Trident Thread

News.bbc.co.uk

Basically for those of you who don't know our glorious leader Chariman Blair (alright not chairman but not far off it) has decided in his infinite wisdom to spend as much as 20 billion, thats £20,000,000,000 on reknewing Britains cold war nuclear weapons capability and building a new fleet of submarines to carry them.

As you can probably tell from my scathing tone I'm rather unimpressed as such an epic waste of tax payers money that we could do with in plenty of other places. For one thing our 'nuclear detterent' was irrelevant during the cold war, If the russians were dettered by anything it was the thousands of american nuclear weapons aimed at them, not the pitiful handful we had to offer. Since the end of the cold war these weapons have become even more irrelevant since we have pretty much no mandate to use them. Our enemies either consist of disparate groups with no base to target with them, or rogue states that lack the infrastructure to nuke us directly.

Anyway those are my immedite thoughts, now I must retire to work.
Opinons anyone?

--

ACHTUNG SCHWINEHUND!

Forums =-= Profile

What the hell does England need them for? There is absolutely no point for them.

Anyone else here done this in their teenage years (hey - some of you out there might be doing this right now ) - aquire something a bit naughty that their parents would disapprove of, like porno mags, or beer, and then only after said aquisition worry about where to keep it? Alternatively, back a step, you find a possible source for said aquisition and then have that situation where everyone volunteers someone else to actually go out to do the aquiring?

Now, substitute your teenage self and friends with 'Blair and Bush' and swap porno mags/beer with 'Nuclear Warheads' - anyone else scared by how much this looks like teenagers trying to do something behind their parents backs?

Unfortunately, the public make pretty poor parents in that simile, Gibberstein.

sorry, but I disagree with you, and its entirely expected....

personally I f'ing hate blair with a vengeance, I have done ever since I saw that smarmy gits cheesy grin, and thought, welcome to a decade of lies and decite.

We will not know the REAL reasons for this decision for another 50+ years, when, and if the documents are declassified, but I can think of several good reasons.

Firstly, despite the comfy life we lead, the 'terrorism' threats we are constantly told we face are nothing compared with the threat of international unrest, Iran, N.K. etc are significant threats to our current exploitation of their local resources, Iran and NK both have missiles capable of reaching London, our ability to defend against them is dependent on the ability to return fire. England, militarily, beyond its submarines, is weak, we have good technology, but limited and falling human resources to use it. They've been working on actually launching an attack on Iran for over three years, It currently looks however that they have neither the public support nor physical capability to achieve this goal.

Secondly, the geographical impact of current nukes has been greatly exaggerated, mostly to bolster popular support for the NPT. Look at the Nevada desert in the US. its full of over a thousand mile wide pot holes from nuclear tests of 20-30 years ago:

wikipedia wrote:
United States: 1,054 tests by official count (involving at least 1,151 devices, 331 atmospheric tests), most at Nevada Test Site and the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands

the danger from nuclear material comes from 'dirty' explosions. The more efficiently you convert the material to energy, the less is actually left afterwards.

Thirdly despite the number, £20bln is actually VERY cheap, especially when most of it is paid to UK firms or people, less I believe than the current valuation of Google.

Not true. While it seems undeniable that the DPRK have developed nuclear weapons (or pulled off an impressive illusion) its generally accepted that any weapon would be too large and basic to deliver via missile. In any case the most advanced missile they possess is the Taepodong 2 which at the very most could reach european Russia, and even that is an optimistic (or rather pessimistic) estimate.
DPRK Nuclear weapons analysis News.bbc.co.uk
DPRK Missles News.bbc.co.uk
There has been no conclusive proof as of yet that Iran has a nuclear weapon development program, let alone a functioning bomb. Their missle situation isnt much better, The Shahab-3 is probably their best and can most targets in the gulf region but not much beyond that. Another project Iran is accused of is the development of an ICBM/satelite delivery system although informations still very sketchy on that.
Iranian Missles News.bbc.co.uk

Lets put all the facts aside and pretend for a moment that Iran or North Korea could attack London. Honestly what diffrence would it make us bombing them back? Whoopa seven million Londoners are dead so how about a bit of tit for tat, lets take out seven million North Koreans. It just makes no sense, you end up in the same idiotic, petty frame of mind that perpetuated the cold war for so long.

alas my food is ready so I'll leave it at that for now.
And personally I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source

--

ACHTUNG SCHWINEHUND!

Forums =-= Profile

OR take out the whole of North Korea.. That may be possible.

If zyphon ever stands for public office, I'm voting for someone else... :o

England also spent one million on getting every British citizen their own jetpacks...

A long time ago, but still.

And paid the air force to continously fly over penguins.

FluffyTheHamster wrote: England also spent one million on getting every British citizen their own jetpacks...

Dang I think I missed that one, thats what I mean when I say the £20 billion is badly needed elsewhere.

--

ACHTUNG SCHWINEHUND!

Forums =-= Profile

Gibberstein wrote: If zyphon ever stands for public office, I'm voting for someone else... :o

No kidding.

"I want nukes!"

"Burn in hell commie!"

