1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Britain's Nuclear Deterrent - Still needed?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Luseac, Dec 31, 2005.

  1. knowlesy

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 6, 2006

    Posts: 4,665

    Location: Newcastle

  2. aztechnology

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 12, 2004

    Posts: 2,503

    Location: Oop North

    Cheers, that does look reasonably credible, hope they don't launch one by accident - it would be like some scary domino downfall...
     
  3. THMRK

    Mobster

    Joined: May 19, 2005

    Posts: 4,548

    Location: Glasgow, Rock City.

    That was published in 1993. Which was pretty soon after the Cold War ended. Aren't the chances high now that such a system no longer exists? I highly doubt that Russia would want to keep such a system in place as it must cost a fair bit of cash.
     
  4. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Would it not be hypocritical to go to war based on the supposed evidnce that other country's have WMDs, while we commision a new generation of WMD?

    Not to mention the fact that nuclear weapons are illegal.
     
  5. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 5,998

    I fail to see why people keep using the phrase illegal about nation states. There is no higher authority for a nation state law justice and the right to govern do not flow out from the UN it has no ultimate authority.
    For the UK the accepted lie is that all constitutional power flows from the Monarch. If the UK fails to meet an international obligation that is a treaty violation of a contract between two or more nations. We freely give sovereignty to the EU it has no natural power over us. So in that respect having nuclear weapons or going to war is not illegal per se but potentially a violation of custom or treaty.
    If the UN passes a resolution against us for instance it may give the fig leaf of acceptability to the actions of other nations but it has no right to do anything unless we have passed it that right to censure. Or at least that is the way I understand it.
     
  6. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    What you've said is correct. However, we are signatories to, and have ratified, the UN charter, and are, therefore, bound by its articles. Specifically chapters 14 and 15, which establish the jurisdiction and powers of the Interbational Court of Justice, which, in 1996 released an advisory judgement to the effect that the use, or threat of use (under which the dterrent effect falls) of nuclear weapons is illegal.

    So yes, we have agreed to be bound by the ICJ, and the ICJ has ruled that nukes are illegal. It doesnt get more cut and dried than that.
     
  7. Cueball

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 24, 2005

    Posts: 1,395

    Nuclear deterrent - still needed?

    What would be next in the question block? "An army with guns - still needed?" "Armed forces in general - still needed?"

    It was a strong deterrent (armed forces) that kept Britain free. It is a strong capability (best armed forces in the world, some of the best technology in the world, nuclear weaponary, powerful allies) that ensures Britain stays free.

    To have strong defensive capabilities, you must have a strong offensive capability. After all, the best form of defence is attack. The best form to not get attacked is to deter the whole situation from happening in the first place. How do we achieve that? Read the begning of this paragraph again.
     
  8. aztechnology

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 12, 2004

    Posts: 2,503

    Location: Oop North

    I too doubt that the technology exposed here is still fully operational. It still did exist though and was something I didn't know about until this morning.
     
  9. knowlesy

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 6, 2006

    Posts: 4,665

    Location: Newcastle

    it may or may not nake much to keep up and running as it wouldnt realy take much to keep it up and running ... (guessing here) all you would need is a singnal generator THE BIG RED BUTTON ...and then a way of passing it to all the nukes which could just simply be a wifi card lol....

    however russia may of sold this technology off to make money ??? as they have with other military items and land..... which adds a little bit more worry due to there badly lookd after nukes which are currently in storage .... which could be poorly protected by arm guards and poorely set up
     
  10. Killerkebab

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 27, 2004

    Posts: 8,436

    Location: Kent

    You have thousands of nuclear missiles to maintain. All with warheads. They have to be maintained constantly. The warheads have to be maintained constantly. You need a good setup for communications. You need a load of people to look after everything, from the fuel the rockets need, to the steel on top of your silos/etc, or even to check for water in your silos (I believe water does gather and it is a real problem). That costs a whole load of money which Russia/The USSR didn't really have.

    I highly doubt there was such a thing as a "doomsday device". Personally, I don't think KGB would have made the launching of so many nuclear missiles just that easy.

    Then, you need to pick targets for your strike. I'd wager if someone tried to trigger this mythical "doomsday device", the missiles weren't going to head in a random direction.

    Launching a nuke is not a trivial exercise.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2006
  11. knowlesy

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 6, 2006

    Posts: 4,665

    Location: Newcastle

    yes but the point of the dooms day device is that "dooms day" and if every russian is wiped off they dnt wanna be the only ones wiped out
     
  12. Killerkebab

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 27, 2004

    Posts: 8,436

    Location: Kent

    Once again, I doubt KGB would be crazy enough to make a "big red button for the end of the world" :)
     
  13. knowlesy

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 6, 2006

    Posts: 4,665

    Location: Newcastle

    its always possible i mean each major nations where pushing themseleves to the limit so that each other could reign higher than the other
     
  14. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Get a grip, mate. Russia is not going to spend billionds of pounds maintaining a system that is historically obsolete. They know that a mass nuclear strike on the country will not happen, so why waste valuable currency on it?
     
  15. Aracnid

    Gangster

    Joined: Mar 26, 2003

    Posts: 304

    Location: Winchester/Nottinghamshir

    We need a nuclear deterrent simply because it ensures wars on the scale of WW2 will never happen again. Do you think that if Hitler had been confronted by a UK and france with nukes he would have started WW2?? Don't you agree that without nukes US and USSr would have gone to war???
     
  16. aztechnology

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 12, 2004

    Posts: 2,503

    Location: Oop North

    especially when they need that cash to spend on foreign football clubs... oops I never said that.

    Whilst the system may be historically obsolete, It doesn't mean that any strategic plan won't include it. Planning is all about preparing for the unknown future and the mind set of those people who create these plans, I'm sure, still include contingencies for MAD. (whether that still includes the Dooms Day button is anyones guess).
     
  17. THMRK

    Mobster

    Joined: May 19, 2005

    Posts: 4,548

    Location: Glasgow, Rock City.

    I think the foreign football clubs comment is quite valid here :p

    Seriously though. I see what you're saying, but with Russia being as strapped for cash as they are, I highly doubt it'd be worth maintaining. Half of their nuclear warheads are probably inoperable anyway. Preparing for the future is one thing, but some kind of "Doomsday Device" would simply cost Russia too much money to maintain. At least, thats my opinion anyway.
     
  18. aztechnology

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 12, 2004

    Posts: 2,503

    Location: Oop North

    and mine...
     
  19. knowlesy

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 6, 2006

    Posts: 4,665

    Location: Newcastle

    good point ... but with what is happening these days whose to know (ok taking a little extreme there) but with n korea aquiring them and the middle east with irans "isrial should be wiped of the planet" policy who is to know
     
  20. Nelly

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 19, 2003

    Posts: 6,915

    Location: Grimsby, UK

    Interesting article I found on a gaming website which was posted, thought I would share it with you seen as its on the subject kinda. . . .

    http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/20/petrovaward.shtml