The british nuclear weapons plans

BlitzKrieg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6205174.stm

Running through the two major threats that the western world faces, one is obviously terrorism, which even if it was nuclear terrorism wouldnt warrant an expansion to a nations nuclear program would it? Terrorism is independent cells acting either within your own country (Britain itself) or acting from countries where while sympathies might exist they are not representing state nor its people are neither that state nor the British people would sanction launching a nuke on a city to kill a dozen or so individuals, even if they are threatening England with a dirty bomb or such device. Part of that 20 billion could go to better ways of identifying and surgically removing threats instead of this wipe the board clean tactic of the cold war.

Secondly the rogue states, North Korea and the like, any state that enters the nuclear program knows of M.A.D and one would believe that the British weapons program should work primarily and only as a deterrent, which doesnt justify expanding the nuclear program, only keeping it in a healthy state.

What is it that I am missing that says states need to keep building nukes? Oh wow North Korea has just started, America and England have a stockpile left over from the cold war, where's the need to expand?

vesp

It will take 17 years to design and build the stuff they are planning now. Britains existing nuclear weapons will be obsolete by then. If it does not plan for some in 17 years time it will have none then....

Be thankful that we do not have to contribute to this deterrent, which served us well in the cold war etc. In fact, we sheltered under Britains umbrella in other times of world threat as well eg WW2.

Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India , China etc all either have n. weapons or are getting them. Count ourselves lucky Britain knows it has to have them too.

sligobhoy67

vesp wrote:

It will take 17 years to design and build the stuff they are planning now. Britains existing nuclear weapons will be obsolete by then. If it does not plan for some in 17 years time it will have none then....

Be thankful that we do not have to contribute to this deterrent, which served us well in the cold war etc. In fact, we sheltered under Britains umbrella in other times of world threat as well eg WW2.

Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India , China etc all either have n. weapons or are getting them. Count ourselves lucky Britain knows it has to have them too.

great a grip ya clown. We were neutral country and germany posed no threat to "us" - however, maybe you were under attack in Loyalist East Belfast

"we sheltered under Britains umbrella in other times" - ya! like the way they ship the food out of Ireland during the Irish Holocaust.

gandalf

sligobhoy67 wrote:

great a grip ya clown.

I'm giving you one warning here and no more. Read the forum rules, name calling and insults are forbidden. If I see one more of these from you, then I will ban you.

Oh and try and keep the responses relevant to the threads in question, reading 700 hundred years is getting quite tiresome.

Fratton Fred

sligobhoy67 wrote:

great a grip ya clown. We were neutral country and germany posed no threat to "us" - however, maybe you were under attack in Loyalist East Belfast

"we sheltered under Britains umbrella in other times" - ya! like the way they ship the food out of Ireland during the Irish Holocaust.

So, on your logic, the Soviets would have invaded all of Europe and then said, right, we'll stop now. That little island off the north east coast of Europe, 25% of which is our enemy, is neutral so we will not impose our communist theories on them. Even though they have an airfield funded by the Americans and which the Americans Air Force use to re-fuel their aircraft.

Besides, it's a great place for a stag weekend.

17 years is a long time, it's a lot of money and they are reducing the number of war heads.

A Dub in Glasgo

I think it is absolutely appalling that the British government is going to give this spend higher priority over the money needed that really would make a difference. This is a huge waste of taxpayers money.

Akrasia

vesp wrote:

It will take 17 years to design and build the stuff they are planning now. Britains existing nuclear weapons will be obsolete by then. If it does not plan for some in 17 years time it will have none then....

Good, they will have fulfilled the terms of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty.

It's appalling that 'civilised' countries still think it's acceptable to spend enormous sums of money on accumulating weapons of mass destruction, when there are unprecedented levels of poverty around the globe and other, more imminent threats to global peace and security that they are failing to address.

fly_agaric

Blitzkrieg wrote:

which doesnt justify expanding the nuclear program, only keeping it in a healthy state..

