Remind me, what's the blast radius on a 100 kiloton nuclear warhead?
(i.e. how accurate do we need to be!)
The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Remind me, what's the blast radius on a 100 kiloton nuclear warhead?
(i.e. how accurate do we need to be!)
That doesn't sound very rational to me.
It depends on what you are trying to destroy.
If you are trying to flatten a city then it doesn't matter that much.
If you are trying to destroy a hardened bunker or missile silo it is actually very important. (Damage is around Yield inverse cube, IE to do twice as much damage you need around ten times the yield)
During the "Cold War" the Russians typically deployed much larger warheads than the USA, this was because the Russian missiles were less accurate and so had to be more destructive in order to have a reasonable chance of destroying the target.
(First strike weapons were normally targeted against the other sides missile silos, hence the various arguments over whether one should launch on warning or take a chance and wait for confirmation)
This is why I posted - I'm all for re-evaluating the need for trident and/or its replacement, making sure our defensive policies are relevant to the threats we face and making sure the money is well spent.
However you need to look at the big picture when it comes to defence not just (as many do) the immediate here and now but also foreseeable long term issues and while you can't prepare for every eventuality things like the potential for nation on nation escalation is something we can't take off the table any time soon and so far I've not seen anyone suggest a viable alternative to those threats when talking about scrapping trident.
Its a fallacy to look at it from the viewpoint of something we will never use - to borrow from another recent thread - compare it to something like antimalarials - we use it every day as an insurance policy from a very real if not the most immediately likely threat.
If Corbyn wants to talk about scrapping trident I will entertain that but I want to hear either why he considers it no longer necessary and/or his plans for an alternative not some semi-irrational/emotional fear of "weapons of mass destruction" - really not something we need in a prime minister given the scale of issues he will be dealing with globally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Our nuclear arsenal has been used for more than half a century, as a deterrence against foreign aggression. It will continue to serve that purpose for as long as we have it. And it will do that, irrespective of which president is sitting in the White House.
The moment we give up that supreme advantage, we are going to have to rely on the US and France to protect us from nuclear armed enemies. The number of which is growing.
We could hardly have predicted the Arab Spring weeks before it occurred, and you want to disarm our greatest weapon on the assumption geopolitics won't change for the next twenty five years?!
It is not rational, because the entire argument hinges upon the fallacy that deterrence does not exist. Or worse yet, that we can rely upon the US to provide our security.
I suppose the only way you could be convinced of the value of nuclear weapons is when London is turned to glass? Or perhaps when the Americans decide to return to isolation and leave us and our friends to fend for ourselves against Russia, China and so forth?
Last edited:
It isn't just nuclear armed enemy - it acts as a deterrent against the escalation of force (beyond skirmish etc.) against any nation by making the theoretical cost of "winning" too high to be worth it. (Which as an aside tends to funnel serious issues towards being worked out at a diplomatic scale rather than by force).
It scares me how so many people have become used to the last 30 years or so of relative peace and prosperity and can't see the reality of how fast the geopolitical landscape can sometimes shift.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Yeah! We'd much rather have English cities crying about it. Right?
It's logically sound from a unionist POV.
Whether we need a nuclear deterrent or not, whether we need a nuclear deterrent as potent and effective as Trident, is largely determined by the role we wish to play in the world going forward.
Mr Corbyn's position is neither wrong nor inconsistent with his other thoughts on foreign policy. He sees Britain's future as that of a reclusive mediator, while others want us to maintain our current power projection. Trident is an important factor in the latter, but significantly less important in the former.
Personally, I think it would be a mistake for Europe to be completely without Nuclear deterrents, but I'm not sure the UK needs it's own, and certainly not on the scale of Trident. A second Cold War is unlikely given the US, China and Russia have graduated to proxy, economic and cyber warfare. All three are far more effective than another nuclear standoff.
Mr Corbyn's position is neither wrong nor inconsistent with his other thoughts on foreign policy. He sees Britain's future as that of a reclusive mediator, while others want us to maintain our current power projection. Trident is an important factor in the latter, but significantly less important in the former.
Personally, I think it would be a mistake for Europe to be completely without Nuclear deterrents, but I'm not sure the UK needs it's own, and certainly not on the scale of Trident. A second Cold War is unlikely given the US, China and Russia have graduated to proxy, economic and cyber warfare. All three are far more effective than another nuclear standoff.
Nuclear disarmament will achieve nothing. The tech is here, is more exploitable than ever and day by day it will become easier for rogue nations/militia to get hold of one. We're just going to rely on the Americans? They aren't disarming, ever, so what does us disarming achieve? If someone threatens us and we're all 'oh please don't hurt us boohoo', or 'please America help us'. Do we just assume the U.S will come rushing to our side? It's a deterrent and worth every penny in my book. A bargain at 5 times the price. This subject was dead in the water before it started and it's another example of the pathetic period of Labour leadership we are in.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,250
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
I propose we give up the gun and go back to bows and arrows.
It is not a deterrent to non-nation rogues however, it does protect us from insular attacks.
The question is, are we preparing for THAT inevitability or just ignoring it because MAD makes right?
No, the question is, do you or anyone else know what will happen in the future?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
So what situation in the future will warrant us using our nukes?
Last edited by a moderator:
Did I somehow not answer that?
Again, missing the difference between deploying our nuclear armament and just having them to deter. Who knows what might develop in future and what with North Korea constantly banging the war drum that it will destroy America I'd quite like to know we have the deterrent to ensure that all that remains to be is mere sabre rattling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I don't believe there has ever been an accident involving a nuclear warhead. It's almost impossible for a nuclear weapon to explode by 'accident'.
That said, Faslane is a great location for our nuclear deterrent as it' relatively sheltered from the open sea. This means that in the event of a war, it's much easier to protect from sea borne attack.
Closing down Faslane would devastate the local economy, especially Helensburgh. I cannot see the locals being too keen on that.
An utterly inane question. There is no end of possible scenarios where we may need to use nuclear weapons, but you'll say they are all implausible.
Well yes, at this exact moment in time they are implausible, which is why we're not all preparing for nuclear war. But in the space of weeks or months, that could all change.
If the next American president withdraws the US into isolationism, we're pretty much on our own.
Last edited: