be inconceiveable.

Problem is that no facility can be hardened enough to withstand multiple high yield precise strikes, and where are your subs going to anchor to be refitted with weapons? At ports that no longer exist or at ones with infrastructure that cannot support such an operation?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by stumason
Besides, I bet my bottom dollar that the UK has nukes ready to go at a hardened facilty, so a second strike would not be inconceiveable.

Problem is that no facility can be hardened enough to withstand multiple high yield precise strikes, and where are your subs going to anchor to be refitted with weapons? At ports that no longer exist or at ones with infrastructure that cannot support such an operation?

If such a situation arose and the "hardened facilty" survived, one could summise that as well as putting together standard Trident warheads, they could also fir some to a cruise missile, or at the least, a free fall one to dropped from an aircraft...

Just postulating.

Besides, 98 nukes being flung back will cause considerable and long lasting damage to anyone who attacked us. Hence, the detterent affect is there. Even the US ABM, which relies on UK facilities, could not shoot down even 10% of those incoming nukes, so that still leaves 80+ warheads slamming into your biggest cities with a multi-megaton yield.

Enough to put anyone off but the crazily insane. Not even Bush is that dumb!

Stu, I am a bit disturbed, to say the least, at the US scenario, If I gave you that impression I apologize but that's no what I was implying. Depending on who you choose to believe there might be other nations (besides the US) with ABM systems and major strategic defense facilities.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Stu, I am a bit disturbed, to say the least, at the US scenario, If I gave you that impression I apologize but that's no what I was implying. Depending on who you choose to believe there might be other nations (besides the US) with ABM systems and major strategic defense facilities.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by WestPoint23]

Haha, don't worry Westy, I only cited the US at has the only "functioning" (I use that term loosely) ABM known. God forbid we should ever be in that situation.

98 nukes at Russia or China would put serious waste to any plans they might have had after such an exhange. If you take China, for example, Nuke their top 98 cities and you have the rest of the country in a pre-industrial nuclear wasteland.

As i said, no-one bar the criminally insane would consider that a victory or acceptable losses. The only one's crazy enough to even entertain the idea don't have the capability to even begin to think about doing it.

I see stumason has taken up the baton for me admirably.

That was exactly my point, its not about being able to completely destroy a major nuclear adversary this is not necessary as a function of deterrence. The deterrence is in that any adversary would not wish to get themselves nuked at all, hence my mention of N Korea and their nuclear capability. Make no mistake westy, the possibility of a single nuke landing anywhere on the USA will be enough to deter an attack on ANY country by your good selves (and us too). Thats why three subs with 160 warheads is enough to serve as a deterrent. The aim is not to destroy the other guy (for he will have destroyed you too in any case) but to stop getting attacked in the first place.

Now at this point we might start to get embroiled in those pointless debates about 'survivable' nuclear exchanges. That way lies madness, suffice it to say that my belief is that such a thing is not possible to any degree that matters. There would be no victory parties anywhere after a nuclear exchange.

The only purpose of having these weapons is to say to the big bad "don't hit me because I can hit you right back, and it WILL hurt".

To the poster that thought that we (UK) had got rid of our nukes, perhaps you heard that we had de-targeted them. IE their not automatically heading to Russia if contact to the sub is lost.

Does that sound about right?

Waynos is right!

A single one kiloton warhead kills enough people, destroys enough buildings and seriously ruins your day, in the same way a 500 Megaton warhead will, albeit in the latter case it will kill more people and damage more buildings.

We need to ask some serious questions. What is our proposed nuclear arsenal for?

Is it to project our waning power around the world, albeit surreptitiously whilst providing jobs for Americans?

Is it to act as a deterrent and if so, against whome?

Are they intended as a warning to so called Rogue but Nation States? (We have them but they can't have any and if they try to get them, we will invade them [but only if they have oil])

Originally posted by stumason


I bet those nukes that we "dissmantled" can be "remantled" (is that even a word?) at short notice.

I think reassembled would be the correct term. lol sorry just had to put that in

Anyway Britain would only need to use nuclear force if they were under attack, and in that situation we would probably have a lot of world support whether it be from the US or Europe, and that alone is a good deterrent. If we didn't have close Allies like them I think Britain might consider expanding their nuclear deterrents.