*Launches 20,000 tons of a-bomb at them*

DrZais wrote: Lets put all the facts aside and pretend for a moment that Iran or North Korea could attack London. Honestly what diffrence would it make us bombing them back? Whoopa seven million Londoners are dead so how about a bit of tit for tat, lets take out seven million North Koreans. It just makes no sense, you end up in the same idiotic, petty frame of mind that perpetuated the cold war for so long.

alas my food is ready so I'll leave it at that for now.
And personally I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source

The point is they wouldn't launch anything at us in the first place, if they knew we had the capability to strike back. I am totally against war and violence, and of course nuclear violence is and was the worst violation of human dignity ever, period. But what are we to do if NK started thinking of us as enemies, and by that I mean even more than they do now. Are they going to consider not launching a missile at us if we have no means of retaliation?

It is a simplistic view, and the one of which nuclear deterrent is based on. But I still think it is valid. If we sit around, acting on the wills of non-violent (like me) yet close minded types (not like me) of lobbyists, we will end up being completely defenceless. Violence is a horrible thing but it is absolutely necessary in my honest opinion, if we are to be threatened ourselves. I don't mean for us to go all macho and american, but being defenceless is a far worse option.

Jambozal is it your belief that if London were struck by a nuclear weapon that the remainder of the world would not immediately hammer into NK? The logic in there is flawed in that NK and Iran both have nuclear programs as a deterrent factor. Why?

NK does this in order to gain better leverage on Asian nations, particularly China, which sits as a permanent member of the UN security council. China will face nearly 20million in starved refuges who know of nothing beyond NK, which at such a stage that war breaks out will become even more desperate. Taking in 20million is difficult in itself, but if it is thrust upon them by military action, then you can expect a great deal of social unrest. Kim Jong Il wants to sit the way he does for the remainder of his life, and wants access to the world. Remove him from this so-called "Axis of Evil" list and actually discuss. We apply pressure and he cries about it, but he will not start a conflict.

Do you know why he constantly does such military parades and drills? To keep them constantly mobilized, he wants the illusion that he can send them out. But he knows that if we catch word of that, he will be removed. Our worst case scenario is actually a divided military coup, not the small scales that have occured thus far. In such cases, then Kim Jon Il would already feel he may be removed and may resort to desperate actions in order for UN intervention to keep him in power or to plunge the usurping military forces into a prolonged battle against the UN who are seeking to stop Kim Jon Il as well.

As for Iran, in all honesty they were not a problem until we moved next door into Iraq. They know that the people in charge are stupid enough to attack Iran for baseless reasons and fabricated information. Instead, they want them at bay by saying they do have nuclear weapons, but they lack even military grade materials at this stage, and for many more years.

Instead, we should discuss with them to oversee and aid in the production of nuclear based energy programs. Usage of nuclear energies in such cases are dangerous enough, and often times inefficient, give them our technology and oversight in a show of good faith, but in that same manner we clarify their usage as an energy source and set their nuclear programs back a few steps.

We were actually on rather decent terms until about five years ago, and if it weren't for the same men in the administration of the United States right now, Clinton might have actually been able to send in enough resources to assure Usama's death. I feel I have far less to fear from people who want to keep their comforts and powers than those who want to extend their comforts and powers. Those are the dangerous people of this world.

And with regards to the Nuclear submarines, it is a redirecting of technologies (read : nuclear) already in play, the timeline to actually get those into service is too short if you're speaking of all materials. 20billion is a large waste (that is almost $40billion American, fluxuating at about $36billion probably back towards summer) in what will be a worst case scenario usage, they cannot be deployed without any true necessity to deploy.

What it speaks to is the plausibility of falsified early reports in order to move the nuclear submarines into range for P'yongyang (NK capitol). In order to do this without a global incident, Japan has to allow us to move and utilize their territory, but Japan itself is in no specific danger. China on the other hand, dealing with the refugees, needs to be able to convince the Japanese of the necessity to help stop the inevitable tide of refugees that could potentially threaten the closed manner of Japan, which due to its only possessing the SDF rather than outside military force or nuclear arms means it cannot directly intervene. It would be their allowance that, under an attack staged not through the United States, which are a vastly closer target for NK should we resort to intervention, essentially is their ability to directly intervene or not in the coming years.

I assume Japan will use this for further leverage after the 2004 discussions already on pre-emptive ability to wage war outside of its own country, having sent troops into Iraq and the necessity to counter known military strikes from other countries, to actually developing a military force capable of assault outside of its borders. China is hesitant not because they do not trust Japan at this time, but to make sure that we all have a trump card to remove international incident.

Edited by: Vangor

Jambozal wrote:
It is a simplistic view, and the one of which nuclear deterrent is based on. But I still think it is valid. If we sit around, acting on the wills of non-violent (like me) yet close minded types (not like me) of lobbyists, we will end up being completely defenceless. Violence is a horrible thing but it is absolutely necessary in my honest opinion, if we are to be threatened ourselves. I don't mean for us to go all macho and american, but being defenceless is a far worse option.

Fair enough, thats your opinion. Personally its my view that the only acceptable solution is multi-lateral disarmament. Its ridiculous for us to blacklist countries with nuclear weapons programs while retaining our own, and I'd also argue that one of the primary reasons countries like Iran and North Korean feel the need to develop a nuclear weapon is fear of us. You might go so far as to argue that they feel they need a nuclear detterent to our nuclear detterent.

The best solution (although one I recognise is near impossible to achieve in the short term of the trident issue) is a complete ban on nuclear weapons. They're easily worse than chemical or biological weapons, the vast majority of which have been outlawed at least in the western world, although maybe the only reason anyone was willing to agree to giving up those weapons was that knowledge that nukes were so much more effective.

--

ACHTUNG SCHWINEHUND!

Forums =-= Profile

Didn't South Africa have nukes at first, then they got rid of them? I think all countries should do that. Then these kinds of problems wouldn't occur, but I guess it isn't that simple. I wish it would be.

Edited by: Babuzaa

I cannot respond to this post. I don't live their and don't know too much about the U.K. I could post... if i wanted to do my own research about the U.K. and find out more about this, but i don't feel like it. Carry on fellas.

Either every country needs nuclear weapons, or no country needs nuclear weapons. But as long as North Korea and the United States have nuclear weapons programs running, I see nothing wrong with the UK developing their own. Sure, with the US allied with them they're probably covered in terms of being able to blow the shit out of anyone that gives them a suspicious look, but alliances don't last forever. Nuclear proliferation is scary, but as long as there's a fear of retaliation, nations will hesitate before launching. The real threat is nuclear weapons that get into the hands of terrorist groups who do not need to worry about being nuked.

San-J wrote: Either every country needs nuclear weapons, or no country needs nuclear weapons. But as long as North Korea and the United States have nuclear weapons programs running, I see nothing wrong with the UK developing their own. Sure, with the US allied with them they're probably covered in terms of being able to blow the shit out of anyone that gives them a suspicious look, but alliances don't last forever. Nuclear proliferation is scary, but as long as there's a fear of retaliation, nations will hesitate before launching. The real threat is nuclear weapons that get into the hands of terrorist groups who do not need to worry about being nuked.

actually, screw my knowledge about the U.K. right now. whether i know something about them or not, this is very true. thanks, sir.

Babuzaa wrote: Didn't South Africa have nukes at first, then they got rid of them? I think all countries should do that. Then these kinds of problems wouldn't occur, but I guess it isn't that simple. I wish it would be.

Yeah although that nuclear disarmament was mainly a consequence of the end of apartheid. The SA nuclear weapon was intended as a defence against the 'black' countries that surrounded 'white' south africa. When SA became democratic and race became less of an issue the danger of invasion from its neighbours reduced massivley. The only comparable situation is probably Israel, an isolated state that feels the need to defend itself from its neighbours.

San-J wrote: Either every country needs nuclear weapons, or no country needs nuclear weapons. But as long as North Korea and the United States have nuclear weapons programs running, I see nothing wrong with the UK developing their own. Sure, with the US allied with them they're probably covered in terms of being able to blow the shit out of anyone that gives them a suspicious look, but alliances don't last forever. Nuclear proliferation is scary, but as long as there's a fear of retaliation, nations will hesitate before launching. The real threat is nuclear weapons that get into the hands of terrorist groups who do not need to worry about being nuked.

Its not a case of developing our own, we were the third country in the world to develop them after the two cold war superpowers. The issue is really should we renew them for another couple of decades or scrap them altogether. Your right though, we basically dont need them given the special relationship between the UK and US, one that extended to effectivley combining our nuclear firepower since about 1958. Since the US already has such overwhelming nuclear firepower our own is mereley an afterthought.

Depressingly I'm sure any terrorist group that managed to aquire and use a nuclear weapon would quickly be traced back to some unfortunate nation, however tenuous the links. If we can invade Iraq partly on the basis that its an al-qaeda stronghold then its not such a massive stretch of the imagination to nuke a country on an equally false basis.

--

ACHTUNG SCHWINEHUND!

Forums =-= Profile

San-J wrote: Either every country needs nuclear weapons, or no country needs nuclear weapons. But as long as North Korea and the United States have nuclear weapons programs running, I see nothing wrong with the UK developing their own. Sure, with the US allied with them they're probably covered in terms of being able to blow the shit out of anyone that gives them a suspicious look, but alliances don't last forever. Nuclear proliferation is scary, but as long as there's a fear of retaliation, nations will hesitate before launching. The real threat is nuclear weapons that get into the hands of terrorist groups who do not need to worry about being nuked.

Yes, dude yes. Thats exactly right. Thats why Reagan kicked ass.

I've been looking for the official documents with these details in for a couple of days, but they seem to have dissappeared, I im sure it was US .gov documents that mentioned them dated 2005. although the range was higher in those docs, this document mentions some of the same people.

anyway it (was) called the shehab-5
Fas.org

it may now be known under zelzal

Theres also reports coming out of the Israeli press of mass airlifts of Israeli citizens out of Iran over the past few days, feels like we're being blind sided.

"Everything will be alright tommorrow, its the days after that worry me"