But doesn't that just relate to nuclear attacks?
Push the button? PM's nuclear options.
- Thread starter n111ck
- Start date
But doesn't that just relate to nuclear attacks?
The entire country would most likely be under US led military control in that scenario, though our government would be in a hardened under ground bunker so it's fairly unlikely
The decision devolves to the Monarch until such time as a Prime Minister is appointed.
Sorry, I fail at reading.
I'd assume they'd rotate them out even if a little off schedule.
Carrier Pigeon to the secret North Atlantic meeting spot
Well they are technically the US' missiles.
Well this is why I said default position.
We know it would be Russia who gets the blame even if the Chinese were waving "We bombed you rararara" flags.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
That's different. It depends on how the nuclear deterrent is wired into your overall defence strategy. Russia, for example (everything's 'defence' policy there lol), stipulates that it can use its arsenal for regional and domestic disputes and if it is conventionally threatened in the way you describe (or basically in any way that puts the survival of the state at risk -- this is deliberately vague). On the other hand, we will reply conventionally if threatened conventionally. However, this protocol can be changed (as when we said we'll use WMDs if WMDs were used against our troops in Iraq).
I hate nukes and if there was some way they could all be scooped up and disposed of Superman 4 style I'd be all for it. However most countries you know will always keep a stockpile.
MAD is quite quite mad but it has worked. If they wipe you out you do the same to them so they can't do the same to anyone else. Horrible and disgusting as it is.
I'd say just target their military capabilities with everything you have left but I suspect in these end game scenarios they probably target civilian populations to basically stop them forever more
MAD indeed.
MAD is quite quite mad but it has worked. If they wipe you out you do the same to them so they can't do the same to anyone else. Horrible and disgusting as it is.
I'd say just target their military capabilities with everything you have left but I suspect in these end game scenarios they probably target civilian populations to basically stop them forever more
MAD indeed.
No WMD's or Nuclear weapons were ever found
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2003
- Posts
- 2,038
- Location
- Cambridge
Mutually-Assured-Destruction is the main reason there's been [relative] peace since WW2.
In the event of the scenario outlined by the OP, I would choose 'retaliate', however futile it might be. At the very least it would degrade the aggressor's capability to do the same to someone else. On a purely jingoistic level, hey, if we're screwed, let's take the enemy down with us.
In the event of the scenario outlined by the OP, I would choose 'retaliate', however futile it might be. At the very least it would degrade the aggressor's capability to do the same to someone else. On a purely jingoistic level, hey, if we're screwed, let's take the enemy down with us.
Nuclear weapons sitting in subs these days are x8 more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. If someone launched a few bombs at the UK and the U.K. launched theirs in response, the nuclear fallout would be crazy, let alone the fact that the UK and attacking country would be desimated. If it sparks some sort of world-nuclear-war, goodbye Earth
Such is the way of mutually-assured-destruction I guess. Let's just hope some mad nutter doesn't get ahold of a nuke, ey?
Such is the way of mutually-assured-destruction I guess. Let's just hope some mad nutter doesn't get ahold of a nuke, ey?
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 781
- Location
- JARRA!
Should 'the button' even be a thing we need to consider. Wouldn't everyone in the world, including the planet and all life upon it be better off without any buttons?
Mutually assured genocide is not worth arguing for. Death solves mans problems, but so does understanding and a willingness to change.
Mutually assured genocide is not worth arguing for. Death solves mans problems, but so does understanding and a willingness to change.
That would be lovely, will never happen as long as humans are on the planet though. We're a stupid species.
I honestly don't now the answer to that one but I do know we'd be better off without mushy pea coloured text.
I would like to think sattelite images/tracking would give an idea of where the missile was launched from.
I wonder tho if russia have those missiles that got banned, they invented some missiles that could go in space, orbit the earth for as long as they like without fuel use and then re enter orbit near the target. Officially russia abandoned those missiles, but unofficially who knows.
I wonder tho if russia have those missiles that got banned, they invented some missiles that could go in space, orbit the earth for as long as they like without fuel use and then re enter orbit near the target. Officially russia abandoned those missiles, but unofficially who knows.
None of our Tridents carry MT warheads. They are all in the Kiloton range. Possibly up to 100kt and all are altitude detonated.
Only Russia and the US carry MT yielding missiles.