Nuclear Weapons and who has them...

Wolftone

Lixarto said:

How much will replacing Trident cost?

A weapon we can never use.

The best deterrent is indeed, the one you never have to use. I firmly believe that the global peace for the last 68 years has been courtesy of our nukes. Losing them would create an imbalance.

monquixote

Regardless of the cost of the equipment and the R&D the process of creating and assembling is still hugely complex and expensive.

 

Civilians in Russia were poor, the Russian state had nearly infinite resources because everything was nationalised. That's the whole superpower thing. 

johnnyurq

Hertz32 said:

Lixarto said:

How much will replacing Trident cost?

A weapon we can never use.

But if we didn't have it, we'd be an instant target as a global superpower with no nuclear deterrent. 
Think of it as paying to not be nuked, not to nuke other people.

I don't buy it either for many reasons, like this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24280831

MAD never engineered this type of shit out and that does not include the nutter/mad despot factor.

Add the mid 80's near launch by the USSR during a NATO war games exercise where they mistook exercise chatter for a preemptive strike. We were 3 minutes or so from oblivion.

There was a whole series of this type of cock up including a US general who got shall we say a bit "Dr Strangelove" add numerous "broken arrow" incidents by most nuclear powers. It is a miracle WWIII never happened by now.

Plus UK/GB & NI ceased being a true world power long ago and has being declining for at least 50 years, plus anyone these days the would attack us would do it conventionally.

We have been fed the BS having nukes will help keep us as a major world power where as we were/are a handy nuclear base for the US to know someone closer to Russia are friendly and have nukes.

If we had no strategic importance the US would not be interested no matter the relationship (special or otherwise) was.

We have not properly made and deployed our nukes since the US sold theirs to us, for the US it is the gift that keeps on giving we pay them billions and are here in case Russia gets uppity. They must be pissing themselves laughing.

It is doubtful that we would use them without US backing first in an case so what is the point. Plus if we suddenly get misaligned with US interests how long before we would be a rogue state i.e. not toeing the US line.

It is too bloody expensive and a liability because with nuke if a war goes nuclear, with nukes we are a high priority target.

The cold war was different an they maybe ha merit then, now though it may make us more of a marked man.

Emp_Fab

So, back to the original point...  (you lot don't half drift off on a tangent !)....   Do you think it's the elephant in the room, the sheer hypocrisy of nuclear nations telling aspiring nuclear nations 'you can't have them ! - only we can have them'.

But +1 to Johnnyurq's post above.  If we had no nukes and stopped being the US's lapdog, we would be of no interest to anyone.  The only thing we'd have would be the NHS, unemployment benefit and fish & chips.

bertie

John,   he makes no secret about it either.

monquixote

Emp_Fab said:

So, back to the original point...  (you lot don't half drift off on a tangent !)....   Do you think it's the elephant in the room, the sheer hypocrisy of nuclear nations telling aspiring nuclear nations 'you can't have them ! - only we can have them'.

I don't think it's an elephant in the room. I think it's quite explicit that they are saying we are allowed them, but you aren't.

Cirrus

A bit tangential to the discussion, but have you guys seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

All the nuclear explosions ever.

fretmeister

Nukes cost less than a large standing conventional army. Our human armed forces are no longer big enough to be a proper deterrent so the nukes have to stay

The problem is that the old boys in the club are very unlikely to use them, but the new boys might be tempted. While the risk is still small, the potential damage from that small risk is world-ending.

But the day to day risks are more likely to be from groups rather than countries and the nuclear deterrent us useless against a terrorist outfit.

We also have to remember that nations that are allies now may not be allies tomorrow. A quick glance at the history books would suggest we are due for another war with France or Spain again way before it kicks off with Korea.

CabbageCat

monquixote said:

Civilians in Russia were poor, the Russian state had nearly infinite resources because everything was nationalised. That's the whole superpower thing. 

There's no such thing as "nearly infinite".

 

Carry on.

ICBM

I think we should keep our nuclear weapons, but not Trident - which is an outdated Cold War system that's too powerful to credibly threaten anyone who might threaten us now... a deterrent which you can't actually use is not really a deterrent. Polaris did not deter Argentina in the Falklands and Trident is no better now. In my opinion we should keep a small number of truly independently controlled weapons (which we still have some of) which can be delivered by either aircraft or cruise missile.

I would ideally like to see a world with no nuclear weapons, but to achieve that requires all existing nuclear powers to disarm at the same time, and for it to be certain that no rogue nation will then acquire them again... which is a very difficult thing to do, so for now I would rather keep them, just in case.

I do also think that deterrence works - even given the number of near-accidents, MAD did keep the peace during the Cold War. The reason the many accidents *didn't* escalate into war is because people like that Russian chap knew what it meant and thought about the consequences before pressing the button - even in cases where the false alarms went further up the chain of command. More revealing, it's kept the peace between India and Pakistan now that both are nuclear powers.

The most dangerous situation is when one side has them and the other doesn't, hence there is no deterrent to the nuclear-armed side using them first - which is why Iran's new approach is to very unsubtly hint that getting rid of Israel's weapons (and possibly even the US) is preferable to developing their own. But whether even the US has the power to make the Israelis do it, I doubt.

VimFuego

what is interesting is that America (and Israel) are developing a missile defence system (which the Russians have complained about as they claim is it provocative) which is encircling both Russia and China. The Israeli version (Iron Dome 2, 3 is due to come online in the next couple of years I believe) was 90% efficient during a recent (well, few years back) Hezbollah rocket attack. Presumably when this comes online, it could mean that the US could launch a nuclear strike with little fear of retaliation. Russia are pushing for a joint missile defence system, which you can kinda understand. It looks like the latest arms race is for who can develop and deploy a reliably missile defence system the quickest.

fretmeister

Israel will never give up their nukes.

