Nuclear Weapons - mostly good, or a bit bad?

[snowychap]

I'm in favour of anything that pisses of the SNP and the Greens... So let's get even more of them and if we can shut down a NHS hospital or two to help towards paying for it , then even better

Though if it takes anything away from schooling it's probably not good.

[tonyh29]

I'm in favour of anything that pisses of the SNP and the Greens... So let's get even more of them and if we can shut down a NHS hospital or two to help towards paying for it , then even better

Though if it takes anything away from schooling it's probably not good.

Im just living proof that school teachers are over paid and useless .. That or it was me all along ... Nah can't be that

[darrenm]

Absolutely not. If we ever get to the point where they will be a deterrent for anything, we're all buggered anyway.

[sharkyvilla]

It does cost an absolute shitload of money. I can't get my head around anything costing up to £100bn. Surely you can just whack a bit of plutonium on a rocket for a lot less than that. Keep it on one of the Shetland Islands rather than floating round in a submarine to save petrol money.

[tonyh29]

It does cost an absolute shitload of money. I can't get my head around anything costing up to £100bn. Surely you can just whack a bit of plutonium on a rocket for a lot less than that. Keep it on one of the Shetland Islands rather than floating round in a submarine to save petrol money.

If Hollywood has taught me anything it's that you can store them in a suitcase and put them in left luggage at major stations

[Eames]

Its a chicken and egg situation for me.

 

Can we spend £100bn on nukes when we have 100,000s of people using foodbanks? Or does spending the £100bn ensure that those people are at least alive and suitably radiation free to access foodbanks in the first place?

 

Dunno.

 

On the wider defence issue - reducing spending on defence further is a shit idea IMO. If we want to guarantee strategic and economic interests (eg. Falklands) we need to maintain an effective modern, fit for purpose armed service. My like getting on the free weights at the gym your place in the world is defined by the size of your guns. If they get smaller there is always some other vest wearing meathead ready to push you back to the pilates class.

[The_Rev]

I think you've got to have them if you want to sit at the top table in international politics. I don't think it's any coincidence that the five permanent members of the UN are nuclear powers.

[OutByEaster?]

I'm still not sure who we think we need them to defend ourselves against. 

 

The Russians? If they launched anything in the direction of Western Europe the entire population of the planet would be wiped out in thirty minutes whether we had a 100 megaton bomb or hankie pointed at them. Our part in a future nuclear conflict with Russia is utterly immaterial. Ditto for China.

 

I'm guessing that in the event of UK territory being attacked by a non-nuclear nation it would give us the ability to threaten them with nuclear extinction, but even in that situation I can't see them ever actually being a valuable political weapon, let alone a tactical weapon - would anyone actually have been behind the idea of Thatcher nuking Buenos Aries to defend the Falklands, would the Argentinians have taken that threat seriously?

 

For me, the only political influence they grant is that buying them from the US gets you a pat on the head and a little smile when they pretend you have a voice at their top table - if we're desperate to pretend we're still an important nation, I think it'd be more effective to just give them the cash and have done with it.

 

It's the equivalent of buying a Ferrari because you've got a small cock. £100bn just so that some idiot can push his chest out at a gathering of world leaders and pretend he still matters - pointless - Britannia rules the waves and all that.

[tonyh29]

I'm still not sure who we think we need them to defend ourselves against. 

 

The Russians? If they launched anything in the direction of Western Europe the entire population of the planet would be wiped out in thirty minutes whether we had a 100 megaton bomb or hankie pointed at them. Our part in a future nuclear conflict with Russia is utterly immaterial. Ditto for China.

 

I'm guessing that in the event of UK territory being attacked by a non-nuclear nation it would give us the ability to threaten them with nuclear extinction, but even in that situation I can't see them ever actually being a valuable political weapon, let alone a tactical weapon - would anyone actually have been behind the idea of Thatcher nuking Buenos Aries to defend the Falklands, would the Argentinians have taken that threat seriously?

