Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nukes and the UK's Role on the Global Stage

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • TonyT
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Oct 2006
    • 9021

    #21
    Its the MAD theory in that countries would never enter a war using nuclear weapons against another nuclear power because it would ensure their own destruction hence MAD ( mutual assured destruction ) and when you are caught on the back foot in a conventional war, your conventional forces are about to be destroyed and your country overrun, the country losing may opt to use nuclear weapons as a last resort, so you are naturally cautious about attacking that country in any form in the first place as you know it may rapidly escalate out of control and result in the destruction of both countries.
    Remember in defeat those with their fingers on the button are often those that get topped, so they have nothing to lose.
    During my service in the RAF we trained to operate in a Nuclear Biological and Chemical war and reflecting on it, I think the best place to have been would have been at ground zero, cigar in one hand, beer in the other and a damned attractive woman underneath me.. With 3 minutes to go I think I'd finish the beer, but maybe not the rest

    ..
    Last edited by TonyT; 18th February 2016, 18:10.

    Comment

    • Beermat
      1 Registered Rank Loser
      • Oct 2009
      • 3639

      #22


      It must be odd having been involved in the nuclear deterrent, seriously not now knowing whether you helped save the world or not.

      I am perhaps unfairly reminded of a scenario my lecturer in formal logic ran by us. Two chaps on a bus in Hull. One is constantly pouring vinegar into his pockets. The other says 'Sorry, I have to ask - why are you doing that"?
      "Keeps the Leopards away, doesn't it"
      "But you don't get Leopards in East Yorkshire. In Western Europe at all, in fact"
      "Yep. Bloody effective, isn't it'?
      www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
      It's all good. Probably.

      Comment

      • TonyT
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Oct 2006
        • 9021

        #23
        It must be odd having been involved in the nuclear deterrent, seriously not now knowing whether you helped save the world or not.
        Your still here are you not, so we must have been doing something right all those years ago, the ones we used are now consigned to museums, when visiting one and seeing a WE177 on display ( Inert round) I gave it a swift kick then explained to an aghast couple next to me that the last time I saw one it was strapped to a Jet, was live and ready to go if the hooter ever went off.... Simply touching them at the time would have you doing a quickstep out of the front gates..
        Last edited by TonyT; 19th February 2016, 00:30.

        Comment

        • J Boyle
          With malice towards none
          • Oct 2004
          • 9790

          #24
          Originally posted by Beermat View Post
          It must be odd having been involved in the nuclear deterrent, seriously not now knowing whether you helped save the world or not.
          No more odd than wondering "what if?" about virtually anything.
          The people that served their country obviously think what they did was important...far better than being a self serving whatever.
          There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

          Comment

          • Beermat
            1 Registered Rank Loser
            • Oct 2009
            • 3639

            #25
            Re. all of us still being here, you get my point about the daft leopard story? It doesn't demonstrate anything that there was no WWIII. Other arguments are needed to confirm, with hindsight, the validity of a deterrent in the absence of an attack, and they necessarily involve an element of 'what if'.

            HOWEVER the first part was not meant facetiously. I have nothing but respect for all those who served, and did so for all the right reasons.

            There are limits to that, of course. It was a paid job, too. I do not hold with the 'every one a hero' bull.

            Has anyone seen that piece by the Vulcan Captain turned CND activist in the current 'Aeroplane'?

            Not sure either way, myself.
            Last edited by Beermat; 19th February 2016, 10:45.
            www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
            It's all good. Probably.

            Comment

            • John Green
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Mar 2011
              • 6643

              #26
              Originally posted by TonyT View Post
              Its the MAD theory in that countries would never enter a war using nuclear weapons against another nuclear power because it would ensure their own destruction hence MAD ( mutual assured destruction ) and when you are caught on the back foot in a conventional war, your conventional forces are about to be destroyed and your country overrun, the country losing may opt to use nuclear weapons as a last resort, so you are naturally cautious about attacking that country in any form in the first place as you know it may rapidly escalate out of control and result in the destruction of both countries.
              Remember in defeat those with their fingers on the button are often those that get topped, so they have nothing to lose.
              During my service in the RAF we trained to operate in a Nuclear Biological and Chemical war and reflecting on it, I think the best place to have been would have been at ground zero, cigar in one hand, beer in the other and a damned attractive woman underneath me.. With 3 minutes to go I think I'd finish the beer, but maybe not the rest

              ..

              Tony,

              "With three minutes to go..."

              That's not Mrs. T's version !

