Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

A smaller nation (as in anyone other than the BIG THREE of US, Russia and China) is simply posing by having them. They will never need them in anger, and those they have are probably not fit to make a big impact in a full on nuclear war. This leads me to conclude that having them is the sole reason for having them.

They are a terrible waste of money. To waste so much on the nuclear bombs while there aren't enough hospital beds or when people are surviving on food banks is frankly criminal.

[XXSockXX]

I can't comment about Trident specifically. But I'm all for having nuclear weapons. I honestly believe MAD is what prevented large scale conflicts after WW2. Sure, it does nothing against terrorism or smaller conflicts, and I really don't see the threat of a global conflict even longterm, but it's nice to have insurance just in case. The other problem is of course that the technology just exists. If the wrong people get their hands on nukes and you don't have them yourself, you have already lost.

Well, first of all, other countries without NATO seems to do just as well without a deterrent. Germany is happy without nukes (And with spending only 1.4% of GDP on defense, compared to the UK's 2.5). Turkey, in an unstable neighborhood is just as happy without nukes of its own.

As NATO members Germany and Turkey don't need their own nukes, as they're protected by the NATO members that have them.
Turkey has one of the best armies in Eurasia, if you count them as part of Europe, they have the best military in Europe easily.
Germany on the other hand doesn't spend much on defense for historical reasons, public opinion wouldn't allow it, but it really shows. In a real conventional weapons conflict we would be totally fucked. The Bundeswehr can't even get enough recruits anymore now that conscription is abolished. Now I don't think it's that much of an issue due to NATO membership, and I could never wrap my head around the idea of joining the military myself, but under different circumstances this could be something to worry about.

They have US missiles on their soils, and maybe some tactical weapons they're using (like Belgium), but AFAIK they don't have the codes, and the weapons are managed by the US army, with the Germans and Turks only doing the delivery of the tactical weapons.

This. Publically propose Germany should have nukes and see what happens... The US missiles on our soil are a hot topic too.
Like I said in the other thread, we're specifically forbidden from having our own nukes by the re-unification treaty.

[10ebbor10]

10ebbor10, what do you mean UN deterrent? The UN doesn't own missiles, support within the UN in case of conflict would be non-existant, as every major power can veto stuff, and I'm pretty sure we're going to retaliate even if the baddies don't strike the UN headquarters in NY.

You mean NATO maybe?

My bad, was reading some stuff about the UN, confused the two.

Edit: I'm pretty sure that there are several international agreements preventing Germany from possessing, fabricating or developing any type of WMD.

[Owlbread]

I can't comment about Trident specifically. But I'm all for having nuclear weapons. I honestly believe MAD is what prevented large scale conflicts after WW2. Sure, it does nothing against terrorism or smaller conflicts, and I really don't see the threat of a global conflict even longterm, but it's nice to have insurance just in case. The other problem is of course that the technology just exists. If the wrong people get their hands on nukes and you don't have them yourself, you have already lost.

Having "insurance" isn't worth 130 billion pounds over the next 30 years, if we believe Greenpeace. Global conflicts nowadays aren't kept at bay by MAD, they're kept at bay through the need for every country (whether it's China, Russia, Portugal or the United Kingdom) to maintain the carefully constructed financial and diplomatic stability that we depend so much upon. This is a world where Empires are created and ruled from the boardrooms of banks.

[10ebbor10]

I can't comment about Trident specifically. But I'm all for having nuclear weapons. I honestly believe MAD is what prevented large scale conflicts after WW2. Sure, it does nothing against terrorism or smaller conflicts, and I really don't see the threat of a global conflict even longterm, but it's nice to have insurance just in case. The other problem is of course that the technology just exists. If the wrong people get their hands on nukes and you don't have them yourself, you have already lost.

Having "insurance" isn't worth 130 billion pounds over the next 30 years, if we believe Greenpeace.

Which we don't. Really, never believe those guys.

BASIC's 80 billion is a safe estimate, I'd assume. Though you can probably cut costs tremendously if you switch it from a constant patrol to part-time patrols.

[Sheb]

XXSockXX: My point was about the UK specifically, not about the US for example (which I agree need nukes). We actually are in agreement the UK don't need nukes as NATO members.

[Owlbread]

Which we don't. Really, never believe those guys.

BASIC's 80 billion is a safe estimate, I'd assume. Though you can probably cut costs tremendously if you switch it from a constant patrol to part-time patrols.

Or we could cut the costs completely if we just scrapped the entire wretched system.

[XXSockXX]

XXSockXX: My point was about the UK specifically, not about the US for example (which I agree need nukes). We actually are in agreement the UK don't need nukes as NATO members.

