US Nukes Could Be Deployed to UK to Target Russia

originally posted by: stumason

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.

Im fine as lo g as they are nukes WE control.

I dont want WMD from another country back on UK soil! Especialy not from a warmonger nation such as the USA

originally posted by: stumason

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.

If you love US foreign policy so much and there military why dont you go live there!


For the rest of us we dont want US WMD on our soil!

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: SecretFace

We're targeted anyway because of our own deterrent - what difference would it make to add a few more US ones?

Honestly, I never knew there were so many wet blankets among my countrymen....

Beacuse WE dont control those nukes.


Dont you get it? Only british WMD in british soil.

We dont need more thank you especialy from foregin powers.

a reply to: wasaka

Its a monumentally stupid idea.

Why put them in the UK when there are enough nukes on standby already? Its simple provocation.

Britain already has nukes, so why bother?
a reply to: wasaka

I could be wrong but this is not about deterrent in the same way as the UKs trident. Trident is not intended to be used, its existence is intended to deter the attack that would make it necessary to use it. Use of an ICBM by either party triggers them from the other and then the vast majority of us die.

What the UK no longer has are tactical nuclear weapons. The ones that get used on the battlefield when somebody is losing conventionally, the ones that are designed to be used as an intermediate escalation between conventional conflict and the full 'end of days' that trident represents. Tornado used to be able to deliver a WE 177 conventional free fall nuke but those are gone. You could use an ICBM with a low yield but the danger there is a triggers a full response anyway when detected inbound.

The return of non ICBM nukes to UK soil means that serious consideration is being given again to scenarios where nuclear weapons are used as a component of war fighting rather than just a deterrent. Or at least to convince the Russians that it is.

This coupled with my total lack of faith in current western leadership both in terms of their morality and their competence causes me some concern.

Huh ?

Thought US nukes have been in the UK since pretty much beginning of the cold war.

a reply to: neo96

They were withdrawn in the 90s, not sure the exact dates.

originally posted by: justwokeup
a reply to: neo96

They were withdrawn in the 90s, not sure the exact dates.

So the 'official' story goes.

a reply to: stumason

"Indeed, but neither would anyone else... In a global nuclear exchange, we'd all be buggered, so don't worry about it!"

Having already managed to live out a significant proportion of my life, Its not me im all that worried about. But it would be nice to think my children will be able to live out there lives without fear of Nuclear annihilation.

"On the plus side, if you do somehow survive, you can find yourself a V8 and live the Mad Max lifestyle..."

I suppose charging up and down the whats left of the M8 in a tricked out super V8 while attempting to survive by either fighting or avoiding crazy's might appeal to some. Not me through considering the futility of the situation would be rather apparent. Especially in Scotland, or what would be left of it afterwards.

originally posted by: tnhiker
This seems to me to be a deliberate bait or push. If I remember correctly Putin stood down Obama more than once (the "red line" statement) so who knows. Still seems to be more of a bullying tactic. I have no desire to see any nukes dropped anywhere, on anybody, at anytime.

It has to do with the fact that Russia violated the INF treaty when they test launched a currently ban intermediate range ground launch cruise missile.

It's also very likely Russia violated the START 2 treaty with this same missile because launching an SLBM from land is also ban under the treaty.

NATO is simply looking at options to counter dissuade nuclear missile violation.

inally posted by: justwokeup
I could be wrong but this is not about deterrent in the same way as the UKs trident. Trident is not intended to be used, its existence is intended to deter the attack that would make it necessary to use it. Use of an ICBM by either party triggers them from the other and then the vast majority of us die.

What the UK no longer has are tactical nuclear weapons. The ones that get used on the battlefield when somebody is losing conventionally, the ones that are designed to be used as an intermediate escalation between conventional conflict and the full 'end of days' that trident represents. Tornado used to be able to deliver a WE 177 conventional free fall nuke but those are gone. You could use an ICBM with a low yield but the danger there is a triggers a full response anyway when detected inbound.

The return of non ICBM nukes to UK soil means that serious consideration is being given again to scenarios where nuclear weapons are used as a component of war fighting rather than just a deterrent. Or at least to convince the Russians that it is.

This coupled with my total lack of faith in current western leadership both in terms of their morality and their competence causes me some concern.

Just read the article. It does have to do with deterrent. NATO is simply saying to Russia that if you continue to violate the INF treaty we will deploy our own IRBMs. They are not small tactic missiles either.

Since Russia is building and testing missiles of intermediate range NATO needs something to counter them.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

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

Solo, you really do come across as one bitter and spiteful individual at times.

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.

It wouldn't bother me if nuclear warheads were based 5 or 10 miles away from me.....as long they were British nuclear warheads under British control.
Same goes for nuclear submarines etc.

Get over it Solo, stop looking for anti-Scottish bias in anything and everything.

I really couldn't be arsed to be so consumed with hatred.
It must be so tiring and so bloody miserable.

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

In an ideal world I'd agree with you 100%.
But we don't.
And you can't uninvent something.

So for the time being I like the thought that we have something to defend ourselves with in the unlikely but not impossible event that someone decides to try and rain holy hell down upon us!

a reply to: stumason

Honestly, I never knew there were so many wet blankets among my countrymen....

stu, it's got nothing to do with being a 'wet blanket' but everything to do with having control of nuclear weapons on our own soil.

I personally don't like the thought that someone in Washington DC or wherever could launch nuclear weapons from UK soil possibly against the wishes of the British government and people.

I never supported it during the '80's and I don't see anything that has changed to make me have a different opinion now.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: stumason

Honestly, I never knew there were so many wet blankets among my countrymen....

stu, it's got nothing to do with being a 'wet blanket' but everything to do with having control of nuclear weapons on our own soil.

