Nuclear deterrent

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Jun 18, 2005.

  1. Expensive big nukes and no money for anything else

  2. Little nukes and more spent on conventional forces


Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Do we need a new Trident system, at £12bn or so, or could we ditch the ballistic missile in favour of far cheaper nuclear-tipped cruise missiles - whether launched by submarine or aircraft?

    If we can't afford to run the Armed Forces as presently constituted, surely we can't afford a nuclear arsenal that we are not likely to use in any case.
  2. So long as the warheads are big enough, so that if it's ever need (God forbid!), we could at least threaten to launch them at the heart of a city and the threat would be taken seriously.

    There's no reason I can think of why our nuclear weapons need to be mounted on ICBMs. We're no longer in a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario; though perhaps we should consider what happens if we end up in one again? Might scrapping all our ICBMs put us at risk?

  3. Well the french and germans are getting a bit uppity again
  4. SLBM is still the closest thing to absotively, posolutely saying "from hell's heart I stab at thee" to any potential agressor.

    It cannot effectively be negated by any current weapon system or other technology. So... Until it becomes vulnerable or something better comes along it's the way to go.

    (Which is the way you want the other guy to think)

    The flipside of the coin is that they're so potentially dangerous that we're very, very unlikely to ever be put in a position where we would seriously contemplate their use. This is generally a good thing.

    I propse that we do away with the acronymn and simply call it "mad", it is.
    It works.
  5. What on earth does UK need a nuclear wepons system for ?
    The days of Empire are long gone. Britian no longer has large armed forces or the power to project them around the world.
    Get rid of these very exspensive weapons and give up the Seat on the Security Council, Germany or Japan would fill that role quite happily.
    Then our navy could protect the fishing fleet and the troops could play Dads Army while the Crabs return to the occifers flying club of old.
  6. jon,

    We need to maintain the independent nuclear deterrent cos we just don't know what's going to happen 20 years down the line.
  7. We are simply playing at having an independent nuclear weapons capability. Can anyone contemplate a situation in which we would (or would be allowed to) use nuclear weapons without a green light from the US or, indeed, where we would face a threat from nuclear weapons, without US intervention? We should get rid of our nuclear weapons and concentrate on getting our conventional forces up to scratch.
  8. I do know what you are saying.
    But I do wonder.
    Just what/where is UK going ?
    Conventional forces are slashed to bare bones, There was never enough infantry in my day, there can't be enough fighting troops in this day and age yet Blur seems to find commitments world wide.
    And Africa, what is all this talk about WE must do something about Africa.
    We tried, we introduce national states, Judges and jurys, a fair civil service, education systems, roads and railways, Airports.
    WE us the Brits made slavery illigal in days gone by when Slavery was a way of accepted life. It had been since the first 'Democracy' Greece.
    What price do you pay for the above?
  9. Jonwilly, I seriously hope you're joking. Having a nuclear is about saying don't try to fcuk us over, because we can play too.

    I think Biscuits Brown has my opinion in a nutshell. The UK and territories are just too small to make any fixed nuclear deterrent effective. Like it or not, we need to keep our nuclear deterrent up to date. We moan that for years governments have underspent on land forces; in 10 years time I can imagine a scenario where we are moaning about the poor state of the nuclear deterrent. Hell, it's already inadequate.
  10. i think we do need to maintain some sort of a nuclear dertant

    i would think that a number of small "tactial" wepons would be far more cost effective and if used (god forbid) then they would be able to be used in a more "surgigal"(sp) way tring to keep unnassery damage to a limit (as far as possibl with a nike)
  11. Why don't we threaten a few countries and get our empire back? 1st up Zimbabwe(sp) if they don't give in drop a second sun on 'em.

    21st century version of gunboat diplomacy.

    Might work out cheaper and quicker than land invasion

    Once we've used the big nukes we can save money and invest in smaller ones :D
  12. BTY...I got a much cheaper version going out in my shop...made from old DVD players linked with kitchen microwaves...mirrors and 'smoke'.


  13. AND it can be mounted in the bed of a pickup truck!