h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

No. Faslane *really* is there.

SWL, I honestly thought Strangely had posted that comment about revenge it was such a no brainer. Of course some people react immediately, but post 9/11 how satisfied with the war on terror are the people who wanted to get revenge? Are they happy because they got back at the perptrators/ Or have they slowly come off the boil and seen that they have got nothing like what they sought and instead have pursued a cause that has brought more death and misery for all concerned?

Yeah you can tell us about people thoughts just after VE day but do you really think people who have just come through six years of death, privations and being parted from their loved ones because of the same nation who caused the same problem just one generation earlier are going to give a balanced objective answer about revenge?

Actually what I see today and have done ever since I had eyes to see with are veterans who preach reconcilliation with veterans who have stuck in the moment attitudes being in the minority.

one love

The difference is we are (largely) at peace just now and war is a horrible business. People do not want to contemplate visiting such death, destruction and bad hair days on anyone whilst we're at peace.

Ask the question again when London just disappeared under a mushroom cloud and the Test Match at Lords won't be resuming.

Incidentally, you're right about veterans being against war. This was especially true after the slaughter of WW I. The cry of "never again" was real and heartfelt. 21 years later, the veterans formed queues at the recruitment centres to sign up again.

In an ideal world, no one wants war. Keeping Trident is one way of making sure we never see another war on the scale of WWI or WWII.

Both the Indy and the Guardian said why the government believes we need nuclear weapons in one word today...

France.

France has nukes, will certainly be maintaining its arsenal, to hell with the NPT, therefore we must have them. It's keeping up with the Joneses on a bigger scale. Forget terrorism, forget WMDs, forget the big, bad USSR, in the minds of the folk at Whitehall the enemy is, and always has been, the French

As for rational reasons, I can't think of any. Sorry SWL, I'm just not convinced we need nukes in case we're attacked - we've got the USA to protect us. The deterrent didn't come from our puny stockpiles (don't we have around 200 warheads or thereabouts?), it came from the American stockpiles of over 4,000 warheads

No I never saw it before SWL is right.

OK nukes never stopped sucide bombers or the IRA or the Argentinnians or the US invasion of Grenada, but they have coincided with a tim of relative peace so....lets get *everyone* to have nukes!

No more wars.

Brilliant!

Just like in the US if more people had more guns there'd be less violence.

one love

"Both the Indy and the Guardian said why the government believes we need nuclear weapons in one word today... France."

Yeah, that hits the nail on the head.

British foreign policy for the past 500 years has been focused on stopping any single dominant power emerging on the European continent. It is therefore unimaginable France be the only European power in possession of nuclear weapons.

Nobody wants these terrible weapons, but to abandon them for noble principles in an unstable and uncertain geo-political situation would not be a wise thing to do.

Ste

In five years, Britain alone lost nearly a million men during WWII.
Between 2001-06, Britain has lost just over 100 men fighting in two countries.

Nukes stop all-out wars. They stop police actions becoming a fight to the death.

Here's a thought for you all...

Ok, given that nuclear weapons are there as a deterrent, and given that any nuclear superpower is much more frightened of the USA than they would ever be of us.

Which of these provides the best deterrent.

Trident - designed to flatten whole continents, with the ensuing global nuclear war and devastation.

Smaller, tactical nuclear weapons - which, given the 'right' political climate, a government just _might_ be able to use without having their own country reduced to dust.

If you look at the two types of nuclear power we might be facing.

Nuclear superpowers (China, Russia) are unlikely to be scared of our puny nuclear forces anyway - they're more worried about the Americans and whether or not we've got a few nukes is largely irrelevant.

Smaller nations with one or two nukes... (or even those without nuclear weapons)... Unlikely to be that worried about Trident as they know fine well if we use it against them the rest of the world blows up in our faces. However, they might just be scared enough of smaller nuclear weapons if there was the slightest doubt we _could_ or _might just_ get away with flattening a few of their military bases.

Given those two alternatives - would smaller, more flexible nuclear weapons be a greater deterrent than Trident.

Of course, this opens up the frightening prospect to ourselves of our own governments having access to nuclear weapons that, if they are to have any deterrent value, they must be seen to be prepared to use.

