Nuclear weapons

M

Matesrates

Well-known member
I see we’re planning to increase our stock by 80, we’ll await the full report, but I can’t for the life of me see the logic. Does anyone think that any country is going to launch a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world, except possibly the nutter from North Korea.
 
From what I’ve read we’re increasing the cap. We’re not necessarily increasing the number of warheads; just the ability to do so if we wish.

Daft as it may sound I think it’s just so we can, at least on paper, say we have a capacity that’s more or less equivalent to France.
 
I think it's Putin provoking the west by parading his armoury in the South China seas. Sloppy Joe needs someone to stand next to him. And of course it's not that the weapons are intended to be used but that they are there.
 
I've often wondered if every nation on the planet was given 2 each would it make things better or worse?

Discuss
 
It would be good if everyone got rid of them well in theory. But then with our vastly reduced conventional deterrent would that leave us vulnerable. To me it’s like an insurance policy which you hope you never have to claim on. The way the world is nowadays I don’t believe it’s time to be caught with our pants down.
 
Ragnarok said:
I've often wondered if every nation on the planet was given 2 each would it make things better or worse?

Discuss
Click to expand...
Nah too many unstable nations - can you imagine Libya,Iraq,Iran Honduras and Peru for example have nukes - also what if a country was taken over by some medieval ,religious insurgency - think ISIS in an African or middle eastern country with access to missiles ' they would not hesitate using them
 
Bisphamtang said:
Nah too many unstable nations - can you imagine Libya,Iraq,Iran Honduras and Peru for example have nukes - also what if a country was taken over by some medieval ,religious insurgency - think ISIS in an African or middle eastern country with access to missiles ' they would not hesitate using them
Click to expand...
Now I’m not, and never anti nuclear deterrent, but I am struggling to see why we need them. Surely, if as you say, isis gets access to one, they’re going to use it anyway. They wocare if we retaliate, and would we? I’m not sure we would because of the civilian casualties.

Updated defence against a nuclear attack is surely the way to go.
 
Pandoras box scenario though innit. In 20 years I would imagine someone in their mums basement could build one.
It's a question with no viable answer hence why I just ended it with discuss lol
 
The Chinese Govt. couldn't give a s**t for lives.
With a population of 1.4 Billion (18.7% of the World population), what do a couple of million killed mean to the leaders?
Not much I would say.
 
What would we do if ever a Faulklands type scenario were to ever happen again ? Nuke Buenos Aires ? Dont think that would go down well. Lets face it without conventional forces we are now well and truly foooooooooked
 
TOON Seasider said:
What would we do if ever a Faulklands type scenario were to ever happen again ? Nuke Buenos Aires ? Dont think that would go down well. Lets face it without conventional forces we are now well and truly foooooooooked
Click to expand...
I wonder what this means-including todays announcement on armed services reduction-for places like the Falklands, Gibraltar and the other outposts?
 
TOON Seasider said:
What would we do if ever a Faulklands type scenario were to ever happen again ? Nuke Buenos Aires ? Dont think that would go down well. Lets face it without conventional forces we are now well and truly foooooooooked
Click to expand...

Plumbs said:
I wonder what this means-including todays announcement on armed services reduction-for places like the Falklands, Gibraltar and the other outposts?
Click to expand...
The review seems to suggest that the level of threat to outposts such as Gib and the Falkland's, is extremely low, which I think is correct. If you look at the state of the Argentine military, its an omnishambles currently. Argentina could not hope to launch at invasion, and if by some miracle they managed to, their taskforce would struggle to make land fall on the Flakland's given the anti ship and anti landing defences now placed on and around the islands as well as their own poor resources.
In any event these cuts have little impact on a Falkland's theatre, the Army were a junior partner in the last campaign and had the same amount of disasters as successes. Force ratios since 1982 have drastically shifted in favour of the UK, not only on the Falklands but in general.

Spain would not dream of attacking another NATO partner.

To your point Plumb, we would now struggle to reinforce our bases in Cyprus if Turkey decided they were strong enough to act, I could see a scenario where this is possible, I believe one of the biggest worries within European corridors of power is now a bullish Turkey engaging in low intensity conflicts in their sphere of influence. As no one has been able to get to grips with their power projection and soft power in places Syria, Armenia and the Eastern Med, basically they're doing what they want and when they want to. Coupled with the current state of Greece, Cyprus and our presence there could become threatened in the near future.

It certainly reduces our abilty to control a deterioration similar to the past in N.I. which, given the political events of the last few years and changing demographics there is likely within 10 -15 years.

The review shifts us back towards symmetrical warfare, in the hope we can compete at a disadvantage size wise with nuclear, cyber and drone tech as large force multipliers. It's a big risk, but demonstrates our declining world influence, so in that regard it is sensible. But as has been mentioned by a number of politicians in the last few years, we would now, always aim to be part of a coalition in any future conflict. That brings its own pitfalls. We now run the risk of the US seeing us as a liability.

I think the main aim of this review is to stop us fighting any more Iraq's or Afghanistan's for the next few decades.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rektseasider said:
The review seems to suggest that the level of threat to outposts such as Gib and the Falkland's, is extremely low, which I think is correct. If you look at the state of the Argentine military, its an omnishambles currently. Argentina could not hope to launch at invasion, and if by some miracle they managed to, their taskforce would struggle make land fall on the Flakland's given the anti ship and anti landing defences now placed on and around the islands as well as there own poor resources.
In any event these cuts have little impact on a Falkland's theatre, the Army were a junior partner in the last campaign and had the same amount of disasters as successes. Force ratioss since 1982 have drastically shifted in favour of the UK, not only on the Falklands but in general.

Spain would not dream of attacking another NATO partner.

To your point Plumb, we would now struggle to reinforce our bases in Cyprus if Turkey decided they were strong enough to act, I could see a scenario where this is possible, I believe one of the biggest worries within European corridors of power is now a bullish Turkey engaging in low intensity conflicts in their sphere of influence as no one has been able to get to grips with their power projection and soft power in places Syria, Armenia and the Eastern Med, basically they're doing what they want and when they want to. Coupled with the current state of Greece, Cyprus and our presence there could become threatened in the near future.

It certainly reduces our abilty to control a deterioration similar to the past in N.I. which, given the political events of the last few years and changing demographics there is likely within 10 -15 years.

The review shifts us back towards symmetrical warfare, in the hope we can compete at a disadvantage size wise with nuclear, cyber and drone tech as large force multipliers. It's a big risk, but demonstrates our declining world influence, so in that regard it is sensible. But as has been mentioned by a number of politicians in the last few years, we would now, always aim to be part of a coalition in any future conflict. That brings its own pitfalls. We now run the risk of the US seeing us as a liability.

I think the main aim of this review is to stop us fighting any more Iraq's or Afghanistan's for the next few decades.
Click to expand...
Good thoughtful post 👍
 
Rektseasider said:
The review seems to suggest that the level of threat to outposts such as Gib and the Falkland's, is extremely low, which I think is correct. If you look at the state of the Argentine military, its an omnishambles currently. Argentina could not hope to launch at invasion, and if by some miracle they managed to, their taskforce would struggle to make land fall on the Flakland's given the anti ship and anti landing defences now placed on and around the islands as well as their own poor resources.
In any event these cuts have little impact on a Falkland's theatre, the Army were a junior partner in the last campaign and had the same amount of disasters as successes. Force ratioss since 1982 have drastically shifted in favour of the UK, not only on the Falklands but in general.

Spain would not dream of attacking another NATO partner.

To your point Plumb, we would now struggle to reinforce our bases in Cyprus if Turkey decided they were strong enough to act, I could see a scenario where this is possible, I believe one of the biggest worries within European corridors of power is now a bullish Turkey engaging in low intensity conflicts in their sphere of influence. As no one has been able to get to grips with their power projection and soft power in places Syria, Armenia and the Eastern Med, basically they're doing what they want and when they want to. Coupled with the current state of Greece, Cyprus and our presence there could become threatened in the near future.

It certainly reduces our abilty to control a deterioration similar to the past in N.I. which, given the political events of the last few years and changing demographics there is likely within 10 -15 years.

The review shifts us back towards symmetrical warfare, in the hope we can compete at a disadvantage size wise with nuclear, cyber and drone tech as large force multipliers. It's a big risk, but demonstrates our declining world influence, so in that regard it is sensible. But as has been mentioned by a number of politicians in the last few years, we would now, always aim to be part of a coalition in any future conflict. That brings its own pitfalls. We now run the risk of the US seeing us as a liability.

I think the main aim of this review is to stop us fighting any more Iraq's or Afghanistan's for the next few decades.
Click to expand...
If our armed forces are a liability, in not sure where the US are going to get additional support from? It means the US taking more unilateral action and being equipped to do so; so Russia and China will notch up to try and match them, and on it goes.

I'm not sure about declining global influence either.

Outside of the USA, China, Russia and possibly India, I think we generally hold our own across a wide spectrum of 'power'. And to be fair, the Chinese have enough on their hands controlling their own country, without projecting outwards (militarily) and for a vast number of Indian's, shitting in a flushable toilet is a luxury.
 
One aspect of the nuclear discussion is that they have always been seen as strategic weapons. However recently the Russians have developed low yield tactical nukes with low levels of fallout. These could be used to take out a US carrier group or in disputed area such as Georgia where their use would not justify NATO using a large scale nuclear response.

Therefore the Russians could forment trouble in an area, gain tactical advantage and then sit back knowing any over reaction by NATO could not be justified.
 
TSSeasider said:
If our armed forces are a liability, in not sure where the US are going to get additional support from? It means the US taking more unilateral action and being equipped to do so; so Russia and China will notch up to try and match them, and on it goes.

I'm not sure about declining global influence either.

