Author Topic: Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)  (Read 2865 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
For example, did anyone find anything about what happened to all that ammo that went missing in Iraq?


Carbombs.

:nervous:

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
LOL Possibly, though, it's possible to trace explosives from their chemical residue, if the explosives came from that particular dump, I'm pretty sure someone would have made an issue of it ;)

 

Offline Rictor

  • Murdered by Brazilian Psychopath
  • 29
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Where else would it go? They have the explosives, they obviously need 'em. It's not like there's a better place to use them than Iraq.

 

Offline StratComm

  • The POFressor
  • 212
  • Cameron Crazy
    • http://www.geocities.com/cek_83/index.html
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
LOL Possibly, though, it's possible to trace explosives from their chemical residue, if the explosives came from that particular dump, I'm pretty sure someone would have made an issue of it ;)


It's also expensive and time consuming, which when explosives are missing due to neglegence and used immediately thereafter does not necessitate a detailed analysis of where it came from.  Besides, do you think anyone actually knows what was there BEFORE the ammo dumps were looted?
who needs a signature? ;)
It's not much of an excuse for a website, but my stuff can be found here

"Holding the last thread on a page comes with an inherent danger, especially when you are edit-happy with your posts.  For you can easily continue editing in points without ever noticing that someone else could have refuted them." ~Me, on my posting behavior

Last edited by StratComm on 08-23-2027 at 08:34 PM

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Yes, the Iraqis pulled up in 55 Armour plated Winnebegos, loaded up 380 tonnes of explosives and drove off whilst the guard was having a piss ;)

As far as identification is concerned, explosives were being used before the theft as well. I always feel a little concerned when it's 'too expensive and time consuming' to prove whether or not this much explosive is still in Iraq or has made it's way out of it.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2005, 03:42:44 pm by 394 »

  

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
Yes, the Iraqis pulled up in 55 Armour plated Winnebegos, loaded up 380 tonnes of explosives and drove off whilst the guard was having a piss ;)

As far as identification is concerned, explosives were being used before the theft as well. I always feel a little concerned when it's 'too expensive and time consuming' to prove whether or not this much explosive is still in Iraq or has made it's way out of it.


Guard?  Don't be silly....

(Incidentally; StratComm, the UNMOVIC inspectors surveyed a lot of these dumps.  So they probably had an idea; IIRC they notified the US forces about it, who did precisely bugger all to secure them)

 

Offline Nico

  • Venom
    Parlez-vous Model Magician?
  • 212
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
Yes, the Iraqis pulled up in 55 Armour plated Winnebegos, loaded up 380 tonnes of explosives and drove off whilst the guard was having a piss ;)


See what happens when you drink too much beer?
That's why I don't drink much, some way or another, it could lead to WW3 if I did.
SCREW CANON!

 

Offline Unknown Target

  • Get off my lawn!
  • 212
  • Push.Pull?
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
I'd say get rid of them. You don't need them anymore, and Britian has a lot of allies, so if they get nuked, they could always get someone else to bomb/nuke the hell out of whoever did it. Not only that, but who's gonna nuke someone in this day and age? Not only does practically everyone have nukes, but no one would dare or even want to use them anymore, for fear of reprisal from the defending nation along with all the other nations of the world.
The only people that would use nukes nowadays are terrorists, but if they do it, who are you going to nuke back?


Not only that, but it would send a powerful message to the world if they removed their nuclear weapons - it'd be saying "We are serious that the world needs to be a better place, and we're willing to make it so".

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
I agree with your final sentence 100% UT, the only thing that can change the world from a human standpoint is humans themselves, and to do that, they have to got to want to, and be prepared to make sacrifices, 'a better place' doesn't neccesarily equate to 'a better place for me'.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Nico
that kind of things, it's always when you don't have them anymore than an occasion arises when you think "damn, these could have come in handy"


a nuclear weapon is something you don't want to be without when you need.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Martinus

  • Aka Maeglamor
  • 210
    • Hard Light Productions
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14


Carbombs.

:nervous:

[color=66ff00]I have no idea why I find that funny, but I still laugh.
[/color]

 

Offline Nico

  • Venom
    Parlez-vous Model Magician?
  • 212
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau


a nuclear weapon is something you don't want to be without when you need.


