• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi

#1
What is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to the ox

From point of view of US/UK Iran hasn't right to develop nuclear weapons (btw I prefer to see Iran without nukes too). But

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article320124.ece

The Independent revealed in May that Mr Blair had decided to go ahead with a replacement for Trident, at a total cost likely to exceed £10bn, but that he was delaying the announcement until after the general election.

In June, the Prime Minister announced that he wanted to "listen" to the views of MPs before making a final decision. However, both he and Mr Reid have pointedly avoiding saying that MPs will be given an opportunity to vote on the nuclear issue.
...
Yesterday, Mr Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, held talks at Chequers with the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, about the worsening relations with Iran. The US government, backed by Britain, is intent on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Critics say Britain's case is weakened if Mr Blair insists on rebuilding Britain's nuclear arsenal.
 
#4
AndyPipkin said:
Well I think we can all agree that for safety reasons alone Russians should not be allowed to play with submarines.
Alas, too late.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/09/28/missiletests.shtml

Russia successfully test-launched a newly-developed intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday, the navy said, The Associated Press reported.

The Bulava, a solid fuel missile, blasted off from the nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy in the White Sea and hit its designated target in the far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, chief naval spokesman Capt. Igor Dygalo said in a statement.
 
#5
Biscuits_AB said:
Do you do personal horoscopes as well? I'm a Scorpio.
I have a prediction for Scorpions. If this week a Scorpio finds an eagle with broken wing on Trafalgar square then he(she) will not win 1 million Pounds in lottery this month. So avoid eagles with broken wing or don't visit Trafalgar square at all.

My prediction is very reliable.
 
#7
Quote:
Russia successfully test-launched a newly-developed intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday, the navy said, The Associated Press reported.
The Bulava, a solid fuel missile, blasted off from the nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy in the White Sea and hit its designated target in the far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, chief naval spokesman Capt. Igor Dygalo said in a statement.
Who lives there that have p*ssed the Russians off lately I wonder.
 
#8
AndyPipkin said:
Well done, Sergey, you finally got a missile to work!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3499967.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4114380.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4323378.stm

Hope the launching submarine is OK. Don't want to have to send our boys to rescue you again.
Thanks God the submarine is OK. Happily the UK always has good naval resquers. It will be essential during tests of missile system that would be developed in the UK.
 
#9
Russia successfully test-launched a newly-developed intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday, the navy said, The Associated Press reported.

The Bulava, a solid fuel missile, blasted off from the nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy in the White Sea and hit its designated target in the far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, chief naval spokesman Capt. Igor Dygalo said in a statement.
Any idea where it actually landed or should I look for a sturdy table to hide under??
 
#10
Malariadup said:
Russia successfully test-launched a newly-developed intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday, the navy said, The Associated Press reported.

The Bulava, a solid fuel missile, blasted off from the nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy in the White Sea and hit its designated target in the far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, chief naval spokesman Capt. Igor Dygalo said in a statement.
Any idea where it actually landed or should I look for a sturdy table to hide under??
The submarine was in White Sea (few hundred km. Eastward from Finland). Btw, there is an old monastery on Solovetskiye islands. I visited that place long ago and had seen marks made by British rounds in the monastery (during Crimean war it was shelled by British navy).

Huge Kamchatka Peninsula is on Russian Far East and looks like a fish. Btw, main port there - Petropavlovsk was shelled by the British also 150 years ago.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#11
KGB_resident said:
AndyPipkin said:
Well I think we can all agree that for safety reasons alone Russians should not be allowed to play with submarines.
Alas, too late.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/09/28/missiletests.shtml

Russia successfully test-launched a newly-developed intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday, the navy said, The Associated Press reported.

The Bulava, a solid fuel missile, blasted off from the nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy in the White Sea and hit its designated target in the far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, chief naval spokesman Capt. Igor Dygalo said in a statement.
Hmm! Nice, How much are they Sergey?
 
#12
Am I right in thinking that if the UK gave up it's nuclear deterrent - it would also cast doubt on it's right to be a permanent member of the Security Council?
 
#13
KGB_resident said:
Huge Kamchatka Peninsula is on Russian Far East and looks like a fish. Btw, main port there - Petropavlovsk was shelled by the British also 150 years ago.
Yeah -that is part of the little known Alaska Campaign in the Crimean war. The much feared Russian Invasion of Canada.
 
#14
benjaminw1 said:
Hmm! Nice, How much are they Sergey?
I don't know Benjamin. There is some information

http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/ss-nx-30_russia.html

http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/3139.aspx

The Bulava missile (NATO designation SS-NX-30) is a derivative of the Topol-M (NATO designation SS-27). It has been augmented to thwart all anti missile defense systems currently under development in the US.
What else? 10 warheads, 550 Ktonns each. Range 8000 (or 10000?) km. Just new missile system, not the first, not the last. Probably it is not for sale. So the UK has to develop own missile system.

Returning to the theme on this thread, I strongly doubt that Iranians would receive this technology.
 
#16
AndyPipkin said:
Looks uncallily like a Trident 2 D5 knockoff, come to think of it. Specs pretty much the same, too.

Will Russia be selling this to China? Maybe Iran?
The Russians will sell to anyone with cash.
If a country has the money to maintain a nuclear reactor to generate power more power to them. Why would a nation need nuclear weapons ? The money spent on a nuclear weapons program can provide a very potent conventional military to discourage its neighbors.
 
#17
tomahawk6 said:
Why would a nation need nuclear weapons ? The money spent on a nuclear weapons program can provide a very potent conventional military to discourage its neighbors.
If Saddam had not imaginary 'WMD' but nuclear weapons then he would be a president today. It is impossible to discourage American military by conventional weapons for such country as Iran.

In fact, Iraqi war stimulated interest to nuclear weapons worldwide.
 
#18
Crusty(LE) said:
Am I right in thinking that if the UK gave up it's nuclear deterrent - it would also cast doubt on it's right to be a permanent member of the Security Council?
It shouldn't have a direct bearing on the UK's permanent seat. The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 with the 5 Allies allocated permanent seats on the Security Council, whilst the UK's nuclear deterrent policy wasn't implemented until 1947. There are several arguments as to who 'deserves' a permanent seat, with some lobbying for the number to be increased to 7 to include Japan and Germany in order that their influence on world events be recognised, but both countries' restrictions on the use of their armed forces mean that they can't play the peace-enforcing roles that are argued to be required of 'leader' states.

Furthermore, if membership of the 'nuclear club' is seen as the key to a permanent seat, it would mean that Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and Iran (to name a few) would have a ‘right’ to a seat each – imagine the carnage wrought by that! Certainly being an ‘official’ nuclear power brings kudos, but it is still the ability to deploy conventional forces which seems to weigh more heavily regarding the importance and usefulness of a state to the UN.
 
#19
KGB_resident said:
tomahawk6 said:
Why would a nation need nuclear weapons ? The money spent on a nuclear weapons program can provide a very potent conventional military to discourage its neighbors.
If Saddam had not imaginary 'WMD' but nuclear weapons then he would be a president today. It is impossible to discourage American military by conventional weapons for such country as Iran.

In fact, Iraqi war stimulated interest to nuclear weapons worldwide.
Sergey old chap - you know that, I know that and Iran/India/China/Syria etc etc all know that. But the US has a curious mental block when it comes to the reactions of other nations to their actions. That's not means as an attack, more an observation. Indeed, I'd identify this inability to get inside the heads of other countries as the most significant barrier to them achieving their goals. The naive belief that all other nations share the same values and will react in the same way as the US means they keep getting surprised by what actually happens.
 

Latest Threads