Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Neclear deterrent ?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Turbo_man (U3613871) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Is it time we replaced our nuclear deterrent?
There is talk that Trident is outdated and that we should look for alternative means of guaranteeing our survivability and deterrent.
Do we even need one in this modern age? Afterall we aren't really at any risk of invasion from anyone in the near of even distant future. Also NATO is still going and America will be more than happy to "nuke" anyone that comes too close to us.
Maybe nuclear weapons are the past and a new type of weapon will be the future? -
Message 2
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
I posted a similar thread last week and no-one posted. I'm still scarred by the rejection.
Hope you have more luck! -
Message 3
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
The Trident programme, like Polaris are remnants of the Cold War, when it was envisioned that standing armies would face each other al la WWII.
Now however the political climate is very different and instead of having the USSR to contend with we have different threats. It is hard to imagine who we would actually use nuclear weapons against.
Futhermore, to have them as a weapon of deterrence is a bit of a conundrum too - a deterrant against who?
The ownership of Nukes might grant UK a seat at the big boys table, but when you look who is at the next chair (Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, USA etc)do we really want to sit with them and hang tough, or would it not be nicer to sit with the non-nuke table and get on with non-nuke issues.
It is also ironic for a nuke wielding country (especially a country upgrading its nukes)to dictate to other countries about who can and who cannot develop nuclear research.
The UK, like it or not ins in a war against terror. These terrorists hide in population centres, they strike where and when they choose. The tactical response to these threats are soldiers on the ground, not nukes. In fact I'm sure Osama and his minnions would love it if the UK or US nuked them - it would give them the moral ascendancy. It would be the biggest recruitment drive they could ever hope for.
Now, imagine the UK did relinquish its nukes - would that at a stroke not give the UK the moral ascendancy to influence other countries to do the same without sounding hypocritical. If the UK can give up it weapons so can you. Britain could greatly enhance status on the world stage by giving up its big boys seat and adapting to the new world threats, helping to spread the message that nukes are outdated and unrequired in this day and age. -
Message 4
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Nothing to do with history.
-
Message 5
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Nothing to do with history.Μύ
I beg to differ, anyway who are you the History Police? -
Message 6
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
I don't think it's remotely fair to say that America is happy to nuke anyone who comes too close.
I can't perceive any benefit in the UK maintaining a nuclear deterrant. I'd be interested to see what other people think though. -
Message 7
Posted by overtheriver (U3153434) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
I think it's definatly time to get rid of our nukes. We've had them too long already, they have no practical use - except to blow up somewhere and the US can do that. They are a terrible waste of money as well. We could be spending the money on ensuring our soldiers on the front line have good equipment instead.
-
Message 8
Posted by Turbo_man (U3613871) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Perhaps these mini-nukes that the Bush administration wanted to test are a good idea?
The current nelcear weapons we have are rather useless, as has been pointed out, in the current world we live in. I think a new type of deterrent is the answer, perhaps not even a deterrent, but a sole gurantee of our continued supremacy on the planet.
Our current weapons are basically meant to splatter the enemies populated areas and also to wipe out massive advacing armies. I think more development of new weapons is a good thing. Are min-nukes a real possibility?
More and more nations are aquiring nuclear weapons and i feel we need something that can pre-empt this or something that will deter them from using them, as our weapon is much more powerful.
In short i am not entirely sure what we should do, but that we should remain at the top of the pile. -
Message 9
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Nothing to do with history.Μύ
I beg to differ, anyway who are you the History Police?
Μύ
Go on then, tell me what this has to do with history? It's current affairs. -
Message 10
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Nothing to do with history.Μύ
I beg to differ, anyway who are you the History Police?
Μύ
Go on then, tell me what this has to do with history? It's current affairs.Μύ
Clankylad,
I'm currently in the measgeboard for:
Wars & Conflicts - Weaponry, tactics, strategies and World War Two β join the debate.
I've joined the debate and so have some others. I certainly think that Nukes qaulify to be discussed in the Wars & Conflict messageboard. (Maybe they don't buy who cares!) If you have something to say regarding the topic of a nuclear deterrant please feel free to contribute, if not why bother analysing others postings to see if they meet the strict criteria you seem to expect? Let me and the other contributers get on with it. -
Message 11
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
I think more development of new weapons is a good thing. Are min-nukes a real possibility?
More and more nations are aquiring nuclear weapons and i feel we need something that can pre-empt this or something that will deter them from using them, as our weapon is much more powerful.
.Μύ
TurboMan - who is this them you are referring to?
What in the world would we need a weapon even more powerful than the current batch of nuclear weapons for. We alrady have the capacity to wipe out pretty much the entire planet and you suggest building more potent weapons! That is crazy-talk. If an aggressor is prepared to use a nuke against us (tooled up as we are) he is hardly going to be put off if we have super-nukes. You can only die once. -
Message 12
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
-
Message 13
Posted by overtheriver (U3153434) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Μύ
well said. -
Message 14
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Nothing to do with history.Μύ
I beg to differ, anyway who are you the History Police?