You've got to spend the money to do that. Things age and decay. When systems becomes obsolete they must then be replaced. Otherwise the specialised industries around such high-tech stuff as building and/or maintaining the different bits of a nuclear weapons system will not have much work to do and may as well do something else or fold up!
Then the question of whether the UK should bother to expend the effort and money to have its very own nuclear deterrant will become moot.

Akrasia

fly_agaric wrote:

You've got to spend the money to do that. Things age and decay. When systems becomes obsolete they must then be replaced. Otherwise the specialised industries around such high-tech stuff as building and/or maintaining the different bits of a nuclear weapons system will not have much work to do and may as well do something else or fold up!
Then the question of whether the UK should bother to expend the effort and money to have its very own nuclear deterrant will become moot.

that's rubbish. If you have a smaller arsenal, you can maintain it with a smaller infrastructure. as long as there is money to be made, there will be people out there prepared to manufacture and maintain these weapons of mass destruction.

to say that nuclear weapons will become obselete implies that they will be replaced with something even more destructive. Why do we need weapons more destructive than the current crop of nuclear weapons?

Dar

Akrasia wrote:

as long as there is money to be made, there will be people out there prepared to manufacture and maintain these weapons of mass destruction.

Quite true - but the problem is that once you stop buying and making the parts for these weapons, the companies that produced the parts move onto other areas or simply shut down. Look at the american Saturn V rocket that was used for the moon missions. They simply can't be made any more, because the thousands of parts needed to construct them are no longer produced. The technology is outdated and it's cheaper to just design a new rocket from scratch.

Nuclear weapons are insurance in a way. You make them just in case you'll ever need them, all the while hoping you never will. You pay the small, constant expenditure so you don't have to spend a ludicrously large amount of money to build an entire nuclear missile capability from scratch in the future when you actually need it (if that would even be possible).

SeanW

Mankind has made the art of killing one another into a science: 400 years ago when we needed to fight the best weapons we had were pikes, spears, bows and arrows. If a defender was lucky, they might have had castles with archers, murder holes, and maybe something like a cannon or two.

Then we went on to invent guns, cannons, dynamite, bombs and to refine all the above to hyper-efficiency.

Nuclear weapons were almost never used during the 20th century, and thankfully, they have yet to be used in the 21st.

I think, unfortunately, that nuclear weapons will become obsolete as biological, technological, and nanotechnological weapons replace them in the centuries ahead.

The one positive thing about that though will be that we can shut up the environmental extremists who draw ridiculous lines inexorably connecting nuclear weapons with peaceful, commercial nuclear power.

AbusesToilets

They need to be replaced so that they will remain operationally functional.A deterant only works if you can use it.It's the same problem that the US is facing at the moment with their asrenal,the weapoins they currently possess are destructive on a very large scale.This means everybody know's that they will never utilize them outside of a doomsday scenario, so the threat and deterant they pose is diminished.You thusly have the situation where the military is looking at developing smaller,tactical weapons that could be used in a localised fashion.This then provides a more effective deterant as it places a doubt in a would be aggressors mind as to what the US's reaction would be.

Akrasia

Dar wrote:

Nuclear weapons are insurance in a way. You make them just in case you'll ever need them, all the while hoping you never will. You pay the small, constant expenditure so you don't have to spend a ludicrously large amount of money to build an entire nuclear missile capability from scratch in the future when you actually need it (if that would even be possible).

but in what kind of scenario would you need nuclear weapons? An end of world scenario is all I can think of, and in such a scenario, it makes no difference who wins or loses, the world will end.
And surely it is better to lose that battle, no matter what the consequences, than to draw with the enemy and have global extermination.

If you are dealing with the kind of enemy that don't care if they destroy the world, then there can be no deterrent. If there is no such enemy, then there is no need for a deterrent.

As it stands, 'Nuclear deterrent' is a one way system. It's a message from NATO to the rest of the world, Either you do what we say, or we overthrow your government. It's not so much a deterrent as a bullying tactic.
And as long as there is a bully in the international community, there is a huge incentive for other countries to develop antidotes to that bullying, and that antidote is nuclear weapons.