 

For me, the only political influence they grant is that buying them from the US gets you a pat on the head and a little smile when they pretend you have a voice at their top table - if we're desperate to pretend we're still an important nation, I think it'd be more effective to just give them the cash and have done with it.

 

It's the equivalent of buying a Ferrari because you've got a small cock. £100bn just so that some idiot can push his chest out at a gathering of world leaders and pretend he still matters - pointless - Britannia rules the waves and all that.

the question would be did the Argies think she might just be mad , bad and dangerous enough to use them ?

 

same with Putin , we know he wont use them  , but he also gives just enough hint of bonkers to suggest he might

 

The Americans used them not just for a revenge attack but also to send a message to Stalin to think again .... arguably the threat worked , arguably it also lead to a pointless arm race  ..but  I guess the point would be though that we haven't had any more fired in close on 70 years , even if Cuba was a close run thing

[Eames]

On the subject of nukes one of the "nuke everyone boys" tests used by the Royal Navy is frighteningly simple.

 

If Navy personnel on our 4 nuclear submarines are unable to pick up the Today programme for 4 consecutive days and they know for certain their radio equipment is functioning correctly - they have permission to start swinging with the ICBMs.

 

(This may have changed since digitisation and the internets but the notion that some Admiral launching bombs because he can't hear John Humphries is quite amusing really)

[OutByEaster?]

More worrying is that for over twenty years, the launch code for every missile in the US was 00000000 because the politicians told the military that they were in charge of the missiles and the military told the politicians that they were in charge of the missiles, so the politicians insisted there should be a code so that the decision for launch rested within the White house and not a bunker, and the military agreed but decided not tell the politicians they'd set them all up to be exactly the same.

 

It's all just willy waving. 

 

Did the Argies think that Thatcher was mad enough to use the weapons? No, of course not, and Thatcher was pretty insane, the thing is, everyone knows really that no-one's insane enough to use them - and should somebody appear who actually is, then we shouldn't worry too much about it, because we're already dead.

 

Would you like to pay £100bn and live a poorer life in order to ensure that you get to point a gun back at your firing squad?

[tonyh29]

More worrying is that for over twenty years, the launch code for every missile in the US was 00000000 because the politicians told the military that they were in charge of the missiles and the military told the politicians that they were in charge of the missiles, so the politicians insisted there should be a code so that the decision for launch rested within the White house and not a bunker, and the military agreed but decided not tell the politicians they'd set them all up to be exactly the same.

 

It's all just willy waving. 

 

Did the Argies think that Thatcher was mad enough to use the weapons? No, of course not, and Thatcher was pretty insane, the thing is, everyone knows really that no-one's insane enough to use them - and should somebody appear who actually is, then we shouldn't worry too much about it, because we're already dead.

 

Would you like to pay £100bn and live a poorer life in order to ensure that you get to point a gun back at your firing squad?

the argument is that you are paying £100bn not to have to face that firing squad

[Jon]

 

More worrying is that for over twenty years, the launch code for every missile in the US was 00000000 because the politicians told the military that they were in charge of the missiles and the military told the politicians that they were in charge of the missiles, so the politicians insisted there should be a code so that the decision for launch rested within the White house and not a bunker, and the military agreed but decided not tell the politicians they'd set them all up to be exactly the same.

 

It's all just willy waving. 

 

Did the Argies think that Thatcher was mad enough to use the weapons? No, of course not, and Thatcher was pretty insane, the thing is, everyone knows really that no-one's insane enough to use them - and should somebody appear who actually is, then we shouldn't worry too much about it, because we're already dead.

 

Would you like to pay £100bn and live a poorer life in order to ensure that you get to point a gun back at your firing squad?

the argument is that you are paying £100bn not to have to face that firing squad

 

No, the firing squad is still there (unless eveyone multilaterally disarms tomorrow). Russia, North Korea etc. The difference being that whilst the firing squad is there, you also have a gun aimed at them.

[Eames]

 

 

More worrying is that for over twenty years, the launch code for every missile in the US was 00000000 because the politicians told the military that they were in charge of the missiles and the military told the politicians that they were in charge of the missiles, so the politicians insisted there should be a code so that the decision for launch rested within the White house and not a bunker, and the military agreed but decided not tell the politicians they'd set them all up to be exactly the same.

 

It's all just willy waving. 

 

Did the Argies think that Thatcher was mad enough to use the weapons? No, of course not, and Thatcher was pretty insane, the thing is, everyone knows really that no-one's insane enough to use them - and should somebody appear who actually is, then we shouldn't worry too much about it, because we're already dead.

 

Would you like to pay £100bn and live a poorer life in order to ensure that you get to point a gun back at your firing squad?

the argument is that you are paying £100bn not to have to face that firing squad

 

No, the firing squad is still there (unless eveyone multilaterally disarms tomorrow). Russia, North Korea etc. The difference being that whilst the firing squad is there, you also have a gun aimed at them.

 

So everyone is in a mexican standoff. The £100bn guarantees a couple of guns rather than bananas.

[tonyh29]

 

 

More worrying is that for over twenty years, the launch code for every missile in the US was 00000000 because the politicians told the military that they were in charge of the missiles and the military told the politicians that they were in charge of the missiles, so the politicians insisted there should be a code so that the decision for launch rested within the White house and not a bunker, and the military agreed but decided not tell the politicians they'd set them all up to be exactly the same.

 

It's all just willy waving. 

 

Did the Argies think that Thatcher was mad enough to use the weapons? No, of course not, and Thatcher was pretty insane, the thing is, everyone knows really that no-one's insane enough to use them - and should somebody appear who actually is, then we shouldn't worry too much about it, because we're already dead.

 

Would you like to pay £100bn and live a poorer life in order to ensure that you get to point a gun back at your firing squad?

the argument is that you are paying £100bn not to have to face that firing squad

 

No, the firing squad is still there (unless eveyone multilaterally disarms tomorrow). Russia, North Korea etc. The difference being that whilst the firing squad is there, you also have a gun aimed at them.

 

show me a  war film where the resistance leader got tied to a post and shot by firing squad whilst holding a gun in his hand 

 

but I can't help but think we are going around here on a play of words 

 

 

I suppose a better way to look at the question would be , do you think Israel would still exist if it wasn't a nuclear power ( they do of course have American support ) .. would the DPRK still exist if it didn't have a nuclear capability  ? they have a frightening amount of hardware but nothing that couldn't be taken out if the desire was there  ( which arguably it isn't as it suits both America and China to have them as a buffer zone)

 

the answer in both cases might still be yes ... but I suspect having nukes means both of these examples have increased their likelihood of survival a few % points

Edited April 22, 2015 by tonyh29

[OutByEaster?]

 

 

 

More worrying is that for over twenty years, the launch code for every missile in the US was 00000000 because the politicians told the military that they were in charge of the missiles and the military told the politicians that they were in charge of the missiles, so the politicians insisted there should be a code so that the decision for launch rested within the White house and not a bunker, and the military agreed but decided not tell the politicians they'd set them all up to be exactly the same.

 

It's all just willy waving. 

 

Did the Argies think that Thatcher was mad enough to use the weapons? No, of course not, and Thatcher was pretty insane, the thing is, everyone knows really that no-one's insane enough to use them - and should somebody appear who actually is, then we shouldn't worry too much about it, because we're already dead.

 

Would you like to pay £100bn and live a poorer life in order to ensure that you get to point a gun back at your firing squad?

the argument is that you are paying £100bn not to have to face that firing squad

 

No, the firing squad is still there (unless eveyone multilaterally disarms tomorrow). Russia, North Korea etc. The difference being that whilst the firing squad is there, you also have a gun aimed at them.