Μύ
Go on then, tell me what this has to do with history? It's current affairs.Μύ
Clankylad,
I'm currently in the measgeboard for:
Wars & Conflicts - Weaponry, tactics, strategies and World War Two β join the debate.
I've joined the debate and so have some others. I certainly think that Nukes qaulify to be discussed in the Wars & Conflict messageboard. (Maybe they don't buy who cares!) If you have something to say regarding the topic of a nuclear deterrant please feel free to contribute, if not why bother analysing others postings to see if they meet the strict criteria you seem to expect? Let me and the other contributers get on with it.
Μύ
Oops, posted a blank one there!
I just find that as soon as messageboards start on current affairs they quickly become infested with 9/11 cranks and 'Jewish conspiracy' nuts. And whatever you say, whether we replace our nuclear deterrent or not has nothing to do with history. -
Message 15
Posted by Turbo_man (U3613871) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Them is the enemy, whoever they may be
We always need something more powerful than the enemy to deter him from even thinking about waging war. I believe a more refined weapon than the nuke is to be the future, not something that causes mass damage on the scale of the nuke but seomthing that will incapacitate the enemy and limit his ability to wage war.
Perhaps something similar to the neutron bomb but without the lonlasting damage which is left behind. I would guess that something on an EMP type of level would be the future, minimizing casualties but at the same time crippling the armies.
Surely we need to stay on the top?
I think more development of new weapons is a good thing. Are min-nukes a real possibility?
More and more nations are aquiring nuclear weapons and i feel we need something that can pre-empt this or something that will deter them from using them, as our weapon is much more powerful.
.Μύ
TurboMan - who is this them you are referring to?
What in the world would we need a weapon even more powerful than the current batch of nuclear weapons for. We alrady have the capacity to wipe out pretty much the entire planet and you suggest building more potent weapons! That is crazy-talk. If an aggressor is prepared to use a nuke against us (tooled up as we are) he is hardly going to be put off if we have super-nukes. You can only die once.Μύ -
Message 16
Posted by Turbo_man (U3613871) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
hi clankylad,
Perhaps it has nothing to do with history but more to do with the future.
Are you aware of a future board that concerns wars and conflict? I would be more than happy to take it there.
I feel this is the best place for this type of discussion, I am sorry you don't. -
Message 17
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
I would agree with the general consensus (and by the way I think it's an interesting thread). The current generation of nukes all seem to be cold war orientated of the ICBM submarine and silo based nature and a genuine argument is who are we actually likely to use these against?
The cost of such weapons surely out ways any perceived usefulness in this day and age.
However against all logic we still live in a very uncertain world and I would still replace trident at such time with a new submarine based nuclear weapons system irrespective of cost.
I still think there is a lot of "piece of mind" to be gained by having a nuclear deterrent. Especially looking at countries like Israel, Pakistan and India as well as the Middle East in General. Also China carries a massive potential threat from a military perspective.
But I agree the biggest threat the UK now faces is terrorist action as opposed to invasion from a hostile nation and more emphasis needs to be placed on counter terror units like the SAS & MI6 etc. -
Message 18
Posted by pop-picker (U1244478) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
I do think it would be great if Britain no longer needed a nuclear deterrent but who knows whatβs going to happen in the future, the world is full of lots of nutters who would like to cause us harm. Wasnβt the reason we got rid of our βbiggishβ carriers as we couldnβt foresee any kind of threat that justified them, the Falklands conflict was just something that wasnβt even remotely considered. An eventual modernisation of Trident maybe to smaller warheads is the way I see us going.
-
Message 19
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
hi clankylad,
Perhaps it has nothing to do with history but more to do with the future.
Are you aware of a future board that concerns wars and conflict? I would be more than happy to take it there.
I feel this is the best place for this type of discussion, I am sorry you don't.Μύ
Fair enough - I'll butt out now...
-
Message 20
Posted by Turbo_man (U3613871) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Or alternatively you could contribute? hi clankylad,
Perhaps it has nothing to do with history but more to do with the future.
Are you aware of a future board that concerns wars and conflict? I would be more than happy to take it there.
I feel this is the best place for this type of discussion, I am sorry you don't.Μύ
Fair enough - I'll butt out now...Μύ
-
Message 21
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Them is the enemy, whoever they may be
We always need something more powerful than the enemy to deter him from even thinking about waging war. I
Surely we need to stay on the top?
I think more development of new weapons is a good thing. Are min-nukes a real possibility?
More and more nations are aquiring nuclear weapons and i feel we need something that can pre-empt this or something that will deter them from using them, as our weapon is much more powerful.
.Μύ
Μύ Μύ
Turbo_man it is precsley this sort of attitude which fuels athe arms race. It is that sort of attitude which other nations to seek deadlier and deadlier weapons. Does this make the world safer? You can almost see the Iranian point of view, if they come up against the logic you cite in your enthusiasm to upgrade to more deadly weapons.
The enemy is the enemy is a myopic statement, it would be useful if you could state which nation (or whatever) you percieve as a potential threat.
