US Nukes Could Be Deployed to UK to Target Russia

a reply to: Freeborn

Snap I lived not for from Woodford airbase and when I was a kid they tested the Airraid siren every week I used to run home and ask "Are the bombs dropping?".
I don't want US nukes here, anything fired from British soil should be British controlled.
Heck we may not even agree with the Americans to fire but they can fire from the UK? making us the first target?.
NO THANKS.

originally posted by: NewsGlug
Great, so now the conservative party want to increase our chances of being a target by accepting American nukes. Fantastic
I wish the government would stop burying other people nuke waste in England, badly, and not allow others to put their nukes here

We had US nukes in country for nigh on 50 years, we didn't get nuked then. All the hyperbole in this thread about it being an "Act of aggression" or even War is just silly nonsense from people with short memories. Besides, we have our own nukes bobbing around the ocean which are more than enough to flatten Russia on their own, regardless of what the Yanks want to do.

a reply to: boymonkey74

We are always a target anyway, whatever the Yanks want to do. This won't change anything.

a reply to: stumason

Yes but do you want nuclear weapons not controlled by us fired from the UK? What If the next president is a nut? also things can change in the world todays enemy may be next weeks pal.
Sure we have our own nukes but we may refrain when other want to use them.

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: Metallicus
Nuclear weapons are an unacceptable option in any and all situations. I despise nukes and would like to see them banned internationally. If I were President I would disarm all of our nuclear weapons and hope that we can set an example for the rest of the world. I would never launch them even if I had them at my disposal.

Clearly I feel very strongly about the horror of nuclear war.

Thankfully you will never be President.

I'm not arguing against the horrors of an all out nuclear war but disarming a country and hoping the rest of the world does the same is a bit naive.

Fortunately for everyone I have no interest in any responsibility other than for myself, family and friends. I would never want to be President and have no interest in being in charge.

As far as my statement goes...someone has to try to restore sanity to the planet. Just not me.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I look at it this way , if WW3 starts and the nukes are flying i will sit back and watch the destruction on television here in neutral Australia . Oh wait Australia is not a neutral country . Well if nukes are flying watch how quick that changes .

Listen USA put your damn nukes in a submarine and not in my country. I am not your shield against the Russians and I don't want their nukes reigning down on my family thank you very much -OK.

Yes its personal and incidentally I seem to remember you quite silent over our war with Argentina, I think you have a damn cheek and no I haven't forgotten your influencing the ghastly and unmentionable tony blair into fighting by your side in Iraq!

With that said, I am with the American people all the way and no insult intended to ordinary Americans, who I respect but the UK is not America's 51 State.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: stumason

Yes but do you want nuclear weapons not controlled by us fired from the UK? What If the next president is a nut? also things can change in the world todays enemy may be next weeks pal.

That never happened before and the US had some right Warhawk Presidents in the past, so I see no reason to assume that the US would adopt a first strike policy now. The US hasn't adopted an official "no first use" policy yet has stated the reason for the existence of the weapons is to deter a nuclear attack, not to initiate one.

NATO also ruled out a NFU policy during the Cold War, but that was because it envisaged having to use tactical weapons to overcome the Warsaw Pacts numerical superiority, which they no longer enjoy.

The UK also hasn't adopted a NFU policy, reserving the right to respond to "any WMD attack" with nuclear force.

Russia has recently stated their posture is to respond to "large scale conventional Warfare" with nuclear weapons, which is essentially a reversal of roles from the Cold War, when they did rule out "first use" and NATO didn't.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Sure we have our own nukes but we may refrain when other want to use them.

If nukes begin to fly, then we will already be at War (article 5, NATO Treaty), in which case the UK will already have been attacked and will respond. A moot point, really.

a reply to: Shiloh7

The Yanks did help a lot during the Falklands, just not very publicly. In fact, without their assistance, we probably wouldn't have won it.

a reply to: stumason

I wonder if many of our servicemen who fought there would agree with you I know several who wouldn't.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Totally agree with you on the point you make about the discharge of nukes from British soil without any British control, because we all know the president of the USA today is merely a puppet. Obama seems to spend a lot of time either playing golf of more importantly cards in a back room whilst others run the country.

Its the bankers and industrialists who make money from war but have no accountability to the publics' they kill that bother me when it comes to nuke control, especially not on their own soil.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: stumason

I wonder if many of our servicemen who fought there would agree with you I know several who wouldn't.

I couldn't care less (in the nicest possible way - my entire family is Military and some served down there), because they may not be in possession of the facts and/or are clouded by their own perceptions. Bottom line is, had the US not given us vital intel or released stocks of sidewinders for our use, the Harriers may well have not been able to defend the fleet as well as they had, leading to enormous loss of life before we even set foot on the islands.

