Replacing The Trident Defence System
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
And how would we go about finding out who they bought it from?
So if Al Qaeda detonated a nuclear weapon on UK soil/against UK assets your idea would be to bomb Afghanistan?
No afghan shows what we think of state sponsored terrorism.
We would bomb who ever gave them the weapon.
It's probably very simple. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be traced like in sum of all fears. i mean we can trace soil like that. Then there's bomb design and yield. Money. Limited number of people with the nessecery expertise and so on.
Last edited:
Exactly. Too many True Lies fans here.
So the consensus so far is nukes are good for deterrant purposes. This I understand. But can the cost really be justified? Is there any alternative at all? Or is it subs or nothing?
How simple would it really be to trace back to where the bomb was bought from? I'm assuming it's not as simple as made out in the world of Hollywood.
How simple would it really be to trace back to where the bomb was bought from? I'm assuming it's not as simple as made out in the world of Hollywood.
IMO cost is more than justified and no there are no alternatives. Not unless you want to buy a couple of stealth bombers which would probably cost more and have a larger risk of being taken out. At $1.7-2.2 billion each and you would need several. And the chances are America wouldn't even sell it to us. So we would have to design and build it ourselfs. So you could mutiply that cost by a large factor. Then you have to factor in the costs of the nukes and other support as well.
Last edited:
Waste of money, waste of time. Nuclear weapons make you more of a target, the MAD defence theory doesnt work (think its time to watch dr strange love again really) as it relies on both sides having the same value on human life, it could never account for someone (like a james bond villain) going nuts and doing it regardless of the consequences.
Living in a world of fear is not living at all, its waiting for death. We should use the money on positive aspects our lives and not being pre-occupied with an imaginary threat.
Living in a world of fear is not living at all, its waiting for death. We should use the money on positive aspects our lives and not being pre-occupied with an imaginary threat.
I dont know why the yanks didn't carry on pushing forward with the 'star wars project' and actually look at a system for taking the nukes down effectively.
I'd rather see us poor money into that than another deterrent.
It would render lots of these tin pot dictators out of the question, while they are still trying to find a decent way to launch them.
I'd rather see us poor money into that than another deterrent.
It would render lots of these tin pot dictators out of the question, while they are still trying to find a decent way to launch them.
It does work, there are few truly insane people in power. Dictators and the lead terrorists like two things power and their life. They would no more kill their selfs than anyone else.
Less effective, infact it would allow the enemy more time, plus if the sub/ facility is destroyed then there could be no counter attack.
MAD only works if both sides launch simultaneously, if not then the side that launchs 1st has a greater advantage.
That's the point of the subs. They are hidden and manoeuvrable and is extremely unlikely to get taken out in any attack. which means we can launch after being hit. Ensuring MAD stands. If we had silos. If they took them out before we could launch, MAD would not exist. Which is why one is always on patrol.
Waste of money imo. Because:
1) Designed for the cold war, you really could deterr the Russians with MAD as they didn't all want to die. This threat has gone and ain't coming back.
2) There are no realisitic circumstances where it would be used. Therefore if you basically would never use it, it is thus useless. Would we really attack Iran and kill a load of civillians if we suffered a nuclear strike from them? What's the point?
1) Designed for the cold war, you really could deterr the Russians with MAD as they didn't all want to die. This threat has gone and ain't coming back.
2) There are no realisitic circumstances where it would be used. Therefore if you basically would never use it, it is thus useless. Would we really attack Iran and kill a load of civillians if we suffered a nuclear strike from them? What's the point?
We do not have it to use it, we have it as a deterrent.
Terrorist leaders and crackpot dictators do not want to die. There is a massive difference between leaders and suicide bombers. Therefore MAD is still relevant.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Yes we need nuclear weapons.
War would go like this, if people had the balls to actually use them
[hitler]
1: Surrender now or else
2: Screw you
(capital city of 2 has been destroyed following a 30mt strike 1 hour after given chance to surrender)
2: WE SURRENDER
1: too late, we gave you a chance
(all population of 2 is exterminated with other means once a few nukes are used to disrupt everything)
-------------------------------------------
1: Surrender now, or else
3: WE SURRENDERRRRRR
[/hitler]
doesnt really work though, the world just isnt big enough for that
War would go like this, if people had the balls to actually use them
[hitler]
1: Surrender now or else
2: Screw you
(capital city of 2 has been destroyed following a 30mt strike 1 hour after given chance to surrender)
2: WE SURRENDER
1: too late, we gave you a chance
(all population of 2 is exterminated with other means once a few nukes are used to disrupt everything)
-------------------------------------------
1: Surrender now, or else
3: WE SURRENDERRRRRR
[/hitler]
doesnt really work though, the world just isnt big enough for that
I'm pretty sure you're right, I think they're on one of they're No No lists, hell they won't even give use access to software source codes for chinooks and F-35's we're buying off them.
I think our current SLBM is a good platform to have, just wish it was more independant and less reliant on the Americans overall though.
So, let me get this right. You have seen/read Sum of All Fears so reckon tracing a bomb, a nuclear one, will be a simple task. Not only that but you can be so certain that you can then retaliate with a nuke killing countless lives? Have you any idea how dumb that sounds?
are you really saying you think if Iran was to hit us with a Nuke we shouldnt hit them back with 20nukes?
I am not an expert that is why I said I RECKON. Do you know they can't be traced like that?
We can trace money, we do know who the people with the expertise our, we do know about bomb designs and yields.
Its not a deterrent if we wouldnt use it. I think it was Rifkind that admitted that he personally would never use the missles, even after an attack, as all it would do is kill civillians.