Wouldn't be very likely as there would be a fair bit of evidence, no monkey overlords for one
Scrap Trident ICBM program?
- Thread starter Ali195
- Start date
Wouldn't be very likely as there would be a fair bit of evidence, no monkey overlords for one
I totally agree with having nuclear weapons, throughout the cold war we had the policy of mutually agreed destruction. and the superpowers were happy to fight each other by proxy. russia equiping the vietnamese, america supporting the mujahadeen in afghanistan, all the various wars in africa and south/central america. None of the superpowers will ever use nuclear weapons, theyre nice to have in the arsenal, but its better to have a few lesser countries without a nuclear capability at war with each other so you can sell them the gear to fight their war and keep the money rolling in for your own country.
lol @p
Mutually Assured destruction, and it wasn;t a policy they didn't have a meeting and decide to make sure they both died.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
well sending 100 nukes to cover many areas of the uk, stopping any of them is better than nothing.. you would save a lot of lives.
secondly there is already developed missle defense systems that are extremely effective, laser beams that shoot missles and using missles aswell that intercept... stopping an ICBM is not that hard at all.. stopping 500 at the same time is hard, thats what i think money should be spent on.
and i recon stoping a single nuke is better than not, spared civilians who can now fight in the war!
edit: you havent considered people like me, even if i knew i couldnt win the war, i would nuke the enemy city, even if i knew they would inflict 10x more damage. just to see the world in flames! Missle defense is required, the americans spend like 8.3 billion $ on missle defense, which is biggest single project.
check this out.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense
way to debate,
i could kill you now, well that make it easier?
Last edited:
Not really, especially for America, who since the ss-18 lost a reliable second strike option. (partly why they needed the early warning system as tier silos wouldn't survive) So they need somthing to protect them.
True though, a missile defence alone isn't really that great, (and would be more in the order of trillions of pounds not billions) nuclear artillery still exists, as does the option to smuggle land based weapons via other means (ie hidden in a cargo ship). Combined with air launched cruiser missiles and mavity bombs, a "perfect defence" is unattainable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
trillions? hmm your insane..
and any defence is better than no defense imo i dont think having nuclear weapons is a deterrant, it wouldnt deter me. eventually someone in a position will be insane enough.
ps: multi-*******-quote
Last edited:
err America has already invested trillions in it's missile defence program, and it still isn't capable of shooting down a missile with reliability.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
if by trillions you mean 3 trillion? would be like over 50 billion a year for just over the last 50 years...
figures?
My point is, theres no winner in an all out nuclear war, both sides had more than enough weapons to totally obliterate each other and all the rest of us into the bargain, the usa and the soviet union went on a crazy arms race for 50 years knowing that nuclear war would be futile, after all one of the main aims of war is to gain territory and the assets that come with it, what use would scorched earth be to anybody, the superpowers were quite happy to supply arms and equipment to different factions all over the world be it in the guise of communism/democracy, afghanistan is a prime example, the mujahideen, funded and trained by america and britain. the current taleban are a splinter unit from that, along with alqueada. and now the western powers find themselves fighting against people they trained and supplied.
yes 3 trillion is a multiple of trillion...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
mabye you meant 82.458 trillion i was putting the lowest, its less than 1 trillion anyhow..
mabye you meant 82.458 trillion i was putting the lowest, its less than 1 trillion anyhow..
But it won;t be less than 1 trillion, it will probbably be tens of trillions to even get a system that just about works on current missiles, and while you're making that the Russians/Chinese/Americans/britain all of us will be making missiles that get around the new methods.
For a current Satan missile, that has 8 warhead (can be more but START/SALT limit it) and over 40 indistinguishable decoys, so that would be over 48 missiles (to account for failures), to just have a chance of stopping one, and there would be hundreds to thousands of those things coming.
Say your anti ICBM missiles cost 200K a pop (relativity cheap as far as missiles go, considering a patriot system costs over 1 million not including the radar, and control systems), that's, over 9 million for every missile you want to defend against, (not including launch platform or R&D, staff etc)
And you're probbably not even going to have enough room for that many launchers.
So we're probably talking high powered laser, which again would be billions to develop.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
you said it has ALREADY cost trillions...
one of us is clearly drunk..
but the main question is, will it blend?
one of us is clearly drunk..
but the main question is, will it blend?
1: But you seem to think that they'd bother targetting runways (not neccesarily nukes) and assume we couldn't launch before we got hit.
2: One of the top most likely places to be hit is the network infrastructure, main telecoms hubs/data centers. Can't tell you exactly where because I don't know ( I knew a guy that worked there) but the places that are pretty much inside modern bunkers. High security etc.
3: You assume they wont go ahead and drop one on say, London anyway.
4: Plenty of miltary bases they can put these bombers, what are you talking about, "building new runways?".
Just a few off the top of my head.
---
As for Silos, someones answered that better now.
Just.. 20 BILLION..
yes America has invested trillions so far.
You said we should spend 20 billion developing our own, which would in reality cost trillions too, and still take decades.
4 minutes at best is warning time, so unless the bombers are constantly on strategic alert and fully loaded with live weapons then no we wouldn't be able to.
Main places are cities, millitary bases, airports/air fields (especially those containing strategic bombers), ports, and harbours.
London would be flattened in the first wave by several dozen warheads
Except those air bases couldn't really accommodate the addition of a strategic bomber fleet without expansion.
---
As for Silos, someones answered that better now.
Just.. 20 BILLION..
And on top of that silos wouldn't survive the first waves of the strike.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
where are the figures
Tefal, I appreciate you informing me of some things I said wrong but, some of them you just repeated what I said but it seems like you are trying to correct me 
For example.
Me: 3: You assume they wont go ahead and drop one on say, London anyway
You: London would be flattened in the first wave by several dozen warheads
Like I need you to tell me several nukes would "flatten" london!!
I also don't believe we ( I mean you) cant facilitate new aircraft.
4minutes, really? darn. Still no better than from the 60's? ;/
For example.
Me: 3: You assume they wont go ahead and drop one on say, London anyway
You: London would be flattened in the first wave by several dozen warheads
Like I need you to tell me several nukes would "flatten" london!!
I also don't believe we ( I mean you) cant facilitate new aircraft.
4minutes, really? darn. Still no better than from the 60's? ;/
Last edited:
Tefal, I appreciate you informing me of some things I said wrong but, some of them you just repeated what I said but it seems like you are trying to correct me
For example.
Me: 3: You assume they wont go ahead and drop one on say, London anyway
You: London would be flattened in the first wave by several dozen warheads
Like I need you to tell me several nukes would "flatten" london!!
Reinforcing the point
WE can but only by building new runways/hanger and bunkers, but as a deterrent we're too close for a strategic fleet to work, subs are the best solution for us because of proximity and our size.
Still the same system iirc.