Putting any jingoism aside, the fact we won was a fluke and we came very close to losing the war on several occasions. It is only testament to the fighting spirit of the men that we managed to do what we did, despite the losses we had suffered. Had the Harriers not been able to shoot down as many Skyhawks etc as they did, the fleet would have been decimated.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
Its the bankers and industrialists who make money from war but have no accountability to the publics' they kill that bother me when it comes to nuke control, especially not on their own soil.

This whole "bankers/industrialist" conspiracy nonsense makes no sense. Considering bankers and industrialists make their money out of, well, banking and industry, what would they possibly have to achieve by invoking a global nuclear holocaust where, once the dust settles, there won't be any banking or industry and the money they do have is worthless?

Good, I hope they put them in every county in England, see how you guys feel.?

It's seems acceptable south of the Border that 300 are stored not 20 miles from Glasgow, but dare mention storing Just one in England and all hell breaks loose.

Get them all to # and not just from Scotland/UK, from planet Earth.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Good, I hope they put them in every county in England, see how you guys feel.?

It's seems acceptable south of the Border that 300 are stored not 20 miles from Glasgow, but dare mention storing Just one in England and all hell breaks loose.

Get them all to # and not just from Scotland/UK, from planet Earth.

Every single one of those warheads was built in England, at the AWE in Aldermaston, Berkshire. Many are stored there to be decommissioned as well and that is where also perform all weapons research.

Not to mention that all the nuclear submarines are built in England and the refuelling/repair of the SSN's is at Devonport, England.

And because of your national whining, the MoD is also looking at relocating the SSBN base from Scotland to somewhere less complainy - Gibraltar in fact... Which means thousands of job losses for the Scots who work the base.

I know that bursts your anti-English bubble, Solo, but it's the truth.

a reply to: Soloprotocol Scotland probably is a better launching base to hit Russia. A smoother trajectory

a reply to: woodwardjnr

It is preferred over Devonport because it has several deep water channels, so makes it harder to blockade/mine, whereas Devonport only has the one channel. The rockets themselves can hit Russia from pretty much anywhere and that isn't why they chose Scotland.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Good, I hope they put them in every county in England, see how you guys feel.?

It's seems acceptable south of the Border that 300 are stored not 20 miles from Glasgow, but dare mention storing Just one in England and all hell breaks loose.

Get them all to # and not just from Scotland/UK, from planet Earth.

Every single one of those warheads was built in England, at the AWE in Aldermaston, Berkshire. Many are stored there to be decommissioned as well and that is where also perform all weapons research.

Not to mention that all the nuclear submarines are built in England and the refuelling/repair of the SSN's is at Devonport, England.

And because of your national whining, the MoD is also looking at relocating the SSBN base from Scotland to somewhere less complainy - Gibraltar in fact... Which means thousands of job losses for the Scots who work the base.

I know that bursts your anti-English bubble, Solo, but it's the truth.

Na as usual it's complete Bollocks, I know guys who have worked on Nuclear subs at faslane. (Contracted by Babcock engineering) As for thousands of job losses..? The figure is more like 550 when a Sub is in for repair..less than 300 full time employees when they are not...so no big loss,

Even the people who live around faslane (11,000) have came to the conclusion that The base brings in very little ££ into the community. Gib as a nuke base,? yeah Spain and the people of Gibraltar are gonna love that..The cost involved would be around 100 billion over 35 years..No chance.

a reply to: stumason no I know. I was talking about the Americans wanting to put nukes on UK soil, referring to the op. It doesn't matter. It was part a joke. But I guess if I have to explain it......nevermind

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Bollocks, I know guys who have worked on Nuclear subs at faslane. (Contracted by Babcock engineering) As for thousands of job losses..? The figure is more like 550 when a Sub is in for repair..less than 300 full time employees when they are not...so no big loss,

Even the people who live around faslane (11,000) have came to the conclusion that The base brings in very little ££ into the community. Gib as a nuke base,? yeah Spain and the people of Gibraltar are gonna love that..No chance.

Exactly what is bollocks, Solo?

Faslane is the SSBN base - the SSN's are repaired and refuelled out of Devonport currently until the fleet moves to HMNB Cyde (known as Faslane) in 2017 with the decommissioning of the last Trafalgar class and the introduction of the final Astute.

As for Gibraltar, the news was greeted very warmly.

As for the rest of my post, I see you ignored it entirely. I can only assume you don't have some half-arsed comeback for that?