"Nuclear superpowers (China, Russia) are unlikely to be scared of our puny nuclear forces anyway - they're more worried about the Americans and whether or not we've got a few nukes is largely irrelevant."

200 Warheads would end each country. I think they would take notice.

Ste

Fair points, but why does that preclude Trident?

It can be loaded with one low yield warhead and delivered with high accuracy.

It can also do other things.

Trident is only a delivery system. An incredibly accurate, unstoppable, undetectable delivery system.

"200 Warheads would end each country. I think they would take notice."

True - but if you have a look here http://navy-matters.beedall.com/vanguard-r.htm

then you'll see that at the bottom of the page you get this...

--------
In order to keep costs down, an all-new submarine design has become considered unlikely for a Vanguard-class replacement and current thinking probably assumes an evolution of the Astute design - indeed BAE Systems Submarines has already examined two variants fitted with an extra hull section. The first includes the fitting external to the pressure hull of sixteen Mark 36 Vertical Launch System tubes for missiles such as Tomahawk, and the second includes four Trident II size (86 inch diameter, 36-feet usable length) missile tubes, installed aft of the fin. The later approach is preferred as the large tubes are extremely versatile, alternative to Trident II SLBM’s they could potentially carry a next generation ballistic missile, a multiple all-up round canister accommodating seven Tomahawk cruise missiles per tube, equipment and swimmer vehicles for special forces, Unmanned Underwater Vehicle’s (UUV’s), deployable decoys and sensors, and even encapsulated Unmanned Air Vehicle’s (UAV’s). While a re-role will not be trivial, the new submarines would certainly be far more flexible than the current SSBN/SSN divide permits.
---------

So you wouldn't have 200 warheads at sea at any one time, you'd have an absolute maximum of 12 x 4 warheads - and if you had 2 of those missiles fitted with a single, low-yield tactical warhead then you'd be down to a maximum of 26 warheads available at any one time.

Thanks for that Whisky

'Tis an interesting document...

Personally I quite like the design they're talking about - far better than an updated copy of the present single-use Vanguard class'doomsday machines'

I'm all for multi-use. It helps cope with obselescence. Though, in answer to the earlier point about possibly extending the life of the Vanguards, getting into a boat that's *designed* to sink is a bad enough idea. Getting into one that's forty years old and has had forty years of matelots playing with it is nuts. Once they get old enough to leak, sell them to Australia. It's always worked in the past.

If the UK ever got into a nuclear war, or a situation where we *needed* nuclear weapons, then it'd probably be world war 3. Even without knowing what will happen in 20 (or even 50) years time, I just can't see past this. If we come out of NATO, then I'm sure the EU will have some kind of pact where its constituents agree to defend each other. Whatever.

Either way, they won't protect us. It's either MAD or global economic/social/political chaos. For the winner...
In such a scenario, then only a lunatic would use them, so why have them in the first place?

<> Ste

Not quite. I'd qualify that by saying that we'd be stupid to give it up before working out how £20bn or whatever would benefit our society. It could well be that it *is* a benefit, in terms of cost/benefit analysis, but the point remains.

Incidentally, can anyone say why Iran shouldn't have nukes too?
(Hint; saying 'they're the bad guys' doesn't count.)

I think Tina Turner in Mad Max 3 is the epitome of British culture.

Either you're in the wrong thread or I've wandered into a wierd parallel world

Personally I think we need to keep a nuclear deterrant.

What if North Korea or Iran develop nuclear weapons?

You can't afford to just think of the 'now'.

You need to look 10, 15, 20 years down the line.

It takes years to build these things, you can't wait until there is a threat.

Maybe we don't need so many though. Enough to destroy the world just once over should be fine.

Maybe Cruise Missiles popping out of Subs would be just as good.

TMOF

Incidentally, can anyone say why Iran shouldn't have nukes too?
(Hint; saying 'they're the bad guys' doesn't count. )


Because they are the bad guys.

Seriously though, when a country repeatedly states that it's avowed intention is to wipe another country off the face of the earth (Israel), they shouldn't have Nukes.