If you read up on game theory, you will discover that adversarial tactics lead to reduced outcomes for everyone, where as benevolent tactics lead to increased outcomes for everyone. It doesn't even require that everyone pursues benevolent tactics for that to be true, merely a sufficient majority.

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

They need to be replaced so that they will remain operationally functional.A deterant only works if you can use it.It's the same problem that the US is facing at the moment with their asrenal,the weapoins they currently possess are destructive on a very large scale.This means everybody know's that they will never utilize them outside of a doomsday scenario, so the threat and deterant they pose is diminished.You thusly have the situation where the military is looking at developing smaller,tactical weapons that could be used in a localised fashion.This then provides a more effective deterant as it places a doubt in a would be aggressors mind as to what the US's reaction would be.

well, that;s one way of looking at things, but a better, more realistic way of assessing the situation, is that:
The United states still has an overwhelming monopoly on the use of overwhelming force in any straight up military engagement.

that is true and nobody could possibly argue against that, but their potential enemies also have noticed that if they can survive the initial onslaught, geurilla tactics can be extremely effective, even against the most well equipped armed forces.

Do american policy makers consider nuclear weapons a replacement for the already overwhelming overwhelming force in an initial invasion?, or do they consider nuclear weapons as a tool against insurgent geurilla warfare?

is either one of those scenarios even remotely acceptable?




OF COURSE NOT

the_syco

If I had 19 nuclear warheads, and Britain put all their nukes out of commision, I would launch one, at, oh, the Queen's Palace (for sh|t and giggles). Only would need a small one, but one that could go about 10 meters under ground, to ensure that it got to the ground level of the Palace.

After this, I could demand that they get the f*ck out of Ireland.

Now, look at it from an English persective: someone with nukes is threatening us, and we can't do sh|t as we don't have anything bigger than a nuke to counter-threaten them. So we better get the f*ck out of Ireland, in case the syco sends a few more nukes our way.

But, if they had nukes, I wouldn't launch a nuclear attack on them, as I'd fear they'd toss one back.

=-=

As for the obsolete nukes: some of the russain nukes are obsolete, to the point where their fuel is pretty unstable. Have to be careful, of they could blow up (proberly cause a dirty-bomb effect, as opposed to a "proper" nuclear explosion). Wouldn't want that, would we?

As for making a better nuke, well if you want to attack a certain area, which is better: an old nuke that is a few megatonnes, or a new missile that uses "convential" explosives as well as the nuclear parts to make a big bang, but cause less radiation? To me, the latter sounds better. Most of the weapons in the Cold War were made to wipe out the enemy at any means. Proberly not very good with aim either. Build a newer missle, better aim, and you could hit your target with one shot, instead of sending 3 in the hope one hits your target.

Fratton Fred

the_syco wrote:

If I had 19 nuclear warheads, and Britain put all their nukes out of commision, I would launch one, at, oh, the Queen's Palace (for sh|t and giggles). Only would need a small one, but one that could go about 10 meters under ground, to ensure that it got to the ground level of the Palace.

I'd just nuke Northern Ireland, then there would beno more arguements about who owns it. (That is about as serious a threat as Syco's before I start getting slated).

With maverick states such as Iran and North Korea developing weapons, someone needs to keep hold of them and who would you prefer with their finger on the trigger, Blair or Bush?

But you're right, newer missiles would be more accurate and theoretically less would be needed.

Dar

Akrasia wrote:

If you read up on game theory, you will discover that adversarial tactics lead to reduced outcomes for everyone, where as benevolent tactics lead to increased outcomes for everyone. It doesn't even require that everyone pursues benevolent tactics for that to be true, merely a sufficient majority.

Benevolent strategies only work when EVERYONE follows them.

Some people seem to be under the delusion that because we havn't had any major conflicts since world war 2 that mankind has somehow "learned from it's mistakes" or "evolved to a more peaceful state". This is quite simply a complete fantasy. In the words of Hermocrates:

When there is mutual fear men think twice before they make aggression upon one another.