 

show me a  war film where the resistance leader got tied to a post and shot by firing squad whilst holding a gun in his hand 

 

but I can't help but think we are going around here on a play of words 

 

 

I suppose a better way to look at the question would be , do you think Israel would still exist if it wasn't a nuclear power ( they do of course have American support ) .. would the DPRK still exist if it didn't have a nuclear capability  ? they have a frightening amount of hardware but nothing that couldn't be taken out if the desire was there  ( which arguably it isn't as it suits both America and China to have them as a buffer zone)

 

the answer in both cases might still be yes ... but I suspect having nukes means both of these examples have increased their likelihood of survival a few % points

 

So, what you're saying is that if you plan to become a rogue state, with a penchant for breaching human rights and persecuting people, you'll need nuclear weapons - and you believe we should spend £100bn on them, just in case we get the urge to be arseholes?

 

Nations like Sweden for example seem to exist despite not having nuclear weapons, I'd quite like us to be more like them than Israel.

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

 

More worrying is that for over twenty years, the launch code for every missile in the US was 00000000 because the politicians told the military that they were in charge of the missiles and the military told the politicians that they were in charge of the missiles, so the politicians insisted there should be a code so that the decision for launch rested within the White house and not a bunker, and the military agreed but decided not tell the politicians they'd set them all up to be exactly the same.

 

It's all just willy waving. 

 

Did the Argies think that Thatcher was mad enough to use the weapons? No, of course not, and Thatcher was pretty insane, the thing is, everyone knows really that no-one's insane enough to use them - and should somebody appear who actually is, then we shouldn't worry too much about it, because we're already dead.

 

Would you like to pay £100bn and live a poorer life in order to ensure that you get to point a gun back at your firing squad?

the argument is that you are paying £100bn not to have to face that firing squad

 

No, the firing squad is still there (unless eveyone multilaterally disarms tomorrow). Russia, North Korea etc. The difference being that whilst the firing squad is there, you also have a gun aimed at them.

 

show me a  war film where the resistance leader got tied to a post and shot by firing squad whilst holding a gun in his hand 

 

but I can't help but think we are going around here on a play of words 

 

 

I suppose a better way to look at the question would be , do you think Israel would still exist if it wasn't a nuclear power ( they do of course have American support ) .. would the DPRK still exist if it didn't have a nuclear capability  ? they have a frightening amount of hardware but nothing that couldn't be taken out if the desire was there  ( which arguably it isn't as it suits both America and China to have them as a buffer zone)

 

the answer in both cases might still be yes ... but I suspect having nukes means both of these examples have increased their likelihood of survival a few % points

 

So, what you're saying is that if you plan to become a rogue state, with a penchant for breaching human rights and persecuting people, you'll need nuclear weapons - and you believe we should spend £100bn on them, just in case we get the urge to be arseholes?

 

Nations like Sweden for example seem to exist despite not having nuclear weapons, I'd quite like us to be more like them than Israel.

 

 

I said no such thing   ... I'm not ex-pounding the merits of these states \ regimes I'm stating a reason why in their situations it could be advantageous to have a deterrent

 

If you've ever been to Sweden then you'd know the only thing worth fighting for is the plane back out   , however if you lived in Israel , a nation whose very existence some of your neighbours have issues with , you might just make a decision that weapons like these are quite useful to have in your armoury  ...

[OutByEaster?]

I very gladly don't live in a nation like Israel. I live in the UK. In so far as I'm aware our neighbours are no immediate threat. Can I have better schools, roads and hospitals instead please?

[tonyh29]

I very gladly don't live in a nation like Israel. I live in the UK. In so far as I'm aware our neighbours are no immediate threat. Can I have better schools, roads and hospitals instead please?

 

yes ..vote Tory on the 7th May

[OutByEaster?]

 

I very gladly don't live in a nation like Israel. I live in the UK. In so far as I'm aware our neighbours are no immediate threat. Can I have better schools, roads and hospitals instead please?

 

yes ..vote Tory on the 7th May

 

[packs bag, moves to Israel]