Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on March 14, 2006, 08:35:01 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4804144.stm
The UK needs a nuclear "contingency" in case the alliance with the US ends in the future, MPs have heard ... Mr Plesch told MPs the UK should prepare for a situation like that of 1939, when the US did not join the UK in the war against Germany. This, he added, was the "worst scenario".
So, should we be replacing them or throwing ourselves before the alter of reliability, of an ally with their own massive security concerns?
-
but we're not at war with anyone, are we ?
-
but we're not at war with anyone, are we ?
Nuclear deterrent is something countries rarely give up once they have aquired it, and this is even more true for countries that try to have military muscle to flex and force projection capability.
Also, building believable nuclear weapons capacity is so ridiculously long-term project that training and arming several conventional mechanized modern combat brigades with organic air and NBC and superhuman support is a cakewalk compared to it. One nuke is a terror and negotiation tool. 40 MIRV warheads, on the other hand, decimate small countries.
-
If they steal my 'orbital space cannon' idea, I'm going to destroy Britain and Sweden.
-
Those SSBNs aren't that old, either. Saying they'll be obselete in 2020 is basically saying that the House of Commons is unwilling to pay for a mid-life refit, but is willing to expend vastly greater sums of money to build a totally new class of SSBN.
What, you were expecting them to think rationally?
The rank-and-file of the RN is convinced (probably correctly) that saying "Oh, there are no threats now, there won't be in 20 years" is downright idiotic, and it would be a good idea to plan to have a viable nuclear deterrent in 2020 and beyond. However, the RN also has a major fear that some lunatic will convince people they should design and build a new class instead of just paying for the damn mid-life refits on the Tridents and it will take precedence over (and kill) the RN's carrier program. There was an article about it by an RN Captain in this month's Proceedings issue.
And saying that the UK no longer faces threats from any other nuclear-armed nation...let me put it to you this way: in 1996, a Russian SSBN captain was quoted as saying his missiles' default targeting packages had not changed since the late '70s. Another was quoted in 2005 as saying the same thing. The Cold War is over, sure. The missiles on both sides are still pointed in the same direction. Granted it's only a default setting, and can be changed easily. But the default setting on Russian missiles still includes targets in the UK. As long as this is true, an independant nuclear deterrent is something you're probably going to want.
-
The British position has always been only to use nuclear weapons as a retaliatory weapon, not first strike. But the vast likelihood is that any enemy first strike (barring terrorist attacks, which would not allow in-kind retaliation) would destroy so much of the country as to make retaliation a futile excercise in mutual destruction.
-
The British position has always been only to use nuclear weapons as a retaliatory weapon, not first strike. But the vast likelihood is that any enemy first strike (barring terrorist attacks, which would not allow in-kind retaliation) would destroy so much of the country as to make retaliation a futile excercise in mutual destruction.
... in other terms, MAD.
Yeah good you wasted London and ****, now your capital and several other major cities are radioactive ruins too! Good game fellas.
The entire concept is based on "we may win in some vague meaning of word, but is the price worth it?"
SSBLMs are sneaky. You can detect ICBM silos and see when missiles are being fueled. You can destroy the silos with direct bombing. You can, theoretically, launch a first strike and demolish at least part of enemy's ICBM arsenal (tactical nukes are different). However, as missile subs are very silent and quite invisible, they cannot be completely erased right at the beginning of conflict and can retaliate - or even first strike - with very little warning time.
-
The British position has always been only to use nuclear weapons as a retaliatory weapon, not first strike. But the vast likelihood is that any enemy first strike (barring terrorist attacks, which would not allow in-kind retaliation) would destroy so much of the country as to make retaliation a futile excercise in mutual destruction.
... in other terms, MAD.
Yeah good you wasted London and ****, now your capital and several other major cities are radioactive ruins too! Good game fellas.
The entire concept is based on "we may win in some vague meaning of word, but is the price worth it?"
SSBLMs are sneaky. You can detect ICBM silos and see when missiles are being fueled. You can destroy the silos with direct bombing. You can, theoretically, launch a first strike and demolish at least part of enemy's ICBM arsenal (tactical nukes are different). However, as missile subs are very silent and quite invisible, they cannot be completely erased right at the beginning of conflict and can retaliate - or even first strike - with very little warning time.
I'm not sure how much ability the UK has to detect missile silo preparation, etc, without relying on 3rd parties like the US or perhaps (later on) ESA to put up or grant access to satellites.
-
If they steal my 'orbital space cannon' idea, I'm going to destroy Britain and Sweden.
why stop at space cannons?.. get a giant space borne beam energy weapon and write your name on countries. :p
and what i've heard, aldo, the UK has a giant microwave radar installation for detecting missiles in flight, its range is huge, like a good chunk of the former soviet union, or something of the like.
