So how many can you take out.

Its a shame you can only detonate one at a time as I'd be interested to see what a single submarine is capable of. A Vangaurd class sub carries 16 trident missiles and each missile carries 12 warheads which means a total of 192 individual detonations. :O
 
Jeps said:
Its a shame you can only detonate one at a time as I'd be interested to see what a single submarine is capable of. A Vangaurd class sub carries 16 trident missiles and each missile carries 12 warheads which means a total of 192 individual detonations. :O
Click to expand...

The missiles carry up to 8 warheads due to treaties with the US and Russia.
 
Roar87 said:
Over 60 million died in WW2 with largely conventional weapons, since then we haven't had any wars that have come anywhere close to that amount of deaths. Sure nuclear weapons are scary, but the reality is that nuclear weapons prevent large scale war from happening in the first place, seeing as there can be no winner. It's logical for us to maintain a deterrent for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

That definetely was true, just look at the Cuban missile crisis. I'm not sure its as true now though when the main threat to our security seems to be terrorism. Would someone prepared to strap a bomb on their chest and detonate it really care too much about who is killed by the retaliation? Indeed, I rather suspect such high numbers of innocent collateral deaths would only feed into the recruitment propaganda of the likes of ISIS.

I do think that mutually assured destruction only works if you care about being destroyed. Gorbachev and Kennedy did. Kim maybe does. As for ISIS? Im far less sure. And that to my mind weakens the defensive value of nukes.
 
phonemonkey said:
That definetely was true, just look at the Cuban missile crisis. I'm not sure its as true now though when the main threat to our security seems to be terrorism. Would someone prepared to strap a bomb on their chest and detonate it really care too much about who is killed by the retaliation? Indeed, I rather suspect such high numbers of innocent collateral deaths would only feed into the recruitment propaganda of the likes of ISIS.

I do think that mutually assured destruction only works if you care about being destroyed. Gorbachev and Kennedy did. Kim maybe does. As for ISIS? Im far less sure. And that to my mind weakens the defensive value of nukes.
Click to expand...

If on any given year there is a 0.25% chance of a war with Russia, that threat is greater than a 100% chance of a terrorist attack from ISIS. The main threat this country faces is always a nuclear war with China or Russia. Terrorism, while very bad, pales in comparison to the threat of a war with one of those 2. I mean, it's basically a social issue as it's dealt with largely by Police rather than the Armed Forces. You're looking at dozens or even hundreds killed vs millions or tens of millions killed.
 
Roar87 said:
If on any given year there is a 0.25% chance of a war with Russia, that threat is greater than a 100% chance of a terrorist attack from ISIS. The main threat this country faces is always a nuclear war with China or Russia. Terrorism, while very bad, pales in comparison to the threat of a war with one of those 2. I mean, it's basically a social issue as it's dealt with largely by Police rather than the Armed Forces. You're looking at dozens or even hundreds killed vs millions or tens of millions killed.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree about the scales. Clearly war with either China or Russia would be catastrophic. Can you provide evidence to back up the figures you presented though?
 
I just tried to obliterate London - had no problem pressing button but didn't pick a big enough bomb - Grrrrrrrr!
 
SPG said:
Why we need these things in the UK is pointless beyond belief, just one cuts the country in half and depending on which way the wind blows)
Click to expand...

Because the chances of them ever being aimed at cities is so slim to nil its unreal, however you can take out an entire airfield with one which makes them highly effective.

For instance, you managed 14m in Delhi, the current UK warhead would kill 2.4m apparently according to that.

We have them because others have them, simple as that. It's a deterrent, but if used as a military weapon potentially highly useful, not that it would ever come to that.
 
I dropped a Tsar bomb on Lenin's tomb in Moscow and killed 7.9 million.


and nuking Tosno gets 407,000
 
Last edited:
Influenza. The influenza or flu pandemic of 1918 to 1919, the deadliest in modern history, infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide–about one-third of the planet's population at the time and killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million victims. Then there was the bubonic plague which wiped out many in London. The Great Plague killed an estimated 100,000 people - almost a quarter of London's population - in 18 months. Cancer, AIDS, malaria. Viruses and disease kill far more people than any man made weapon could ever do. When you die it will likely be from some form of disease or virus. Dying from a nuclear bomb dropped on you is not going to happen. If you're lucky, a bullet to the head isn't a bad way to go. Wish I had a gun.
 
phonemonkey said:
I don't disagree about the scales. Clearly war with either China or Russia would be catastrophic. Can you provide evidence to back up the figures you presented though?
Click to expand...

The 0.25% seemed like a very low estimate to make the point that, even if there is a tiny chance of a war it's still a greater threat to the wider population than terrorism due to the numbers that would be killed.
 
Maccy said:
Interesting...but rather poor taste??
Click to expand...

It's not actually meant as a game. I'm not sure why the OP presented it as such. I've posted it here myself on a previous occasion to illustrate my argument against nuclear weapons.

The only winning move is not to play.
 
i thought if i dropped a bomb on faslane sub base then there would be a chain reaction? my physics aren't the strongest.
 
Roar87 said:
Over 60 million died in WW2 with largely conventional weapons, since then we haven't had any wars that have come anywhere close to that amount of deaths. Sure nuclear weapons are scary, but the reality is that nuclear weapons prevent large scale war from happening in the first place, seeing as there can be no winner. It's logical for us to maintain a deterrent for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Control for your variables. Other factors that lessen the chance of a new World War in that time period:
  • Shock of 60million deaths and ruined economies diminishing desire for war.
  • Greatly increased international financing making large scale war highly unprofitable
  • Far greater public awareness of international matters and travel diminishing public acceptance of war.
  • Prosperity in the most developed nations - no Weimar Republics, no Great Depressions. There is widespread economic suffering in some countries, e.g. Greece, but Greece is in no position to invade anyone nor are any others. Those that can wage war, e.g. Germany, are making more money through trade.
  • Decreasing native populations in the West. There is no pool of surplus young males to be disposed of or channeled.
  • The period of Western-led colonization is over. The "Scramble for Africa" was a key component of WWI.
  • Following on from factors leading to WWI, the point needs to be made that in many ways WWII was not so much a distinct event as it was WWI Part Deux. The causes of WWII are inextricably tied up in WWI and WWII cannot be understood without understanding WWI.
  • Increase in Democracy. You can scoff all you want at calling what we have democracy but Europe and Asia are no longer the sandpits of Tsars, Kaisers and Kings. The new rulers are corporations and they don't want land or bragging rights, they want money. From trade and exploitation.
To claim that peace (such as we've had it!) is the result of nuclear weapons is to dismiss a whole host of very significant factors. It also treats WWI and WWII as separate events in its presentation that there were multiple world wars before and none after. Really a more accurate way to view WWI and WWII is a single event in two parts. WWI did not resolve underlying differences between nations, it only put one side on top for a time. WWII is when affairs between nations were actually resolved.

Also, the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction actually predates nuclear weapons. The previous attempt along these principles was the Entente Cordiale and the Central Powers. It was the system of alliances between the European and Eastern nations that people of the time believed would prevent a war because the consequences of it failing were so monstrous. It failed. We had WWI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom