RAF scrambled to intercept Russian bombers.

[neoboy]

The $2.3 trillion in aid sent to Africa since the 1950s had done nothing to increase Africa's GDP.......

Yeah but did wonders to help and double population of counties like Ethiopia who couldn't even sustain a decent quality of life for the original population numbers.

Ermmm no they wouldnt

They Russians are a falling Army and have old tech, I bet half of there Nukes dont work, if they decided to start a war with the UK we can safley say the USA would back our back and most of out Allies, plus do you not think we have Nukes?

To be honest we are talking about an impossible scenario here, if Russia went to war with any NATO country then everyone would get involved indeed.

In an unlikely scenario where it was just us having a straight with them, land forces wouldn't even get a chance to get involved (since there's a matter of pretty much entire Europe between us and them). Just because we keep seeing their outdated tech usually crewed my not so brilliant crew get squashed by US latest airpower tech doesn't mean doesn't mean they are something a small country like us can beat (I really don't see us as a superpower of any kind). While there is still a lot of progres to be made in their military you really shouldn't underestimate them, they are pumping a hell of a lot of money into their military as of late.

That and the fact that we don't really possess any serious long range bombing capability or maintain an ICBM system of a significant threat. doesn't help the matters. Guess my point is that while they are nowhere near as capable as they were in cold war years, people really shouldn't think of them as some ogres who fix their military tech by bashing it with their big fists while drinking ridiculous amounts of vodka. After all they did maintain an arms race with US for a very long time and we would've really been just another country that would be between them and US if WWIII started.

 

[Over Clocker]

Remember the UK has the 2nd largest defence spending in the world, and is widely regarded as having the 2nd most potent military in the world.

Yes Russia are improving, but do not over estimate them. Most of their equipment is unusable, NATO, especially the USA has had to give Russia BILLIONS during the 90s to keep their nukes in a safe state, their personnel are generally unwilling to fight due to lack of wages, their current weaponry is in a VERY poor state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007_top_10_countries_by_military_expenditure_MER.svg

 

[Liefrich]

The $2.3 trillion in aid sent to Africa since the 1950s had done nothing to increase Africa's GDP.......

It has probably helped save lives. My examples was purely off the top of my head but at least trying to help humanity solve an actual problem rather than a theoretical one of "what if a nuc was launched", is in my opinion rather more useful.

Besides curing famine was not the only significant issue the aid the west has sent to Africa was meant to help.

Anyway it's a pointless arguement, there is no need for a missle defence system, period, as there is a vast amount of better things to spend money on.

 

[Over Clocker]

Yeah but did wonders to help and double population of counties like Ethiopia who couldn't even sustain a decent quality of life for the original population numbers.



To be honest we are talking about an impossible scenario here, if Russia went to war with any NATO country then everyone would get involved indeed.

In an unlikely scenario where it was just us having a straight with them, land forces wouldn't even get a chance to get involved (since there's a matter of pretty much entire Europe between us and them). Just because we keep seeing their outdated tech usually crewed my not so brilliant crew get squashed by US latest airpower tech doesn't mean doesn't mean they are something a small country like us can beat (I really don't see us as a superpower of any kind). While there is still a lot of progres to be made in their military you really shouldn't underestimate them, they are pumping a hell of a lot of money into their military as of late.

That and the fact that we don't really possess any serious long range bombing capability or maintain an ICBM system of a significant threat. doesn't help the matters. Guess my point is that while they are nowhere near as capable as they were in cold war years, people really shouldn't think of them as some ogres who fix their military tech by bashing it with their big fists while drinking ridiculous amounts of vodka. After all they did maintain an arms race with US for a very long time and we would've really been just another country that would be between them and US if WWIII started.

Lol, are you serious? You say we don't posses any serious ICBM threat?

200 maintained nuclear warheads, with another 150 that can be bought back to action very quickly as they still exist, on 4 Trident submarines, with missiles capable of flying thousands of miles.......

Yes, the russians posses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, but for the most part, that is because they cannot afford to dispose of them!

200 massive nuclear warheads is a HUGE threat to anyone!

 

[Kemik]

Lol, are you serious? You say we don't posses any serious ICBM threat?

200 maintained nuclear warheads, with another 150 that can be bought back to action very quickly as they still exist, on 4 Trident submarines, with missiles capable of flying thousands of miles.......

Yes, the russians posses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, but for the most part, that is because they cannot afford to dispose of them!

200 massive nuclear warheads is a HUGE threat to anyone!

Only one sub is usually in action though. One is undergoing maintenance and the other two are in training exercises or in port.

 

[Over Clocker]

Only one sub is usually in action though. One is undergoing maintenance and the other two are in training exercises or in port.

Only one in maintenance, even if only 1 is patrolling and will always be able to fire its missiles within 15 minutes, that still leaves another 2 able to fire missiles at short notice........ (missiles are still loaded onto them)

IIRC the RN Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. That means missiles can be fired from port in Scotland.....

 

[Fothsn]

Remember the UK has the 2nd largest defence spending in the world, and is widely regarded as having the 2nd most potent military in the world.

Yes Russia are improving, but do not over estimate them. Most of their equipment is unusable, NATO, especially the USA has had to give Russia BILLIONS during the 90s to keep their nukes in a safe state, their personnel are generally unwilling to fight due to lack of wages, their current weaponry is in a VERY poor state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007_top_10_countries_by_military_expenditure_MER.svg

Yep it seem the Russian lovers in here tend to miss this information, Russia are not as big as you think and we the UK have a massive punch for such a small island.

 

[EdGey]

surely we have more of a nuclear threat than 4 subs? top secret?

i know i would.

having only 4 subs to retaliate leaves us very vunerable indeed...

 

[Kemik]

Only one in maintenance, even if only 1 is patrolling and will always be able to fire its missiles within 15 minutes, that still leaves another 2 able to fire missiles at short notice........ (missiles are still loaded onto them)

IIRC the RN Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. That means missiles can be fired from port in Scotland.....

Would there be people around with authority to fire them though? If not, would they make it in time?

One sub surely can't take out the whole of Russia. How long would nukes take to arrive once launched?

 

[Over Clocker]

surely we have more of a nuclear threat than 4 subs? top secret?

i know i would.

having only 4 subs to retaliate leaves us very vunerable indeed...

Not really, when each sub is capable of launching 16 missiles and each missile is theoretical able to carry 12 warheads.

One submarine is effectively a deck of 16 moving silos.

In the Cold War, our subs never needed to be anywhere near Russia to retaliate. The missiles have massive range!

 

[neoboy]

Lol, are you serious? You say we don't posses any serious ICBM threat?

200 maintained nuclear warheads, with another 150 that can be bought back to action very quickly as they still exist, on 4 Trident submarines, with missiles capable of flying thousands of miles.......

Yes, the russians posses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, but for the most part, that is because they cannot afford to dispose of them!

200 massive nuclear warheads is a HUGE threat to anyone!

Meh I wasn't talking about nuclear exchanges since the whole world would be involved. Besides I think we're starting to get into a very big "if" territory here so we're just speculating with silly scenarios, if they ever wanted a war with us then NATO gets involved and we're back to MAD. Makes no sense for either country to go to war now frankly and the incident was really nothing more than them reminding us they are there and little practice for both us and them.

 

[Over Clocker]

Would there be people around with authority to fire them though? If not, would they make it in time?

One sub surely can't take out the whole of Russia. How long would nukes take to arrive once launched?

Authority rests with the Prime Minister.

I guess a lot of people don't realise, once the missiles are launched from an Royal Navy sub and get to the sea surface, they cruise at 18,000mph, yes 18 thousand mph! That's approx mach 22.

That means from the UK to Moscow is a matter of a few minutes!!!!

 

[Stringy]

Would there be people around with authority to fire them though? If not, would they make it in time?

Whether or not 'they make it in time' is irrelevant. The UK Nuclear Deterrent has measures in place for if we don't fire the missiles before central government is destroyed; the submarine acts autonomously if it is deemed that the chain of command no longer exists/is wiped out in a war scenario.

 

[Hxc]

I actually sniggered, that Russian plane looks dreadful

Seriously? I think the Bear is a phenominal looking thing. Same as the Blackjack

 

[Over Clocker]

Meh I wasn't talking about nuclear exchanges since the whole world would be involved. Besides I think we're starting to get into a very big "if" territory here so we're just speculating with silly scenarios, if they ever wanted a war with us then NATO gets involved and we're back to MAD. Makes no sense for either country to go to war now frankly and the incident was really nothing more than them reminding us they are there and little practice for both us and them.

Yup, obviously we're all getting carried away with talk of nuclear strikes, no harm in a a bit of nuclear chit chat though

Yup, it would end up in MAD, which is our assurance and is why we retain Trident.

And yes, it is all just a bit of willy waving.

Russians fly near the UK, the RAF gets up there as fast as possible and tails them, telling the Russians that even though the Cold War finished nearly 20 years ago, we are still ready and we spotted you guys in a few seconds!

 

[The Funktopus]

Would there be people around with authority to fire them though? If not, would they make it in time?

One sub surely can't take out the whole of Russia. How long would nukes take to arrive once launched?

The Vanguard class SSBN's patrol route takes them north into the Arctic Ocean IIRC, meaning they'd be a scant few thousands miles from major Russian cities, like Moscow, St Petersburg, Vladivostok and Arkangelhsk. Within minutes of receiving launch authority, one of these subs could reach hover depth, and ripple fire all 16 missiles one after the other through the Polar ice cap, showering their targets with upto 128 nuclear warheads with very little warning. Moving at well over 20 times the speed of sound on re-entry to the atmosphere, there'd be very little you could do to stop them. Although if that were to happen of course, it'd be a very pyrrhic victory since the Russians would have enough time to launch their own missiles in retaliation.

 

[mmj_uk]

Russians fly near the UK, the RAF gets up there as fast as possible and tails them, telling the Russians that even though the Cold War finished nearly 20 years ago, we are still ready and we spotted you guys in a few seconds!

Wasn't there a story a while back where Russian bombers got to within 20miles of Hull(?) before being spotted?

 

[neoboy]

Wasn't there a story a while back where Russian bombers got to within 20miles of Hull(?) before being spotted?

I'm sure that was intentional though

 

[Over Clocker]

It would ideally be based on a decision by the COBRA Committee (Cabinet Office Briefing Room A - an underground bunker under No 10 Downing Street) however if this was not possible the decision would be made by the PM based con advise given by senior security advisers.

The PM would contact PJHQ using secure telecommunications. PJHQ based at Northwood in North London, consists of 12 floors of underground bunkers and is guarded by the Royal Marines Fleet Protection Group.

The Commanders there and at at Fleet HQ Whale Island Portsmouth control Britains Nuclear Sub Fleet. There would then be a series of confidential checks and balances before any signal would be sent to the subs.

From PJHQ/ Fleet HQ the signal would be sent to the trident submarine fleet, where the actual process involving codes, keys and other classified procedure would be required to launch the nuclear missiles.

 

[Over Clocker]

Interesting fact - during the Falklands war, a number of Royal Navy ships were secretly carrying nuclear weapons, including nuclear bombs, nuclear depth charges etc.

The reason was that the ships were kept prepared for NATO actions against Russia, and the RN decided it would take too long to offload their nuclear weapons, so they sailed to the Falklands carrying nuclear weapons. This was one of the most closely guarded secrets during the conflict because the MoD were worried about the Argentines trying to capture our nuclear weapons if any of those ships were sunk.

At the time, the deployed RN ships carried 75% of the RN nuclear depth charged to the Falklands!

The decision was taken that once the ships were there, they would offload the weapons to HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible as they carried hardened weapons holds. THis means that 75% Britain's surface fleet nuclear weapons ended up being carried on 2 ships!

Military planners in London were extremely secretive of this fact in case the USSR found this out.