The US and other countries have a lot of silos and the nukes are moved around. In fact, the nukes are also fake moved around by transporters with nothing in them. Means that anyone trying to target them has a lot of potential targets to disable before launching . . .
Scrap Trident ICBM program?
- Thread starter Ali195
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
I said it.Why not use silos? Should be cheaper, no? Sure the missle would take longer to get to the target but, if they can defend themselves from that they should subs.
If the subs can even make it..
I dont understand the guy who said the UK isn't "big" enough to have them.
Heck, what about invested in some stealth bombers
There is no suitable site for silos in the UK. Suitable in terms of nearby population, terrain etc.... There isn't even suitable sites for submarine docks south of Hadrian's wall! Read about RAF Spadeadam.
Geography and public opinion aside, everyone is moving away from silos, they're very hard to secure for a start, and the enemy knows where they are. China and Russia are both opting for mobile land launchers, US more subs. UK abandoned its silo programme decades ago after Blue Streak cancellation.
Seriously, since the cancellation of Blue Strek and WE.177, we only have Trident. Submarines are the best way to deliver this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
Submarines can hide for extended periods and strike without warning.
Should it come to it, the most important thing is to be able to retaliate. I'd like to know the enemy got a bloody nose for messing with us.
Imo Blue Streak was to prove to the Americans we can develop our own systems to deliver nuclear ordinance. Once they recognised this, they invited us into bed.
Should it come to it, the most important thing is to be able to retaliate. I'd like to know the enemy got a bloody nose for messing with us.
Imo Blue Streak was to prove to the Americans we can develop our own systems to deliver nuclear ordinance. Once they recognised this, they invited us into bed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Not totally. It was ****. It took 15 mins to fuel - some bloomin deterant, plus, as said here, they simply couldn't find decent sites.Imo Blue Streak was to prove to the Americans we can develop our own systems to deliver nuclear ordinance. Once they recognised this, they invited us into bed.
You realize that MAD/nuclear deterrents only work while it;s impossible to stop ICBM's, once we and others can do that you can;t threaten cities only use tactical nuclear artillery etc on troops.
So yeah in all likelihood some where in the next 4 billion years this planet has left there will be another global war (probbably quite a few)
No wonder there's technocrats making these decisions for us when highlighting the laughable comparison between the Olympics and the Trident submarines is met with a '?'
No you just can't read.
Well yeh maybe in the next 4 billion years. I'm only really interested in the next 70 or so.
Well I would never want the UK to kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Never. "Retaliation" does not justify it, not even close.As for it being the most important thing? Geez, wouldn't trying the put the country back together again be more important? Or on a wider scale putting human civilisation back together again? Lobbing another dozen nukes around is hardly going to help that one iota.
WEll it;s more than likely that either the Americans will be able to shoot an ICBM down with good reliability by then.
But what about the 70 years your children will live?
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Lets pick a random country, Blingblong.
As for it being the most important thing? Geez, wouldn't trying the put the country back together again be more important? Or on a wider scale putting human civilisation back together again? Lobbing another dozen nukes around is hardly going to help that one iota.
Tensions between UK and Blingblong rapidly deteriorate over the years, leading to a decade long stand-off. Blingblong develops nuclear weapons and threatens the UK with them.
1) The UK has no nuclear weapons as they got rid of them to save money and make people happy. The US adopt a policy of non-interference (cf. Falklands conflict) and thus the UK has to surrender to Blingblong or face annihilation.
2) The UK has nuclear weapons, but, will not fire at Blingblong even if fired upon to save "hundreds of thousands or even millions of people". Blingblong fires at UK, the UK is wiped out completely. The rest of the world do not intervene to avoid being Blingblong's next target. Blingblong survives to remain a significant threat to the world. Any enemies of Blingblong are quickly destroyed.
3) The UK has a sizeable nuclear deterrant. Blingblong realises this and does not fire, knowing it will be MAD.
As for it being the most important thing? Geez, wouldn't trying the put the country back together again be more important? Or on a wider scale putting human civilisation back together again? Lobbing another dozen nukes around is hardly going to help that one iota.
Actually no, you need to destroy the enemy before you can rebuild, or do you think they'll just sit there nicely and let you build back. No they'd invade and conquer.
couldnt care less as I will be dead.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 3,691
Wouldn't it be weird if we decovered mankind had only just recovered from a past nuclear war?