Outside of the USA, China, Russia and possibly India, I think we generally hold our own across a wide spectrum of 'power'. And to be fair, the Chinese have enough on their hands controlling their own country, without projecting outwards (militarily) and for a vast number of Indian's, shitting in a flushable toilet is a luxury.
Click to expand...
Our general armed forces have been a ‘liability’ to the US’s adventures for 20 years.

The UK’s performance militarily for the majority of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns was poor, the US forces having to take over all of our area of operations due to our lack of capability.

This reduction, should we ever enter a conventional land campaign again will only serve to highlight this. The UK could however serve as an ample naval supplement to any future coalition, which, whilst predictions in any field are difficult, a blue water engagement with China looks likely before 2040. The announcement today of a new class of Submarines is in this regards sensible, even more so when coupled with the Nuclear expansion.

Regarding our declining world power, I think that’s jut obvious, it’s been in retreat to varying degrees since 1945. I’d be interested to hear how you think we’re still on par with then?

Domestic scenarios only play a part in ‘global influence’ when Britain was the largest Empire on the planet not many people had flushing toilets either. In pure global power terms we continue to slide into decline.
 
CompleteControl said:
One aspect of the nuclear discussion is that they have always been seen as strategic weapons. However recently the Russians have developed low yield tactical nukes with low levels of fallout. These could be used to take out a US carrier group or in disputed area such as Georgia where their use would not justify NATO using a large scale nuclear response.

Therefore the Russians could forment trouble in an area, gain tactical advantage and then sit back knowing any over reaction by NATO could not be justified.
Click to expand...
Low yield tactical nuclear weapons have been in circulation since the early 1960s.

All nuclear armed nations possess them, and they still factor into the calculations of nuclear exchange theory. It’s slightly too simplistic to say they won’t result in a larger nuclear exchange simply because they’re tactical. The really worrisome Russian development over the last 5 years has been their anti ballistic missile capabilities. The trident upgrades, increased warhead production and today’s announcement of a new Sub class are all counters to this.

Will they be enough? Hard to tell. But I don’t think Russia are daft or desperate enough just yet to deploy low yield nukes in a low intensity conflict anywhere. They’ve already achieved most of not all of there aims in Crimea, Nagorno Karabakh and Georgia, it’s not been beneficial to the Russian state in global terms and the biggest worry, as has been since Peter the Greats time is the Northern European plain. If they were to counter any advance here, Nuclear exchanges would be highly likely, both strategic and tactical.

and we enter end of the world scenarios. Happy Tuesday everyone. 😂
 
TOON Seasider said:
What would we do if ever a Faulklands type scenario were to ever happen again ? Nuke Buenos Aires ? Dont think that would go down well. Lets face it without conventional forces we are now well and truly foooooooooked
Click to expand...
And it just shows that in 1982 our nuclear capability did nothing to deter Galtieri. It's a macho tool for displays of bravado and the cost of that showing off is felt by our conventional forces, our Police, schools, NHS, border force, pensioners, the disabled, the poor, local authorities, communications infrastructure, fire service, technology development, environmental protection, green fuel policies and overseas aid.
In other words, the good that could come from not having nuclear weapons is immense.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
And it just shows that in 1982 our nuclear capability did nothing to deter Galtieri. It's a macho tool for displays of bravado and the cost of that showing off is felt by our conventional forces, our Police, schools, NHS, border force, pensioners, the disabled, the poor, local authorities, communications infrastructure, fire service, technology development, environmental protection, green fuel policies and overseas aid.
In other words, the good that could come from not having nuclear weapons is immense.
Click to expand...
The thing about that argument, in a way I agree with you on Gallteri but I think it was actually other policy and such decisions which encouraged the 1982 invasion, is you never tangibly see what the nuclear deterrent does actually deter, because by definition it is deterred. Tongue twister.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
And it just shows that in 1982 our nuclear capability did nothing to deter Galtieri. It's a macho tool for displays of bravado and the cost of that showing off is felt by our conventional forces, our Police, schools, NHS, border force, pensioners, the disabled, the poor, local authorities, communications infrastructure, fire service, technology development, environmental protection, green fuel policies and overseas aid.
In other words, the good that could come from not having nuclear weapons is immense.
Click to expand...
Maybe missing a point - that no country has tried to physically attack the UK mainland since we have had Nukes.

Galtieri was desperate in 82 and invaded the Falklands to save his skin - it didn’t work!
 
seasideone said:
Maybe missing a point - that no country has tried to physically attack the UK mainland since we have had Nukes.

Galtieri was desperate in 82 and invaded the Falklands to save his skin - it didn’t work!
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that we hadn't been attacked because we have nuclear weapons?
 
Bigger countries than us don't have them, they don't seem worried, why do we need them?
If the worst came to the worst and somebody attacked us with them I wouldn't feel better because we killed a load of innocent people in retaliation.
Only a lunatic would use them and you can't defend against that.
Ideal world everybody gets rid of them but so often fragile men with big egos run countries and many of them want to have the biggest rocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top