Push the button? PM's nuclear options.

I would do nothing. Really. What's the point? So whomever can retaliate a bit more.....it's all very macho and cool but think about the reality of a world after a nuclear exchange.

In a scenario of America vs Russia or China the UK will just be nuked off as a side product anyway. No one's gonna directly be upset at the UK ever it's so insignificant nowadays.
Yeah I'm pretty pessimistic today
 
Last edited:
More options:

5. GD Poll
6. GD nuke party
7. Roll dice
8. Tremble and hit enter

Quick call to allies and ask "you first or us...", call for a show of hands. The procedure is called passing the buck.
 
n111ck said:
With no government left it's reasonable to assume those capabilities failed.
Click to expand...

You think with eight, short range, unreliable nukes North Korea can wipe out every country that would react to it launching a nuclear strike?
 
Honestly, I'd push the button in a heartbeat.

You can't have a deterrent if you're shown to not be willing to use it. If we're not going to use it, may as well save the money it costs to build/maintain.
 
Mr Jack said:
You think with eight, short range, unreliable nukes North Korea can wipe out every country that would react to it launching a nuclear strike?
Click to expand...

That might be all they have right now... And NK was just an example.

Plus whats to say the other nuclear countries wouldnt cop out and not launch in retaliation.
 
Hotwired said:
There was a lot of wishful thinking behind that first independence vote.

Scotland will have to find its own money and apply to the EU in its own right (if that's the aim).

Oil money is fantasy, Scotlands finances are worse than than Englands and its a long road to apply to the EU (which won't have the rest of the UK in it).

Not to mention suspicions of changing status quo will be high after the huge piles of BS that whimsical voters went by in the EU vote.
Click to expand...

Other opinions are available.
 
I wonder if we have any agreements backing the option for the submarines to surrender control to our allies?

That seems like a rational option to choose to me - we live in an age where information travels faster than thought and that tends to mean that everyone is clamouring for a reaction before the full facts have been established. That is very dangerous indeed when the future of the planet is involved.

Imagine we've been locked in an escalating dispute with Russia. Things are incredibly tense and war is looking likely. A nuclear weapon detonates in London without warning and destroys the current government. What then? The submarine is blind from an intel POV buthe PM has given the order to retaliate - but against who? Russia? Seems like the logical choice, but can you be sure? If NK/IS/whoever had smuggled a nuke into London and detonated it hoping to start a nuclear war between NATO and Russia, it would take days to realise. Giving the keys temporarily over to our friends would allow their (intact) intelligence services to analyse the situation and react properly.

Giving the order beforehand seems to me to be incredibly reckless. Giving the responsibility to the captain is less reckless but they are hopelessly lacking in pertinent information so how could they ever make a decision with a clear conscience? Surely the only option is to gather more intel and let our allies come to our defence using our weapons where possible... That's largely the point of being in a defence alliance isn't it?
 
In my opinion they're a deterrent - if that deterrent fails and the UK becomes a nuclear wasteland there is no point in striking back, we've already lost.

Surrender to our closest allies and hope the planet survives the fallout.
 
I don't think it would ever happen but if we were taken out then the best thing we could do is return fire and try to wipe out the enemies (if known) nuclear capability.

Otherwise we'd just leave it to other powers to respond leaving them as targets or they would be too scared to act and effectively held hostage.
 
I was watching the BBC new yesterday morning an I can't remember who it was but they had a politician on discussing whether we should keep Trident or not and he kept bringing up terrorists and the fact it'll act as a deterrent for them

Where exactly did he think we were going to unleash them on if a terrorist group decides to use a nuke of some sort against us, if there's one lot of people who don't give a **** what we can retaliate with it's them.
 
Retaliate. It is the only sensible option. For one thing, failure to retaliate will undermine the credibility of future deterrence strategies.
 
{T5K}TT said:
Retaliate. It is the only sensible option. For one thing, failure to retaliate will undermine the credibility of future deterrence strategies.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it would really matter, there'd be nothing left to deter or indeed attack anymore.
 
So, just out of curiosity what happens if the whole cabinet is wiped out via a non-nuclear war?

What process is put into place then?

I am not sure what I would do in response to a nuclear war, it would probably never happen as that's that, and the post war world would be pretty crap for those that launched first anyway, it would be a very difficult decision to make.
 
tom_e said:
I was watching the BBC new yesterday morning an I can't remember who it was but they had a politician on discussing whether we should keep Trident or not and he kept bringing up terrorists and the fact it'll act as a deterrent for them

Where exactly did he think we were going to unleash them on if a terrorist group decides to use a nuke of some sort against us, if there's one lot of people who don't give a **** what we can retaliate with it's them.
Click to expand...

There is an edge case for deterring state sponsored terrorism but yeah it isn't going to do anything (and isn't intended to do anything) in regard to groups like al-qaeda, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom