Reply to: Nukes

[SpontaneousOrder]

The army bod said nukes were useless. The point is that they're manifestly not. Nukes could be used and would be extremely effective. Just awful and inhumanely costly.

Useless/full for what purpose?

[NotAllThere]

If we know where they are. And we don't care about killing a few hundred thousand civilians in the process. Or making large chunks of other countries uninhabitable.

Yeah, but not our civilians and not our countries.

The only terrorists to have successfully carried out attacks on the British people came from either Belfast or Leeds.

Which do you want to nuke first?

Oh. Difficult one. Leeds, probably.

Appreciate that might have been a throw away comment, but the effect of one H bomb is too awful to be contemplated. ISIS making a few snuff movies is nothing. Yes, yes, sorry - I am preaching to the choir here.

World leaders should all sit down together and watch "Threads". And those other cheerful films.

The army bod said nukes were useless. The point is that they're manifestly not. Nukes could be used and would be extremely effective. Just awful and inhumanely costly.

[EternalOptimist]

If we know where they are. And we don't care about killing a few hundred thousand civilians in the process. Or making large chunks of other countries uninhabitable.

Not at all, one would be enough. Tell them we have one pointed at Mecca and they'll leave us alone

[DaveB]

both would be improved.

Fair point about Leeds, as long as the wind didnt blow the fallout onto York. I like York.

[vetran]

a 1 Kiloton dropped on Tesco would improve Slough immeasurably, maybe wait until there is a Northerly wind.

[DodgyAgent]

Drop your own nuke and see the impact: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

And yes Birmingham looks actually better after you dropped it

[vetran]

The only terrorists to have successfully carried out attacks on the British people came from either Belfast or Leeds.

Which do you want to nuke first?

both would be improved.

[BrilloPad]

Ex-military types reckon Trident's a useless and irrelevant waste of money:

The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued in a letter to The Times that the nuclear deterrent is no longer truly independent and does not guarantee Britain a seat at the top table of international diplomacy in the United Nations Security Council.

The large sums being spent on replacing the ageing submarines which carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used on conventional weapons which are much needed by the armed forces, they suggested.

"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism," the letter stated.

"Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics."

- Trident nuclear deterrent 'completely useless' say retired military officers - Telegraph

They would. With nukes we could do away from top army brass. It just needs someone with a finger to push a button. Perhaps we could even outsource the job?

Is it true that for the Trident replacement that suity will be project manager?

[unixman]

I don't know. A few well placed nukes could annihilate international terrorists.

Appreciate that might have been a throw away comment, but the effect of one H bomb is too awful to be contemplated. ISIS making a few snuff movies is nothing. Yes, yes, sorry - I am preaching to the choir here.

World leaders should all sit down together and watch "Threads". And those other cheerful films.

[VectraMan]

I don't know. A few well placed nukes could annihilate international terrorists.

The only terrorists to have successfully carried out attacks on the British people came from either Belfast or Leeds.

Which do you want to nuke first?

[unixman]

Not all - but that we do is crazy considering we're a minnow in world standards these days. It's probably best only 2 nations have them, if we must keep them... is UK really going to jump in and nuke country A on behalf of country B or would be jut sit on the sidelines unless WE were the ones at risk?

UK is not a minnow - 5th highest GDP in the world, 5th most powerful armed forces (excluding nuclear capability). But that's not the point. UK has nukes because of history. I interpret your point as suggesting that the US should be the only NATO member with nukes. Not a particularly bad idea. However it would represent a change in MAD, making it less distributed, and I think stable. The USA might also object to being the only nuke owner, and therefore, arguably, the only nuke target in NATO. Why should the UK, the 2nd or 3rd richest NATO member, not take a nuke responsibility ? Would we help the US with the cost of the nukes ?

I'm not saying you are wrong though.

That armed forces data came from here Global Firepower Military Ranks - 2015, the GDP one from wikipedia.

[DaveB]

I don't know. A few well placed nukes could annihilate a few international terrorists.

If we know where they are. And we don't care about killing a few hundred thousand civilians in the process. Or making large chunks of other countries uninhabitable.

[NotAllThere]

...
"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism," the letter stated.
...

I don't know. A few well placed nukes could annihilate international terrorists.

[DaveB]

I don't believe there is any doubt about N.Korea having a working nuclear weapon as seismic sensors and satellite images have confirmed numerous underground detonations indicating nuclear explosions from tests. In addition there are reports of mobile platforms equipped with short/mid range missiles capable of carrying said nuclear warheads. What they don't have (yet) is a delivery mechanism do deploy them at distances longer than couple of hundred miles, but they don't need to, all they need to do is nuke S.Korea and watch the world economy going down the drain imploding governments and mass unrest.

There is a huge differance between having a device that is capable of going bang under test conditions and one that can be strapped to a rocket and lobbed at the opposition with any degree of reliability.

[NickFitz]

Ex-military types reckon Trident's a useless and irrelevant waste of money:

The former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals, argued in a letter to The Times that the nuclear deterrent is no longer truly independent and does not guarantee Britain a seat at the top table of international diplomacy in the United Nations Security Council.

The large sums being spent on replacing the ageing submarines which carry the Trident ballistic missiles could be better used on conventional weapons which are much needed by the armed forces, they suggested.

"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism," the letter stated.

"Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics."

- Trident nuclear deterrent 'completely useless' say retired military officers - Telegraph