Well yeah, tell Sheridan about it.
SCREW CANON!

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
It's also worth noting that no one has ever lost an SSB or SSBN.



The Russians lost a Typhoon class SSBN just a few years ago.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

 
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Remember that Russian general that said they lost 200 suitcase sized nukes?
just another newbie without any modding, FREDding or real programming experience

you haven't learned masochism until you've tried to read a Microsoft help file.  -- Goober5000
I've got 2 drug-addict syblings and one alcoholic whore. And I'm a ****ing sociopath --an0n
You cannot defeat Windows through strength alone. Only patience, a lot of good luck, and a sledgehammer will do the job. --StratComm

 

Offline Andreas

  • Ai No Koriida
  • 27
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Kosh



The Russians lost a Typhoon class SSBN just a few years ago.

I assume you mean the Kursk? She was an Oscar II-class SSGN.
"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." - Jonathan Swift
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

 

Offline Black Wolf

  • Twisted Infinities
  • 212
  • Hey! You! Get off-a my cloud!
    • Visit the TI homepage!
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
The problem with nukes is that even if everyone did get rid of them, the knowledge to build them would still be there. And so any nation who recreated them would immediately become the superpower, and I don't think anyone is willing to risk that at the moment.
TWISTED INFINITIES · SECTORGAME· FRONTLINES
Rarely Updated P3D.
Burn the heretic who killed F2S! Burn him, burn him!!- GalEmp

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
The Ruskies lost a November class sub (K-159) in August 2003, but it was already decomissioned (since the late 80s).  Although it did contain nuclear waste from the reactor.

 

Offline Mefustae

  • 210
  • Chevron locked...
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Unknown Target

The only people that would use nukes nowadays are terrorists, but if they do it, who are you going to nuke back?


A very American view of world politics. The threat from Terrorists has been completely and utterly overblown. Indeed, there is a threat from "terrorists", but not much more than before - you know what - and the idea of the "Terrorist that comes to destroy the Freedom loving world and all those you hold dear" that media nowadays (and most politicians) would have you believe, is also complete and utter crap. The idea that someone could get their hands on a Nuclear Device is fiction, pure and simple, they're nigh-on impossible to manufacture without considerable cost, and much harder to aquire than most would think...

Quote
Originally posted by Black Wolf
The problem with nukes is that even if everyone did get rid of them, the knowledge to build them would still be there. And so any nation who recreated them would immediately become the superpower, and I don't think anyone is willing to risk that at the moment.


I get what you're talking about, and it really rings true, but when you think about it, knowledge can be forgotten and 'un-learned', even weapons technology. All you'd have to do is either enforce the destruction of any and all knowledge on Nulcear Weapons - almost and impossibility given how wide that technology spans - or, to be simple, find something else that gets the job done better. I mean, think about it this way - since WWII, Armour on Warships has been pretty much discarded, as a Cruise Missile or Bomber or whathaveyou launched from a modern fleet could decimate one's ship regardless of Armour designed to stop close-quarter barrages. If there was a sudden need to create heavily armoured ships, nobody would be able to do it, as the technology has been forgotten, discarded, un-learned if you will. Indeed, Neccessity is both the Mother, and Mortician of Invention...

...Back on topic, my theory is that a Group of secret Agents or whathaveyou, should sneak into every missile installation, warehouse, Boomer Sub (whilst in dock of course), or any place housing a Nuclear-Tipped Missile/Bomb, and replace them with Warheads that are completely hollow. I mean, imagine the look on the faces of the respective leaders of future aggressors when their 'Mighty, Feared Nuclear Arsenal' simply impacts their opponent's country with a dull *THUD*...
« Last Edit: June 23, 2005, 06:58:39 am by 2686 »

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Quote
Originally posted by Mefustae


blah blah. The idea that someone could get their hands on a Nuclear Device is fiction, pure and simple, they're nigh-on impossible to manufacture without considerable cost, and much harder to aquire than most would think...
[/b]
Nuclear devices which can be used as weapons vary significantly. The easiest is to take an ordinary explosive, tie a pack of radioactive just around it, blow it in midair and pray. It will do practically no damage but can provoke hysteria or something.

