Nuclear Weapons Debate

[Strontium]

Care to elaborate?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4805768.stm

 

Critics say that Britain is technically so dependent on the United States that in effect Trident is not an independent system. For example, the British Trident missiles are serviced at a US port in Georgia, the missiles are to have their lives extended by the US and Tony Blair has said the UK will work with the US when the US develops a replacement for the D5 missile in the 2040s. The critics also argue that the British warhead design is based on an American one and that warhead components are also from the United States.

[drewy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4805768.stm

 

Seriously, is that your evidence?

[tokyojoe]

Sorry mate but that's crap.

 

In what respect?

[WaltonRed]

The belief behind it is you dont know what the future holds. they are going to last for the next 50 years so the BBC on the news last night had 3 countries down as possible enemies worthy of a nuking, Russia and China being two of them

[Dirk]

Worthy of being nuked? "Those damn Afghani's aren't worthy. We need to find a country that's worthy of this honour. It's our fission for the future."

[Strontium]

Seriously, is that your evidence?

I couldn't find a better source at short notice. I found this from New Statesman which sets it out in better detail.

 

Suffice to say we can't fire them without the technological support of the Yanks.

[Section_31]

I couldn't find a better source at short notice. I found this from New Statesman which sets it out in better detail.

 

Suffice to say we can't fire them without the technological support of the Yanks.

 

Thats a little different from Permission though isn't it? permission implies that if some fucker (say, the French) dropped chemical weapons on Manchester (:laugh: ) Blair and friends would have to gather round a speaker phone and ask the Senate for permission to retaliate, I'd be staggered if that was the case and surely more of a fuss would have been made about that fact before now.

 

I watched a fly on the wall documentary about five years ago about the HMS Trafalgar, a nuclear missile sub, and while they test-fired a Trident there were US Navy inspectors aboard, but this was because they're effectively American weapons and as has been said, only they have the know how to instruct on how they are serviced launched and repaired.

 

Remmie, as Monty said Nuclear weapons are supposed to stop an enemy dropping a bomb on you (or holding the fact they've got the bomb over you as a threat) i.e North Korea saying 'give us the Isle of Mann or we'll Nuke you' to which we'd reply 'oh yeah, well you do and we'll nuke you back'

 

Its this dead-end warfare thats kept us all at relative peace for so long. and the reason the Russians were so pissed off when Dubya started making noise about re-opening the SDI defence program, this violates the Start-1 missile treaty as it would effectively remove an enemy's ability to retaliate if you nuked him first, i.e it changes the rules.

[Remmie]

If that's the case then there are some very weird people in power. If they nuke us, we're dead, there's no-one left to nuke them back anyway! Anyway, I say give them the isle of man, full of cat tail biting inbred deviants

[Section_31]

If that's the case then there are some very weird people in power. If they nuke us, we're dead, there's no-one left to nuke them back anyway! Anyway, I say give them the isle of man, full of cat tail biting inbred deviants

 

 

 

Thats why we stick em on Submarines, in theory an enemy would have to take all four of our subs down simultaniously, nuke our land-based missile silos, and down our bombers (not that we have any since the Vulcan was retired).

 

The theory is there would always be one Sub left hiding under the ice-cap or something who could score one for the home team while we're all on fire and feeling extremely unwell.

[drewy]

In what respect?

 

The notion that they have a "software overide" incorporated into them.

[drewy]

I couldn't find a better source at short notice. I found this from New Statesman which sets it out in better detail.

 

Suffice to say we can't fire them without the technological support of the Yanks.

 

Not quite the same as we can't fire them without the say so of the yanks though is it?

 

It's an American system, designed in America, made in America, supported in America the full Monty. What's the alternative?

 

Develop our own? Fuckin uproar would entail that decision, swiftly followed by bankruptcy of the UK. For the record we have never had a true British nuclear weapons programme.