In simple terms the cons outway the pros - it's easier and far less costly for countries to persue their goals diplomatically or economically. Unless of course there is no mutual fear *cough* iraq *cough*.

Dar

Akrasia wrote:

Do american policy makers consider nuclear weapons a replacement for the already overwhelming overwhelming force in an initial invasion?, or do they consider nuclear weapons as a tool against insurgent geurilla warfare?

America has massive military superiority... currently. Just like the Third Reich and the British Empire and the Romans and the Greeks and the Persions had military superiority. Who will have it in 50 years time?

Fratton Fred

Dar wrote:

America has massive military superiority... currently. Just like the Third Reich and the British Empire and the Romans and the Greeks and the Persions had military superiority. Who will have it in 50 years time?

Stop the replacement of Nuclear weapons and it will be Iran, North Korea, Pakistan or China.

I don't trust the yanks, but I consider them a lot less likely to start lobbibg nuclar bommbs at people them any of the above.

Dar

Fratton Fred wrote:

Stop the replacement of Nuclear weapons and it will be Iran, North Korea, Pakistan or China.

I'm of the opinion that China will dwarf the US in military capabilities within the next century; which is why nuclear and biological weapons make sense from the US perspective. From a defense point of view it doesn't matter how many more tanks than you the other guy has when you can turn his entire country into glass.

RedPlanet

Fratton Fred wrote:

I don't trust the yanks, but I consider them a lot less likely to start lobbibg nuclar bommbs at people them any of the above.

Why do you feel that way?
USA is the only country to use nuclear power against another.
They are also using DU rounds and threaten non-nuclear countries with "bunker buster nukes".
They are also a military aggressive nation, not so Iran.
They are also primary hypocrites when it comes to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
They also spend more on weapons than anybody else by leaps and bounds.

Maybe you feel that way because Ireland maintains a close relationship with USA, so their nukes aren't aimed at us.
However if we were a neutral country, or even a country that has a different culture, surely it's the USA that is the most threatening.

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote:

Why do you feel that way?
USA is the only country to use nuclear power against another.
They are also using DU rounds and threaten non-nuclear countries with "bunker buster nukes".
They are also a military aggressive nation, not so Iran.
They are also primary hypocrites when it comes to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
They also spend more on weapons than anybody else by leaps and bounds.

Maybe you feel that way because Ireland maintains a close relationship with USA, so their nukes aren't aimed at us.
However if we were a neutral country, or even a country that has a different culture, surely it's the USA that is the most threatening.

True, but they are also a democracy (of sorts) and therefore the chance of a lunatic dictator who wants to rule the world taking charge is remote.......isn't it?

RedPlanet

Fratton Fred wrote:

True, but they are also a democracy (of sorts) and therefore the chance of a lunatic dictator who wants to rule the world taking charge is remote.......isn't it?

Didn't stop the German people from electing Hilter.
So i'd have to answer no to that.

Akrasia

Dar wrote:

Benevolent strategies only work when EVERYONE follows them.

That's not true. They work when a sufficient majority follows them, enough to reward the benevolent actions of others and punish other countries who try to take advantage.

Dar

Fratton Fred wrote:

True, but they are also a democracy (of sorts) and therefore the chance of a lunatic dictator who wants to rule the world taking charge is remote.......isn't it?

To quote Hermann Göring:

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Which is exactly what Hitler did. He used the Reichstag Fire in 1933 (a terrorist attack) to manipulate the German public gaining legislative powers, the power to act outside the constitution and the recinding of Habeas Corpus. In 1934 he was made Fuhrer. All entirely democratically - sound familiar?

fly_agaric

Akirasa wrote:

If you read up on game theory, you will discover that adversarial tactics lead to reduced outcomes for everyone, where as benevolent tactics lead to increased outcomes for everyone.

Dar wrote:

Benevolent strategies only work when EVERYONE follows them.

