we could we will but don't do anything..how would anybody know...we could say we have a huge arsenal now and spend the money on the nhs instead
Will France and the UK need to increase their nuclear arsenal?
2 of 2
Originally Posted by mal2pool:
“we could we will but don't do anything..how would anybody know...we could say we have a huge arsenal now and spend the money on the nhs instead”
“we could we will but don't do anything..how would anybody know...we could say we have a huge arsenal now and spend the money on the nhs instead”
Ah but they'd have to fake the NHS waiting times to make them seem to be higher and higher, otherwise we'd be rumbled!
Oh wait...
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“Ah but they'd have to fake the NHS waiting times to make them seem to be higher and higher, otherwise we'd be rumbled!
Oh wait...”
“Ah but they'd have to fake the NHS waiting times to make them seem to be higher and higher, otherwise we'd be rumbled!
Oh wait...”
I think its a good idea, we have to be sneaky like those russkies...the Russians say we have so many so we say we have..how can they check...we post stuff where we know the Russians are going to hack...and they say the figures...genius...
Originally Posted by Lyricalis:
“It depends on what you're trying to deter. No amount of nukes is going to stop religious extremists and countries like North Korea don't really care about their own people.
We'd be better off spending the money on conventional military equipment, if we insist on spending it on military stuff at all, rather than things we're unlikely to ever use.”
“It depends on what you're trying to deter. No amount of nukes is going to stop religious extremists and countries like North Korea don't really care about their own people.
We'd be better off spending the money on conventional military equipment, if we insist on spending it on military stuff at all, rather than things we're unlikely to ever use.”
Useless gainst Russia - which is the main, and potentially most serious threat . Conventional forces not protected by a nuclear deterrent, would last 10 minutes - before a nuclear Iskander vaporised them- or you would get a phone call saying surrender now, or we will incinerate all your big cities. Also vastly more expensive - we now have virtually no serious conventional capability left against peer powers, with modern equipment - you would need to spend multiples of the deterrent cost to rebuild numbers and capabilities, , just to have something that would last 10 minutes.
We already have enough to deal with the relatively trivial threats like ISIS - we just don't have the will to use it , to use enough of it to win, to relax the ROE - so it can be used effectively, and the national will to lose enough people doing it.
Originally Posted by David (2):
“Firstly I think we need to point out to most people that don't know, each trident Sub launched missile has more than one war head in its nose cone, as well as decoys. All carried on the re-entry bus, enabling multiple targets to be struck with one missile.
I beleive we the uk should go back to this sort of thing,
Tornado interdictor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado
......able to carry the US tac nuclear weapon, B61.
...which the eurofighter typhoons can't do.
The new F-35 can carry it, so this should be an avenue that uk and the rest of Europe considers.
I would say that an outright full nuclear strike against the west is less likely than a smaller scale tactical strike. The thinking of the aggressor being, that you won't retaliate against our cities with a full nuclear strike (trident, minute men missiles etc) because u know if you do, we will destroy your cities. But uk doesn't currently have a tactical nuclear option, which means in this situation if a retaliatory like for like tactical strike were required the uk would have to rely on another NATO member with that capability.
That said, another option is the nuclear tipped version of the tomahawk cruise missile. We carry the conventional version on our subs, but I don't know if that variant can be equipped with the nuclear warhead. U.K. Has no way to fire an air launched tomahawk....because we don't have the heavy bombers required to carry them, eg the B52, B1b, and B2 of the US.”
“Firstly I think we need to point out to most people that don't know, each trident Sub launched missile has more than one war head in its nose cone, as well as decoys. All carried on the re-entry bus, enabling multiple targets to be struck with one missile.
I beleive we the uk should go back to this sort of thing,
Tornado interdictor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado
......able to carry the US tac nuclear weapon, B61.
...which the eurofighter typhoons can't do.
The new F-35 can carry it, so this should be an avenue that uk and the rest of Europe considers.
I would say that an outright full nuclear strike against the west is less likely than a smaller scale tactical strike. The thinking of the aggressor being, that you won't retaliate against our cities with a full nuclear strike (trident, minute men missiles etc) because u know if you do, we will destroy your cities. But uk doesn't currently have a tactical nuclear option, which means in this situation if a retaliatory like for like tactical strike were required the uk would have to rely on another NATO member with that capability.
That said, another option is the nuclear tipped version of the tomahawk cruise missile. We carry the conventional version on our subs, but I don't know if that variant can be equipped with the nuclear warhead. U.K. Has no way to fire an air launched tomahawk....because we don't have the heavy bombers required to carry them, eg the B52, B1b, and B2 of the US.”
B61 is problematic - you have to fly over the target , or almost, to drop it, and modern Rusian air defenses start shooting at you from 400 miles out - which covers a lot of NATO airspace as well as their own. Those airdefences are also being sold to the other potential nuclear threats - like Iran. You need a stand off missile probably - which is what the RAF was going to procure up till the early 2000s when it was cancelled. The new US B61 model has some stand off range with added wings, but the plane still has to get very close .Interestingly, the RAF thought about buying the US Ground launched Cruise missile to deter lower scale nuclear attacks back in the 80s and 90s.
Its not hard to have some more credible nuclear options against small scale nuclear attack, or thousands of tanks heading towards Warsaw - the French have 60, fast, long ranged, stealthy missiles, fired from fighters, And we plan a conventional Storm Shadow follow on, that might also provide that capability. The necessary warheads were already developed - back in the 70s. Without that capability , you could end up using the, possibly only one, deterrent boat - thats meant to be protecting the UK, and its cities, firing an odd warhead at some Russian tank division on a road in Estonia , and giving its position away - which isn't a credible deterrent, or sane use of the deterrent.
Nothing will come of it - unless one, or both, of two things happen. The Russians may start deploying their new long ranged theatre nuclear weapons agaisnt Europe - breaking the INF treaty that banned them . That would need a response - as it could mean Russia believed, again, that those weapons could be used - without starting an exchange involving US or Russian territory. The argument would be that they wouldn't spend the money, and break the treaty, if they didn't think the weapons were useful. We would need matching weapons - to deter them trying the idea out in any crisis.
And, secondly, there's the Trump factor. If Trump proves as isolationist as he sometimes sounds, and there's no hope of an early replacement with different ideas , Europe is going to have to start thinking very seriously about its defence. And that would mean Britain and France having to provide , credible, nuclear forces, to protect their own territory, and do what US nuclear forces in Europe do now.
Whether the politicians would be up to dealing with the issues, or they could fill the gap in the required timetable, is less certain.
Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“B61 is problematic - you have to fly over the target , or almost, to drop it, and modern Rusian air defenses start shooting at you from 400 miles out - which covers a lot of NATO airspace as well as their own. Those airdefences are also being sold to the other potential nuclear threats - like Iran. You need a stand off missile probably - which is what the RAF was going to procure up till the early 2000s when it was cancelled. The new US B61 model has some stand off range with added wings, but the plane still has to get very close .Interestingly, the RAF thought about buying the US Ground launched Cruise missile to deter lower scale nuclear attacks back in the 80s and 90s.
Its not hard to have some more credible nuclear options against small scale nuclear attack, or thousands of tanks heading towards Warsaw - the French have 60, fast, long ranged, stealthy missiles, fired from fighters, And we plan a conventional Storm Shadow follow on, that might also provide that capability. The necessary warheads were already developed - back in the 70s. Without that capability , you could end up using the, possibly only one, deterrent boat - thats meant to be protecting the UK, and its cities, firing an odd warhead at some Russian tank division on a road in Estonia , and giving its position away - which isn't a credible deterrent, or sane use of the deterrent.
Nothing will come of it - unless one, or both, of two things happen. The Russians may start deploying their new long ranged theatre nuclear weapons agaisnt Europe - breaking the INF treaty that banned them . That would need a response - as it could mean Russia believed, again, that those weapons could be used - without starting an exchange involving US or Russian territory. The argument would be that they wouldn't spend the money, and break the treaty, if they didn't think the weapons were useful. We would need matching weapons - to deter them trying the idea out in any crisis.
And, secondly, there's the Trump factor. If Trump proves as isolationist as he sometimes sounds, and there's no hope of an early replacement with different ideas , Europe is going to have to start thinking very seriously about its defence. And that would mean Britain and France having to provide , credible, nuclear forces, to protect their own territory, and do what US nuclear forces in Europe do now.
Whether the politicians would be up to dealing with the issues, or they could fill the gap in the required timetable, is less certain.”
“B61 is problematic - you have to fly over the target , or almost, to drop it, and modern Rusian air defenses start shooting at you from 400 miles out - which covers a lot of NATO airspace as well as their own. Those airdefences are also being sold to the other potential nuclear threats - like Iran. You need a stand off missile probably - which is what the RAF was going to procure up till the early 2000s when it was cancelled. The new US B61 model has some stand off range with added wings, but the plane still has to get very close .Interestingly, the RAF thought about buying the US Ground launched Cruise missile to deter lower scale nuclear attacks back in the 80s and 90s.