Then you can try to steal a tactical nuke, or build one. Stealing it? Good luck with that. You could bribe your way into some Russian base and contact the responsible generals - quite often the army commanders have direct control over their tactical nuclear weapons but they can only be deployed under orders from higher echelons. This seems unlikely as well, but it's not impossible.

You could also build one. First you have to get the fissile material, and that means either stealing it somehow or buying it. Stealing sounds like a fun sport, because nuclear facilities that handle weapons-grade fissile materials are extremely easy to infiltrate. Buying it requires someone to somehow aquire the stuff and then you'll pay your lifetime savings for it and get a bunch of dead kittens or whatsoever.
This way you can come up with impressive firepower, several kilotons (hint: not very much), could cause a bit of ruckus in some town, cause hysteria and afterall it would be traceable - that's the funny thing, it's possible to trace the fissile material all the way back to it's mining location!

Then you could have an ICBM level MIRV or something as ludicrous. You're not going to get them unless you're some loonie missile base commander, and then James Bond will come and kill your face until you die.

The final note: Aquiring nuclear weapons is certainly not impossible, but it's difficult, and costly, and hazardous, and getting some tactical device you bought from Igor to actually work might be quite a challenge. The scenario in where a mysterious rogue state sells nuclear material to TERRISTS is not impossible, but I have hard time figuring out just why would they do that. So far no plausible scenario exist.


Quote

I get what you're talking about, and it really rings true, but when you think about it, knowledge can be forgotten and 'un-learned', even weapons technology. All you'd have to do is either enforce the destruction of any and all knowledge on Nulcear Weapons - almost and impossibility given how wide that technology spans - or, to be simple, find something else that gets the job done better.

You should also destroy all knowledge on nuclear physics, relativity and so on. Quite a lot to unlearn!

Quote

 I mean, think about it this way - since WWII, Armour on Warships has been pretty much discarded, as a Cruise Missile or Bomber or whathaveyou launched from a modern fleet could decimate one's ship regardless of Armour designed to stop close-quarter barrages. If there was a sudden need to create heavily armoured ships, nobody would be able to do it, as the technology has been forgotten, discarded, un-learned if you will. Indeed, Neccessity is both the Mother, and Mortician of Invention...

I call bull****. If anything, knowledge of making armour has increased substantially in recent 60 years, and we're no longer just attaching steel plates into superstructure and praying that they might stand a blast from Exocet or whathaveyou. You know how well armoured carriers are? Hint: incredibly. We also have all the nice composite armours, ceramic plates, gels, kevlar and stuff - military stuff nowadays is very, very armoured. Naval vessels especially.

Quote

...Back on topic, my theory is that a Group of secret Agents or whathaveyou, should sneak into every missile installation, warehouse, Boomer Sub (whilst in dock of course), or any place housing a Nuclear-Tipped Missile/Bomb, and replace them with Warheads that are completely hollow. I mean, imagine the look on the faces of the respective leaders of future aggressors when their 'Mighty, Feared Nuclear Arsenal' simply impacts their opponent's country with a dull *THUD*... [/B]


Well that wouldn't end up very well would it? ;)
lol wtf

 

Offline pyro-manic

  • Flambé
  • 210
Nuclear deterrent debate (UK)
Janos: Modern warships have practically no armour. They rely on active defence (i.e. shoot down/dodge the missiles before they hit) and advanced damage control. A modern warship would have a very hard time against anything built before 1950 in a head-to-head fight. An Exocet wouldn't even slow a battleship down. Modern warships are designed to fight modern battles, ie against other high-tech weapons and aircraft, rather than against brute force. They will be designed to counter guided missiles rather than shell fire, so they will have lots of point-defence turrets (Phalanx guns and the like), lots of ECM equipment, and will not have any armour plate, as a missile doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy of a 15-inch shell. Rather they'll have a few layers of "skin, to stop the missile penetrating right into the ship and gutting it, and will rely on agility to avoid taking a hit. Most modern warships will be destroyed (or at least critically damaged) if they take more than one or two direct hits - see the Sheffield and Antelope in the Falklands War - whereas an old-style warship could take a dreadful beating before sinking.
Any fool can pull a trigger...