Now the USSR is no more, the MAD policy is outdated, producing more and more lethal weapons is hardly going to make the world a safer place nowadays. It is going to make it more and more dangerous. When non-nuclear nations see the nuclear nations tooling-up, do you not think that will send out the wrong message and merely encourage nuclear proliferation and the arms race. How can we tell Iran not to go nuclear when we are upgrading. Is this not hypocritical.
The whole 'surely we need to stay on top' attitude is a dangerous and hawkish outlook. It is the 'we must stay on top attitude' that partially ignited WW1, it was the 'we must stay on top' brigade that spurs India and Pakistan to out-gun each other. It is the 'must stay on top brigade' that encourages the world to recognise coutries as top players in the world merely becasue they have nukes. Maybe Iran just wants to 'stay on top' as you put it.
If we could stop trying to stay on top of each other and just get along, the world would be a lot safer. -
Message 22
Posted by Turbo_man (U3613871) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
hi slimdaddy101,
"If we could stop trying to stay on top of each other and just get along, the world would be a lot safer."
In an ideal world this would be so, but i have to say as we are humans this will never be so. Trying to take advantage of one another is part of our makeup.
Whether it be the Russians, the Chinese or even the Americans we must always be able to defend ourselves against any agressor, and i feel that a weapon of such magnitude, that can wipe out the other before he even thinks about doing anything, is a valuable resource.
Would we begin to see other nations take less notice of ourselves once we relinquished nuclear weapons? They are surely are powerful bargaining chip in all negotiation. -
Message 23
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
Μύ
That is the smartest thing he has said since he joined the thread. -
Message 24
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
Turbo,
Would you prefer to live in a world where the UK has no Nukes but Iran has a boatload.
Matt. -
Message 25
Posted by MSemyon (U3639620) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
Do we even need one in this modern age? Afterall we aren't really at any risk of invasion from anyone in the near of even distant future.
Μύ
I'm afraid that the geopolitical situation of the is somewhat more tenuous than you'd like to believe. Have you checked in on China's procurement of military hardware lately? Or from whom they are obtaining their equipment? The "end" of the Cold War did not leave in its wake quite the happy, friendly relations between nations that some would have you believe. Their are still much greater threats to the security of Western nations than small bands of fundamentalist terrorist.
America will be more than happy to "nuke" anyone that comes too close to us.Μύ
America is stretch to its breaking point and quite possibly beyond as we speak. It may sound ludicrous, but the truth is that there are any number of nations (most of them aligned with one another to a greater or lesser extent) that could hopelessly overmatch the US militarily. -
Message 26
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 29th March 2006
Do we even need one in this modern age? Afterall we aren't really at any risk of invasion from anyone in the near of even distant future.
Μύ
I'm afraid that the geopolitical situation of the is somewhat more tenuous than you'd like to believe. Have you checked in on China's procurement of military hardware lately? Or from whom they are obtaining their equipment? The "end" of the Cold War did not leave in its wake quite the happy, friendly relations between nations that some would have you believe. Their are still much greater threats to the security of Western nations than small bands of fundamentalist terrorist.
America will be more than happy to "nuke" anyone that comes too close to us.Μύ
America is stretch to its breaking point and quite possibly beyond as we speak. It may sound ludicrous, but the truth is that there are any number of nations (most of them aligned with one another to a greater or lesser extent) that could hopelessly overmatch the US militarily.Μύ
Your right, it does sound ludicrous. -
Message 27
Posted by donkei (U1801634) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
1945 is now a long time ago. During the Cold War it was sufficiently recent for people to have a current knowledge and hence fear of the potency of nuclear weapons. Both NATO and the USSR were all too aware of the potential consequences and hence the deterrent effect worked. Nuclear weapons are spoken about much more in the abstract now and this is dangerous. I fear that this will lead to their use in some conflict or other around the world in the next half century, until new generations learn the lesson again.
If deterrence is not going to work, then there is no point in having nuclear weapons unless you really do plan to blow something up big time. Hence the only sensible way forward is multilateral nuclear disarmament (it would save a heck of a lot of money). The only trouble is that this would require the current leading nuclear powers, the USA, Britain, France, China and Russia to show some joint leadership initiative in the matter. They show precious little sign of doing so, as, once again they are too wrapped up in themselves to think about the bigger world picture. -
Message 28
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
Re: Message 27.
Donkei,
"too wrapped up in themselves to think about the bigger world picture"
As in North Korea and Iran?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 29
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
Re: Message 25.
Semyon,
I wanted to reply in the same lines, starting with China and adding the new born Russia. But you said it better than I could say it.
Kind regards. -
Message 30
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 30th March 2006
Re: Message 21.
Slimdaddy,
The Big Three (The West, Russia, China) have already their deterrent potential. They can only start to decrease it, evenly. And will The West and Russia trust the Chinese? Will The West trust the Russians and the Chinese?
If they cooperate they can make peace in the world by obliging the non-nuclear proliferation from "wild states" as North-Korea and Iran. All the small ones are to stay silent if the big ones are talking, otherwise if they talk the Three silent them with conventional weapons.
That's the way it works till now.
The big dramatic effect would be if the Big Three came offended to each other and start a war. Still the same as during the Cold War. You can call it a Hot Peace.
Kind regards,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.