I personally don't like the thought that someone in Washington DC or wherever could launch nuclear weapons from UK soil possibly against the wishes of the British government and people.

I never supported it during the '80's and I don't see anything that has changed to make me have a different opinion now.

^^^ exactly my sentiments
If we have wmds on our soil they must be under our control.

a reply to: alphastrike101

The article is talking about returning the shorter ranged tactical weapon capability to Europe. The capability that was previously removed at the end of the cold war. Exactly as I said. Whether thats an IRBM or nuclear armed cruise missile doing a similar job is not relevant.

The fact that the Russians feel sufficiently insecure about Nato to need these weapons doesn't mean that we should respond in kind. We should be working to fix the ongoing diplomatic disaster that led to the current state of tension.

I'm happy that Trident functions as the deterrent against nuclear attack on the UK and I support its follow on development. I want no part of whats proposed in the article. I do not want this class of weapons put back on UK soil and i will not support it.

originally posted by: justwokeup
a reply to: alphastrike101

The article is talking about returning the shorter ranged tactical weapon capability to Europe. The capability that was previously removed at the end of the cold war. Exactly as I said. Whether thats an IRBM or nuclear armed cruise missile doing a similar job is not relevant.

The fact that the Russians feel sufficiently insecure about Nato to need these weapons doesn't mean that we should respond in kind. We should be working to fix the ongoing diplomatic disaster that led to the current state of tension.

I'm happy that Trident functions as the deterrent against nuclear attack on the UK and I support its follow on development. I want no part of whats proposed in the article. I do not want this class of weapons put back on UK soil and i will not support it.

All IRBMs were removed from the USSR and NATO before the end of the cold war. I do not know what you consider a "tactical" nuke but the gyphon and the pershing2 each had 150kt war heads that were infact strategic nuclear weapons. The missiles in question are not at all .5kt battlefield warheads(aka tactical)

And NATO is simply looking at options based on deterring Russia from further violating the INF treaty the USSR signed in 87'. Russia has been test launching IRBMs well before the whole Ukraine deal. This is more about strategic military planning and counter measures. When Russia has its IRBMs deployed we need a military countermeasure to it as a back up plan.

We need to make putin remember why his former commrads signed the INF treaty in the first place.

Miss clintons restart buttion clearly did not work.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: SecretFace

We're targeted anyway because of our own deterrent - what difference would it make to add a few more US ones?

Honestly, I never knew there were so many wet blankets among my countrymen....

It's not a case of what difference it makes to the overall result, it's a case of such an act is provocative.

Britain and America are now openly trying to encircle Russia and America. America and Israel are the most dangerous countries in the world today, no other countries come close to the widespread destruction these countries are capable of and have, directly or indirectly, been a part of towards other sovereign nations, with Britain and NATO countries being the backup. I truly believe nuclear war is closer now than at any time during the Cold War, I would still like to believe that it won't happen, but because I believe it is closer now, I think that any act of provocation, which America is undertaking as I type this, could be an act too far and for Britain to be involved in this, knowing it has no defence and knowing it would be totally wiped out, is in my mind a path to self destruction.

originally posted by: alphastrike101

originally posted by: justwokeup
a reply to: alphastrike101

The article is talking about returning the shorter ranged tactical weapon capability to Europe. The capability that was previously removed at the end of the cold war. Exactly as I said. Whether thats an IRBM or nuclear armed cruise missile doing a similar job is not relevant.

The fact that the Russians feel sufficiently insecure about Nato to need these weapons doesn't mean that we should respond in kind. We should be working to fix the ongoing diplomatic disaster that led to the current state of tension.

I'm happy that Trident functions as the deterrent against nuclear attack on the UK and I support its follow on development. I want no part of whats proposed in the article. I do not want this class of weapons put back on UK soil and i will not support it.

All IRBMs were removed from the USSR and NATO before the end of the cold war. I do not know what you consider a "tactical" nuke but the gyphon and the pershing2 each had 150kt war heads that were infact strategic nuclear weapons. The missiles in question are not at all .5kt battlefield warheads(aka tactical)

And NATO is simply looking at options based on deterring Russia from further violating the INF treaty the USSR signed in 87'. Russia has been test launching IRBMs well before the whole Ukraine deal. This is more about strategic military planning and counter measures. When Russia has its IRBMs deployed we need a military countermeasure to it as a back up plan.

We need to make putin remember why his former commrads signed the INF treaty in the first place.

Miss clintons restart buttion clearly did not work.

America and NATO have been heading towards Russia's border since 1990, so it could be argued that Russia's test launching of the IRBM's, although I've been told they have been testing multiple TBM range ballistic missiles, is a direct reaction to American lead NATO pretty much violating every single paragraph of the NATO-Russia Act. I certainly don't believe Russia is the aggressor here, I don't see Russian bases spreading westwards, with Crimea, Russia was simply protecting its major asset with regards to defence and also economy, but also it's people, from the American instigated fascists of Kiev. I'm not fan of Russia's past, far from it, but at present, Russia is simply reacting to what can only be seen as provocation from multiple superpowers. Had America been in Russia's position, we would all be dead by this point.

a reply to: crazyewok

Wind your neck in, crazy - your surely old enough to have an adult debate without resorting to such childishness?

I get your point about the foreign WMD, but you're all missing the obvious point - in the event of the US using it's nuclear weapons, it would be a global exchange anyway. It matters not, at the end of the day, whether they're on UK soil or not, as we're targets regardless and we'll be joining in the thermonuclear fun regardless.

So all your complaining about the "warmonger" US (like we're any better) is moot.