They both refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty and refuse to say whether they have them or not.

With the close geography in that part of the world Israel using nukes would almost certainly kill many of their own citizens. Maybe not in an initial blast, but with the fallout afterwards and the contamination of the water supply.

I know sod all about the creation of the independent Israel, but it seems a bit harsh that the end of British control of vast areas of Palestine didn't result in the land being merely returned to the people living there. 

Who decided how it should be carved up?

Cirrus

fretmeister said:

I know sod all about the creation of the independent Israel, but it seems a bit harsh that the end of British control of vast areas of Palestine didn't result in the land being merely returned to the people living there. 

Who decided how it should be carved up?

I completely agree with you - it was vastly unfair, and a kneejerk reaction to the holocaust which has ended up causing huge problems over the last 65 years. As far as I'm aware, it was international pressure lead by America to create a jewish state. British rule was due to end around that time anyway, and there was already a mix of jewish and arab culture in the region. Refugees were coming from Europe, and we had to work out how to leave without causing a genocide one way or the other. The solution was to split the land into jewish and arab controlled regions, which sadly fell apart when Israel decided to annex loads of land it wasn't given. But then, in fairness it was constantly being attacked from all sides.

monquixote

VimFuego said:

what is interesting is that America (and Israel) are developing a missile defence system (which the Russians have complained about as they claim is it provocative) which is encircling both Russia and China. The Israeli version (Iron Dome 2, 3 is due to come online in the next couple of years I believe) was 90% efficient during a recent (well, few years back) Hezbollah rocket attack. Presumably when this comes online, it could mean that the US could launch a nuclear strike with little fear of retaliation. Russia are pushing for a joint missile defence system, which you can kinda understand. It looks like the latest arms race is for who can develop and deploy a reliably missile defence system the quickest.

As I understand it Iron Dome is specifically designed to defend against short range attacks. 

I don't think it would do anything against a nuke. 

A major nuke attack would likely be preceded by an aerial detonation which would render most defenses useless.

Myranda

"Oi, that shield is an offensive weapon, you'll have someones eye out with that blunt item!"

While I get the idea that a missile defense system might mean the US could make a strike without fear of retaliation it's surely something that Russia could build too.

Rocketry is not something that's new to Russia... Though if the 90% figure is accurate all out nuclear war would not be a pleasant situation 10% of everywhere on earth killed 17 times over is still killing everyone on earth 1.7 times over... seems a missile defense system isn't much cop when dealing with multi-megaton weapons.

Cirrus

monquixote said:

As I understand it Iron Dome is specifically designed to defend against short range attacks. 

I don't think it would do anything against a nuke. 

A major nuke attack would likely be preceded by an aerial detonation which would render most defenses useless.

I think that's right, looking at the Wiki page it's effective up to about 33,000ft which is the kind of hight passenger aircraft cruise at. An ICBM would be waaaay higher than that for most of it's travel.

Edit: I love wikipedia. An ICBM would typically be in low earth orbit for most of its flight, about 100 times higher. You'd need '80s Regan Star Wars type technology to deal with them. I don't know what came of that program.

VimFuego

as I understand it, the 3rd phase is designed for longer range (i.e. sub orbital) missiles. The US system certainly does that, as well as lower level missiles. I'm not sure what altitude aerial detonations take place at, but patriot missiles can operate pretty high.

ICBM

fretmeister said:

Israel will never give up their nukes.

They both refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty and refuse to say whether they have them or not.

With the close geography in that part of the world Israel using nukes would almost certainly kill many of their own citizens. Maybe not in an initial blast, but with the fallout afterwards and the contamination of the water supply.

No, Tehran is a very long way from Israel, well beyond any possibility of serious contamination even if the wind was blowing that way.

I suspect the Iranians know very well that Israel won't give up theirs and hence it's a negotiating position to buy them a bit more time, then tell the world that they had no choice but to develop their own because the other side wouldn't disarm.

VimFuego

Myranda said:

"Oi, that shield is an offensive weapon, you'll have someones eye out with that blunt item!"

While I get the idea that a missile defense system might mean the US could make a strike without fear of retaliation it's surely something that Russia could build too.

Rocketry is not something that's new to Russia... Though if the 90% figure is accurate all out nuclear war would not be a pleasant situation 10% of everywhere on earth killed 17 times over is still killing everyone on earth 1.7 times over... seems a missile defense system isn't much cop when dealing with multi-megaton weapons.

I would imagine their "concern" is that the US system is somewhat more advanced than the Russian system. Presumably they think a jointly developed system would make both sides more equal and thus less likely to launch a pre-emptive strike.

fretmeister

ICBM said:

fretmeister said:

Israel will never give up their nukes.

They both refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty and refuse to say whether they have them or not.

With the close geography in that part of the world Israel using nukes would almost certainly kill many of their own citizens. Maybe not in an initial blast, but with the fallout afterwards and the contamination of the water supply.

No, Tehran is a very long way from Israel, well beyond any possibility of serious contamination even if the wind was blowing that way.

I suspect the Iranians know very well that Israel won't give up theirs and hence it's a negotiating position to buy them a bit more time, then tell the world that they had no choice but to develop their own because the other side wouldn't disarm.

I take your point about Iran, but there are closer enemies of Israel in that part of the world too. Not just Iran.