I tend to think that somebody in Europe should have nukes, under the umbrella of NATO and or the EU. Both the UK and France having them seems better to me than just relying on the US. It does not need to be a specific country or a specific program, maybe some decades down the line we could have a nuclear program under the Eurokorps or something. That seems a bit futuristic at the moment though.

[Owlbread]

I tend to think that somebody in Europe should have nukes, under the umbrella of NATO and or the EU. Both the UK and France having them seems better to me than just relying on the US. It does not need to be a specific country or a specific program, maybe some decades down the line we could have a nuclear program under the Eurokorps or something. That seems a bit futuristic at the moment though.

There is no reason for anyone in Europe to have nukes under any umbrella. We won't be "relying" on anyone because nuclear destruction is completely off the cards.

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, I don't trust the US to be the sole defender of NATO. Hell, I don't trust them at all really. They're a bit to happy to overthrown unfriendly governments, stage coups, and spy on the entire world.

A central Eurocorps would probably best, but it's unlikely that the UK would give up their nuclear program in exchange for European nuclear deterrence.

I tend to think that somebody in Europe should have nukes, under the umbrella of NATO and or the EU. Both the UK and France having them seems better to me than just relying on the US. It does not need to be a specific country or a specific program, maybe some decades down the line we could have a nuclear program under the Eurokorps or something. That seems a bit futuristic at the moment though.

There is no reason for anyone in Europe to have nukes under any umbrella. We won't be "relying" on anyone because nuclear destruction is completely off the cards.

It is now. But will it remain that way. There are a couple ways the world could become dangerous real fast, real soon.

[Owlbread]

It is now. But will it remain that way. There are a couple ways the world could become dangerous real fast, real soon.

Please explain, I am listening.

[10ebbor10]

It is now. But will it remain that way. There are a couple ways the world could become dangerous real fast, real soon.

Please explain, I am listening.

-Middle East: Not the most stable place, likely to become worse as water scarcity increases, and if the situation in Turkey doesn't improve.
-China: Facing major internal revolutions if they can't keep growth up. Economy shows signs of "overheating" and possible collapse
-Africa: Droughts might cause problems, including fairly large scale wars.
-US: Massive government, deep political split, College debt crisis brewing, other crisis's in development too.
-Russia: We need to mention these too, though I doubt they'd do much. Might have problems if oil collapses.

Note: Nuclear deterrent isn't against a nuclear strikes. It's a deterrent against any large attacks

[XXSockXX]

It is now. But will it remain that way. There are a couple ways the world could become dangerous real fast, real soon.

That's the way I see it too. I really don't believe in the "China or Russia will invade us" crap that occasionally pops up in some threads, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. The technology is out there, so we have to deal with it.

Political constellations might change, not in the near future, but still. What if something goes wrong in Pakistan or Iran? I wouldn't want to make predictions for the rest of the century, but world peace and stability does not seem the most likely outcome.

[Owlbread]

-Middle East: Not the most stable place, likely to become worse as water scarcity increases, and if the situation in Turkey doesn't improve.
-China: Facing major internal revolutions if they can't keep growth up. Economy shows signs of "overheating" and possible collapse
-Africa: Droughts might cause problems, including fairly large scale wars.
-US: Massive government, deep political split, College debt crisis brewing, other crisis's in development too.
-Russia: We need to mention these too, though I doubt they'd do much. Might have problems if oil collapses.

Note: Nuclear deterrent isn't against a nuclear strikes. It's a deterrent against any large attacks

So the middle east experiencing lots of problems, China facing revolutions, Africa experiencing large scale wars (though surely domestic), the USA experiencing economic problems, Russia experiencing economic problems... no mention of nuclear annhiliation I see. Just a lot of problems. War comes alongside problems like that quite often, but times have changed and now the ruling establishments of the world will work as hard as they possibly can to maintain stability. War is the last thing on anyone's mind, and no matter how rough things get in China we won't see any nuclear bombs dropping any time soon. I don't doubt there'll be a lot of bloodshed throughout this century, but nothing that would justify us retaining our nuclear weapons.

Large attacks, which are extremely unlikely in the modern world (our wars are fought by proxy) can be deterred through other military defences.

That's the way I see it too. I really don't believe in the "China or Russia will invade us" crap that occasionally pops up in some threads, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. The technology is out there, so we have to deal with it.

Political constellations might change, not in the near future, but still. What if something goes wrong in Pakistan or Iran? I wouldn't want to make predictions for the rest of the century, but world peace and stability does not seem the most likely outcome.

If something went wrong in Pakistan or Iran our nuclear bombs wouldn't solve that. That's a job for entirely different tactics.

[Sheb]

Yeah, 10ebbor, nothing you just cited would cause a large attack against Europe. For reasons of geography, the only power that could mount a large attack on Europe is Russia.