The person who is nice to everybody all the time rather than just reciprocates when others are nice first loses everything if others decide not to play nice.

Akirasa, to try and show you the type of world we live in (one where getting everyone to dispose of their nukes [which I think would be what you would like to see the UK do given that you'd advocate they not spend the necessary money to maintain their deterrant] would be extremely difficult) I ask a question.

What was the first thing the Russians did after smallpox had been eradicated by the WHO?

The first thing any nasty players would decide to do in a world where the powerful countries have gotten rid of their nukes is to build some and threaten people with them starting the arming/proliferation process again.

AbusesToilets

The US needs a credible nuclear theat. It forms a deterant not just against a nuclear attack,but also from a biological & chemical attack,which are more likely to occur given the comparative ease in development and deployment. It also keeps countries like China in check,makes them think twice about ,say, invading Taiwan and closing off the South China Sea.
AS for China surpassing the US militarily in t he next 50 years,i wouldn't think it too likely.Yeah, they might have a bigger army,but the US military is better equiped,better trained and most cruicially a lot more experienced.

Akrasia

fly_agaric wrote:

The person who is nice to everybody all the time rather than just reciprocates when others are nice first loses everything if others decide not to play nice.

that's in the simplest form of game theory. The more applicable model is one where the benevolent actor is nice by default, but if someone else betrays that trust, the benevolent actor responds negatively to that individual until that individual changes his/her behaviour towards the benevolent actor.
In this scenario, a group of benevolent actors will do really well, and if there are a few selfish or sneaky players, they will be marginalised.

Akirasa, to try and show you the type of world we live in (one where getting everyone to dispose of their nukes [which I think would be what you would like to see the UK do given that you'd advocate they not spend the necessary money to maintain their deterrant] would be extremely difficult)

The purpose of the Non Proliferation treaty was for this exact thing to happen. The aim of the NPT was for complete nuclear disarmament.

I ask a question.

What was the first thing the Russians did after smallpox had been eradicated by the WHO?

Stockpiled it probably. they probably also tried to build a doomsday device. do you think we should all have a doomsday device for self defence too?

The first thing any nasty players would decide to do in a world where the powerful countries have gotten rid of their nukes is to build some and threaten people with them starting the arming/proliferation process again.

It takes a long time to build a nuclear weapon. The international community would have more than enough time to band together to prevent the nasty country from threatening them using conventional methods. But even if the nasty country did have a Nuke or two, if they ever used it, they would be assured a swift retaliation by the combined might of the rest of the civilised world. There would still be a principle of assured destruction.

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

The US needs a credible nuclear theat. It forms a deterant not just against a nuclear attack,but also from a biological & chemical attack,which are more likely to occur given the comparative ease in development and deployment. It also keeps countries like China in check,makes them think twice about ,say, invading Taiwan and closing off the South China Sea.
AS for China surpassing the US militarily in t he next 50 years,i wouldn't think it too likely.Yeah, they might have a bigger army,but the US military is better equiped,better trained and most cruicially a lot more experienced.

so if some terrorist develops a biological weapon and uses it against America, which city should America Nuke?

AbusesToilets

Akrasia wrote:

so if some terrorist develops a biological weapon and uses it against America, which city should America Nuke?

With regards to terrorist groups, the deterant (hopefully) works by discouraging the countries that provide support to the terrorists.Is the US likely to authorise a strike against a population center in such a scenario? No. Would it authorise a low-yield tactical strike on a facility that manufactured, for example, a biological weapon? Possibly yes. The weapons that the US got flamed for researching & discussing the possibility of developing recently were tactical bunker buster nukes,which would have application in the above scenario. It's all about have a credible threat.ICBM with multiple high-yield warheads don't pose a credible threat in low intensity conflict,which means there usefullness as a deterant is fairly neglible.

Dar

Akrasia wrote:

so if some terrorist develops a biological weapon and uses it against America, which city should America Nuke?

Who the hell said that nukes were effective in combatting terrorism?