Nuclear Weapons and who has them...

Emp_Fab · September 2013

Just looking at the news about Iran's newfound willingness to discuss their nuclear programme...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24286548

...and it strikes me as ridiculous that all the countries that bang on the most about preventing nuclear proliferation are the ones that already have them. It seems hypocritical in the extreme for the likes of the USA & China to put pressure on Iran to not develop nuclear weapons whilst they are happily making more for themselves !

If they're truly committed to a nuclear weapon free planet, then lets see them dismantling theirs, under international scrutiny, before they go gobbing off to anyone else.... but.... that's not gonna happen is it ? Take their big sticks away ?.... Oooooh no !

Lixarto · September 2013

How much will replacing Trident cost?

A weapon we can never use.

Hertz32 · September 2013

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.

Lixarto · September 2013

I don't buy that.

gilby · September 2013

How would anyone know we didn't have them anymore if we got shot of them on the sly ? Keep the subs moving about and no ones the wiser.

VimFuego · September 2013

I reckon that's what we already did, got rid of them years ago. We say we bought new ones, but I reckon that's just some dodgy receipts and they spent the money on pies and shit.

Hertz32 · September 2013

gilby said:

How would anyone know we didn't have them anymore if we got shot of them on the sly ? Keep the subs moving about and no ones the wiser.

Because no doubt some civil servant would be paid to "lose" a memory stick saying just that, and the Mail would find it -_-
In my opinion, we have them, and we are perfectly justified in their existence.
Not saying I wouldn't rather that we didn't need them, I'm all for world peace!

Hertz32 · September 2013

Lixarto said:

I don't buy that.

Really? It's pretty much what caused AND prevented the cold war...
M.A.D is the term, Mutually Assured Destruction.
If you nuke us, we'll nuke you. So don't.

If we lost our nuclear defences we'd become a target for Korea, especially seeing as the US and the UK have an agreement preventing the other from intervening in a nuclear strike against the other. Stopping WW3 and all that...
Hitting us, would be the best way to piss off the Americans without getting nuked back.

monquixote · September 2013

Hertz32 said:

Lixarto said:

I don't buy that.

Really? It's pretty much what caused AND prevented the cold war...
M.A.D is the term, Mutually Assured Destruction.
If you nuke us, we'll nuke you. So don't.

If we lost our nuclear defences we'd become a target for Korea, especially seeing as the US and the UK have an agreement preventing the other from intervening in a nuclear strike against the other. Stopping WW3 and all that...
Hitting us, would be the best way to piss off the Americans without getting nuked back.

Is that actually true?

I thought the Mutual Defence Agreement meant that our missiles were effectively part of a joint NATO system where all the missiles were actually owned by the US and the two countries acted in tandem.

Myranda · September 2013

There was a statistic on a TV documentary about nuclear weapons that suggested that at the height of craziness America and Russia alone had a sufficient nuclear arsenal to destroy every square inch of the surface of the world 17 times over.

One problem with M.A.D. is that (aside from it being mad) is that to really and fully work, all nations should have a nuclear arsenal... but then one nutter in charge of one nation and the whole world gets killed... so ban them - but how to police it?

The more nuclear weapons there are the more likely it is that one will get stolen - and even without the proper detonation codes it still contains enough radioactive material to make a horrendously powerful dirty bomb. The more likely that nations like North Korea will be mental enough to use one...

Here's the other problem with M.A.D. ok so nutter A has ignored the threat and fired nukes at you. Suddenly your deterrent is useless - it's only use now would be for revenge, a revenge that would require the murder of millions... who wants to be the person who murdered millions of innocents because 1 nutter with a button pushed said button.

I've had rather a lot of Monster today so I'm not sure I make any sense... so I'll stop now

VimFuego · September 2013

Myranda said:

who wants to be the person who murdered millions of innocents because 1 nutter with a button pushed said button.

hmmm, is there an interview process? what are the hours like?

Hertz32 · September 2013

Would it help to tell you all that Russia built so many super duper secret nuke silos in the Cold War, that its forgotten where some of them are?

Nice one Russia...

Myranda · September 2013

Well, it's an on call position, but you only get paid for your time actually pushing the button...

Interview process is simple you have a button, and are told that if you press it someone will stamp on a puppy that you can't see. If you press the button you're in.

VimFuego · September 2013

fuck that, I ain't signing now zero hour contract. 40 hours guaranteed of get yourself another button monkey.

Myranda · September 2013

Hertz32 said:

Would it help to tell you all that Russia built so many super duper secret nuke silos in the Cold War, that its forgotten where some of them are?

Nice one Russia...

Who has time to keep track of their doomsday devices?! I certainly don't!

monquixote · September 2013

Hertz32 said:

Would it help to tell you all that Russia built so many super duper secret nuke silos in the Cold War, that its forgotten where some of them are?

Nice one Russia...

Again I'm not convinced this is true.

Nukes cost billions, you don't forget about them.

Myranda · September 2013

It costs billions to begin making nukes... once the production line is sorted - it's merely a case of mine metal, put metal in wet box, refine decayed metal, put in bomb.

That's how russia was able to make so many nukes while it was relatively poor.

The reason Trident will cost loads to replace it two-fold. Designing and building and testing the new missles and upgrading the launch systems etc...

Silos are relatively simple - dig hole add concrete and a few computers.

That said, it might still not be true that russia has misplaced any - I'd imagine they have some form of map...

monquixote · September 2013

Myranda said:

It costs billions to begin making nukes... once the production line is sorted - it's merely a case of mine metal, put metal in wet box, refine decayed metal, put in bomb.

That's how russia was able to make so many nukes while it was relatively poor.

The reason Trident will cost loads to replace it two-fold. Designing and building and testing the new missles and upgrading the launch systems etc...

Silos are relatively simple - dig hole add concrete and a few computers.

That said, it might still not be true that russia has misplaced any - I'd imagine they have some form of map...

Sorry Myranda, that's total bollocks.

Myranda · September 2013

So are nuclear power stations and enrichment centrifuges one use affairs?

The science of designing and building the machines that build things is always more expensive than the per unit cost.

Individual nukes wont be that expensive to make once you've invested in the infrastructure that builds them. Russia built thousands of nukes...

Hertz32 · September 2013

Its more about appearances with nuclear weapons, which is why Korea paraded some empty tubes mocked up to look like missiles on some celebration day not long ago, id image the same was true of russia. Manufacture the silo, a "cheap" nuke, and dont tell anyone that doesn't need to know where it is.
I'd have thought you could lost them fairly easily in a country that size, that only the staff aware of its location.

Drew_TNBD · September 2013

monquixote said:

Myranda said:

It costs billions to begin making nukes... once the production line is sorted - it's merely a case of mine metal, put metal in wet box, refine decayed metal, put in bomb.

That's how russia was able to make so many nukes while it was relatively poor.

The reason Trident will cost loads to replace it two-fold. Designing and building and testing the new missles and upgrading the launch systems etc...

Silos are relatively simple - dig hole add concrete and a few computers.

That said, it might still not be true that russia has misplaced any - I'd imagine they have some form of map...

Sorry Myranda, that's total bollocks.

Oooooo get you!! Resident forum nuculeaarr expert over here!

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Nuclear Weapons and who has them...

Comments