Originally posted by fritz
Is it to project our waning power around the world, albeit surreptitiously whilst providing jobs for Americans?

Not sure what you mean by that. the missiles might come from the US, but the Submarines will be built in the UK. That should keep the dockworkers busy for another decade or two.

Obviously you did not read the Sunday papers 2 weeks ago.

Our old friends, muckers and sometime sparring partners Rumpsfeld and Cheney, the very public faces of American Industry have, much to this government's annoyance, floated Devonport Naval Base on the American stock market and allegedly, creamed off several million $ in to their respective bank accounts.

Allegedly, Haliburton the parent company has reaped over a Billion £'s woth of investment by this looney Labour government, under the strict guidelines that Devonport and the US contractors would maintain Trident submarines under the current contract and should not, under any circumstances, float the subsiduary on the stock market.

I believe the government and the MOD are at present considering plans to sieze the dockyard back under alledged penalty clauses written in to the contracts.

Bit too late in my opinion, now that several million have been creamed off and no new money is being invested by the American parent company.

Originally posted by fritz
Waynos is right!

A single one kiloton warhead kills enough people, destroys enough buildings and seriously ruins your day, in the same way a 500 Megaton warhead will, albeit in the latter case it will kill more people and damage more buildings.

We need to ask some serious questions. What is our proposed nuclear arsenal for?

Is it to project our waning power around the world, albeit surreptitiously whilst providing jobs for Americans?

Is it to act as a deterrent and if so, against whome?

Are they intended as a warning to so called Rogue but Nation States? (We have them but they can't have any and if they try to get them, we will invade them [but only if they have oil])

Well fritz I have to ask what would you rather have? A crossbow or a bow?
True we can fire mor e1 kiloton nukes but frankly what use is one kiloton nuke going to do against a country like russia?

DW, yet again, you're missing the point!

I am suggesting that unless you WANT to murder millions of people in anger or otherwise, then a surgical strike using a 1Kt warhead does the job just as well or are you advocating committing mass murder?

What don't you understand about that? Can't you get it through your head that nuclear weapons of any type, are a neccessary evil and should they be deployed in anger, you only need enough to get the job done.

You don't use a jackhammer to crack a nut when a nutcracker can do the job just as well!

Bad...Very bad thing, im all for world peace and all but as i see it. Uk is backed by US and EU, and for that matter nowhone touches them but if you take a wider glance at how thigns are unfolding. China could in the near future take america and hold them in a 1v1 fight...Of course the EU wouldnt get in and so i doubt the UK would get in because the EU might do the same thing they did to America...England doesnt need protection and as to limit the begging from america should in fact be increasing its stockpiles....Just my opinion.

Originally posted by fritz
DW, yet again, you're missing the point!

I am suggesting that unless you WANT to murder millions of people in anger or otherwise, then a surgical strike using a 1Kt warhead does the job just as well or are you advocating committing mass murder?

Surgical strike? You call a 1 kiloton nuclear warhead a surgical strike?

What don't you understand about that? Can't you get it through your head that nuclear weapons of any type, are a neccessary evil and should they be deployed in anger, you only need enough to get the job done.

You don't use a jackhammer to crack a nut when a nutcracker can do the job just as well!

Lol yes a 1 kiloton nuke will level a city but as I have stated, what happens when we have more than 1 nut to crack?

lol the dude, are you trying to say Britain only have 1 kiloton nukes?? - i thought you knew your stuff better than this

WW2 nukes were 15 kilotons (that was 60 years ago), i think Britain’s average is 200 kilotons *unconfirmed*, but the highest we've tested is 1,800 megatons in the 50's.

a 1 kiloton bomb is something that korea tested recently.

en.wikipedia.org...

british nulcear tests:- en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 7-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
lol the dude, are you trying to say Britain only have 1 kiloton nukes?? - i thought you knew your stuff better than this

WW2 nukes were 15 kilotons (that was 60 years ago), i think Britain’s average is 200 kilotons, but the highest we've tested is 1,800 in the 50's.

a 1 kiloton bomb is something that korea tested recently.

en.wikipedia.org...

british nulcear tests:- en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 7-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

Are you SERIOSLY suggesting that I think we only have 1 nuke?
Come on, I mean could you seriosly see us using an ICBM to launch a 1 kiloton nuclear warhead? Parliment would have a # fest at the cost to destroy one city!