              Comment

              • TonyT
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Oct 2006
                • 9021

                #27
                Germany is a tad closer

                At least they would light my cigar for me.. Post launch of the jets I don't think we would have ever seen them again and I doubt the station would have been there for their return, us included. Most of the Vulcan crews etc would have probably simply carried on East post strike in the hope of finding a nice Mongolian woman to shack up with.


                In a perfect world Beermat no one would have them, but alas we do not live in a perfect world.

                ..
                Last edited by TonyT; 19th February 2016, 10:50.

                Comment

                • J Boyle
                  With malice towards none
                  • Oct 2004
                  • 9790

                  #28
                  Originally posted by Beermat View Post
                  Re. all of us still being here, you get my point about the daft leopard story? It doesn't demonstrate anything that there was no WWIII. Other arguments are needed to confirm, with hindsight, the validity of a deterrent in the absence of an attack...
                  Conversely, the fact that several countries had the weapons AND we're still here does not confirm the validity of the anti-nuke brigade's arguments.
                  Of course today (and tomorrow) we need to worry less about Russia vs. NATO and more about the real renegade nations and factions that the CND probably didn't know existed in the 80s when they were at their peak.
                  Last edited by J Boyle; 20th February 2016, 07:49.
                  There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

                  Comment

                  • Beermat
                    1 Registered Rank Loser
                    • Oct 2009
                    • 3639

                    #29
                    Yes. The problem is the threats are coming from people who rather like the idea of armageddon.
                    www.whirlwindfighterproject.org
                    It's all good. Probably.

                    Comment

                    • TonyT
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Oct 2006
                      • 9021

                      #30
                      My concern would not be a bunch of religious nutters or countries getting hold of the bomb in the short term, my concern would be the likes of Isis getting hold of nuclear materials and producing a dirty bomb, that is a conventional explosive surrounded by radioactive material that If detonated in the likes of the underground would be pushed via the air in front of the trains through the tunnels and out through the vents all over London.

                      Comment

                      • John Green
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Mar 2011
                        • 6643

                        #31
                        Tony,

                        I think that ISIL are a 'bunch of religeous nutters' intent on their version of world domination via a Caliphate - or, so they claim. Beermat was being coy.

                        Comment

                        • MrBlueSky
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2006
                          • 1154

                          #32
                          http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex...rticle/2579715
                          Last edited by MrBlueSky; 21st February 2016, 11:04.

                          Comment

                          • silver fox
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • May 2008
                            • 693

                            #33
                            The efectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is always open to dispute/debate, however many of us will remember the Cuban missile crisis, Khrushchev expecting/hoping that Kennedy would back down, the nuclear arsenals of Britain and the USA went to their highest state of readiness ever, even Khrushchev decided that the whole damn thing was getting too dangerous and turned his ships round, I would think that is one instance of nuclear deterrence working.

                            Regarding the current state and cost of nuclear weapons, while it would be good to free up major expenditure, there is and will continue to be enough nutters around who given the opportunity would happily demolish a country if they thought they could get away with it.
                            Last edited by silver fox; 1st March 2016, 20:37.

                            Comment

                            • Creaking Door
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Sep 2006
                              • 9863

                              #34
                              In terms of cost, nuclear deterrence always sounds expensive, but is it really?

                              I think the current thinking is 30billion over twenty years? Now 30billion is a lot of money but since the United Kingdom government currently spends about 700billion per year the cost of a replacement for Trident is equivalent to about a day and a half of a year's total spending per year of the programme; so for what you're getting (or maybe not getting), is it that expensive?
                              Last edited by Creaking Door; 3rd March 2016, 23:11.
                              WA$.

                              Comment

                              • charliehunt
                                Nearly there!
                                • Oct 2012
                                • 11459

                                #35
                                Originally posted by Creaking Door View Post
                                In terms of cost, nuclear deterrence always sounds expensive, but is it really?
                                With Foreign Aid at 175 million over the same period - at today's rates - no!!
                                Charlie

                                Keep smiling - it's never as bad as you think!!

                                Comment

                                • j_jza80
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Apr 2011
                                  • 1546

                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by Rii View Post
                                  .....
                                  I'm not sure whether you were being serious, or just using this topic to have a dig at the UK, which is something you seem to relish. But in several points, you actually manage to defeat your own argument far more eloquently than I can manage.

                                  Do you have some invested interest in our nuclear deterrent that isn't apparent?

                                  Comment

                                  Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                  Collapse

                                   

                                  Working...
                                  X