-
If they steal my 'orbital space cannon' idea, I'm going to destroy Britain and Sweden.
why stop at space cannons?.. get a giant space borne beam energy weapon and write your name on countries. :p
and what i've heard, aldo, the UK has a giant microwave radar installation for detecting missiles in flight, its range is huge, like a good chunk of the former soviet union, or something of the like.
That doesn't detect missiles fueling in their silos though, does it?
-
It's also worth noting that the days of having to keep them not fueled are over. Mainly because nobody (except possibly China) uses that kind of fuel anymore.
-
Personally I'd like to see the Commonwealth back on top of the food chain again one day. Yet with a more tolerant and less superiority complex like attitude that was often evident in the past from the English empire. Though I admit, is often evident in any powerful country such as the US today.
-
That would be British Empire :p
For the record, I would have federalised the empire/commonwealth "back in the day" when people began to worry about issues of democratic representation and separatist movements.
-
They should just agree to pool 20% of all governmental income and use it to build the Allied Commonwealth Military and to fortify all non-Commonwealth borders.
Pooling military and police assets would dramatically shift the balance of world power, as the Commonwealth would field the largest and most advanced army known to man, would have virtually unlimited force-projection, it would increase the defensive power of each nation tenfold, allow deployment of massive policing forces to borders and high-crime areas ' on the fly' as trouble arose and give each individual Sovereign Nation of the Commonwealth far greater economic flexibility.
-
Just to make an on-topic note, modernising nuclear warheads breaks the non-proliferation treaty.
-
That would be British Empire
Same diff. :p
20% of all governmental income in total of all the Commonwealth?
How would you divide it up between the seperate country's with taking each demographic into consideration, the logistics and inner fights would be insane.
Though a Commonwealth military would be interesting to see. But who would get ultimate control?
For Britain to just assume command would be a major throwback to the old ways. In essence, it sounds like a good idea, yet its easy to see why one doesn't exist. :(
-
That would be British Empire
Same diff. :p
20% of all governmental income in total of all the Commonwealth?
How would you divide it up between the seperate country's with taking each demographic into consideration, the logistics and inner fights would be insane.
Though a Commonwealth military would be interesting to see. But who would get ultimate control?
For Britain to just assume command would be a major throwback to the old ways. In essence, it sounds like a good idea, yet its easy to see why one doesn't exist. :(
India, probably. They have the numbers.
-
India for ultimate control?
-
Obviously Britain would have supreme control, what with us having the strongest existing military, the best economy, most stable government, best technology and most respect from the international community.
And we founded the goddamn Commonwealth when the Empire fell to ****.
And they [almost] all still recognise the Queen as the Head of State.
-
and most respect from the international community.
Yep, riiiiiiiiiight up to around 2003, then it all went *farting noises*
-
Obviously Britain would have supreme control, what with us having the strongest existing military, the best economy, most stable government, best technology and most respect from the international community.
And we founded the goddamn Commonwealth when the Empire fell to ****.
And they [almost] all still recognise the Queen as the Head of State.
Hehehe, I can pretty much guarantee that it would never happen then. :p
It would have to be some type of democratic system I think, and that would be scratchy at best. Also, probably as usefull as the UN >..>
On a side note, I'm not so sure how much longer Australia will remain part of the Commonwealth...
-
We can be a republic and still be part of the Commonwealth. India is in a similar situation I think.
-
20% of all governmental income in total of all the Commonwealth?
On the other hand, many of Britains former colonies were in Africa (it did control 30 something percent of the continent), so what is 20% of nothing? :p
India for ultimate control?
India can't even control it's own country, much less anyone else. Besides, China kicked their ass 30 years ago and they won't forget about it any time soon.
-
We can be a republic and still be part of the Commonwealth. India is in a similar situation I think.
Yeah I guess. Probably not with Johnny in charge though.
-
Just to make an on-topic note, modernising nuclear warheads breaks the non-proliferation treaty.
That's a bunch of nonsense though. Everyone knows that anyone owning nukes will be modifying them constantly as new technology comes along to make them 'more safe', 'last longer' etc. etc.
As for the main topic, I think that the UK should have nuclear weapons as america constantly proves it cannot and should not be trusted to live at peace with the rest of the world.
Anyhow, the fact that the UK uses a substantial number of sub based nukes is enough to deter everyone.
-
So...you're saying UK should have capable nuke arsenal because the US is a dangerously volatile nuclear capability?
I see why everyone talks about nukes 'proliferating' - more like 'being fruitful and multiplying, really really fast'.
God, I hate international relations. Sometimes it seems like the only thing their good for is destroying nations.
-
So...you're saying UK should have capable nuke arsenal because the US is a dangerously volatile nuclear capability?
I see why everyone talks about nukes 'proliferating' - more like 'being fruitful and multiplying, really really fast'.
God, I hate international relations. Sometimes it seems like the only thing their good for is destroying nations.
Globalist party ftw?