Its not hard to have some more credible nuclear options against small scale nuclear attack, or thousands of tanks heading towards Warsaw - the French have 60, fast, long ranged, stealthy missiles, fired from fighters, And we plan a conventional Storm Shadow follow on, that might also provide that capability. The necessary warheads were already developed - back in the 70s. Without that capability , you could end up using the, possibly only one, deterrent boat - thats meant to be protecting the UK, and its cities, firing an odd warhead at some Russian tank division on a road in Estonia , and giving its position away - which isn't a credible deterrent, or sane use of the deterrent.
Nothing will come of it - unless one, or both, of two things happen. The Russians may start deploying their new long ranged theatre nuclear weapons agaisnt Europe - breaking the INF treaty that banned them . That would need a response - as it could mean Russia believed, again, that those weapons could be used - without starting an exchange involving US or Russian territory. The argument would be that they wouldn't spend the money, and break the treaty, if they didn't think the weapons were useful. We would need matching weapons - to deter them trying the idea out in any crisis.
And, secondly, there's the Trump factor. If Trump proves as isolationist as he sometimes sounds, and there's no hope of an early replacement with different ideas , Europe is going to have to start thinking very seriously about its defence. And that would mean Britain and France having to provide , credible, nuclear forces, to protect their own territory, and do what US nuclear forces in Europe do now.
Whether the politicians would be up to dealing with the issues, or they could fill the gap in the required timetable, is less certain.”
Problem is, put out our British politicians in a spot like that and I don't believe they will make a good choice, if any choice. Wether it be nuclear or conventional, most people it seems to me have no interest in our armed forces, be that the actual military people or the hardware used. And this has, over a long period of time (since end of Cold War) has resulted in those politicians constantly being able to strip back the armed forces more and more (to save money) and nobody blinks, because nobody cares - or for that matter knows anything about it. So, for example, when the subject is raised at work (usually because trump is talking about it in the US), most of my colleges don't even know what a eurofighter typhoon is. The young guy I work with said he was amazed when on tv he saw a Russian jet go vertical and straight up - and he didn't think uk or the west had jets that could do that, and that this was a "new improvement" that simply couldn't be done previously. I had to fill in the gaps......
I think a small, long range nuclear capable missile launched from existing fighter jets along the lines of the French idea is a good idea, and "cost friendly". If such a missile could also be lifted by the F-35b (short take off version for uk carriers), this would provide an added level of mobility - bonus!
Without a tac nuclear option, I feel the only answer uk has to a small scale nuclear conflict is to immediately go world war 3 with trident. This might not be required, but it's the only option we have right now. And although it's not our traditional area, if you look at north and South Korea, if the north were to strike at the south, you don't want to use the biggest nukes in the tool box against them - the destruction and fall out would would saturate the south as well. You need to use a smaller tac nuke against the north because of the more confined conflict area and proximity to the other nation.
I don't see any need to increase our nuclear arsenal. If the one we've got isn't already considered a sufficient enough deterrent by any would be aggressor then why would a couple of dozen more?
We've currently got a leader of the official opposition who'd never sanction their use so who'd believe we'd ever have the balls to deploy said weapon regardless of how many we might have anyway?
We've currently got a leader of the official opposition who'd never sanction their use so who'd believe we'd ever have the balls to deploy said weapon regardless of how many we might have anyway?
Originally Posted by OLD HIPPY GUY:
“It's not really about deterrent it never is, if Donald want to build more nukes you can guarantee some of his backers and friends will be increasing their already vast wealth out of it. the killing business is a good business so long as you stay well clear of the pointy end.”
“It's not really about deterrent it never is, if Donald want to build more nukes you can guarantee some of his backers and friends will be increasing their already vast wealth out of it. the killing business is a good business so long as you stay well clear of the pointy end.”
Yes. It's all about mine is bigger than yours and more profits.
Originally Posted by OLD HIPPY GUY:
“It's not really about deterrent it never is, if Donald want to build more nukes you can guarantee some of his backers and friends will be increasing their already vast wealth out of it. the killing business is a good business so long as you stay well clear of the pointy end.”
“It's not really about deterrent it never is, if Donald want to build more nukes you can guarantee some of his backers and friends will be increasing their already vast wealth out of it. the killing business is a good business so long as you stay well clear of the pointy end.”
I'm pretty sure it was HRC that was into the uranium selling buisness
2 of 2
