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

[10ebbor10]

It seems that maintaining the appearance of nuclear strike capability involves continuous testing, aka demonstration of that ability. A good demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
(Click close to the end if you don't want to enjoy 15 minutes of *bling* *bling*...)

Once you've established that you got nuclear ability*, you don't need to blow up stuff anymore. Hell, you don't need to be recognized anymore, just leak some documents to the other's spy service.

*Recognized as nuclear state, amongst others

Loud Whisper: Back in WWII, the UK had significant holdings in Asia that they don't have anymore. Concerns toward Japan don't apply as such.As for China being a concern for Australia, it's irrelevant as we were discussing the British nuclear program.

Commonwealth still exists. Besides, everyone is capable of shooting things all over the world. There's no local problems anymore, any conflict will have repercussions all across the globe.

[Owlbread]

The Commonwealth means practically nothing. We only ever use it for sporting events.

[Loud Whispers]

If china turned militaristic, America would crumble to dust.
This isn't about being 'anti-america' but about who's holding who's purse.

You mean private holders, Brazil, the UK, Japan and... China? I don't see any crumbling any time soon. If you look at the UK when it was a superpower it was running itself into the ground at 50% of its GDP being spent on war, but it also shows just how much stress a country can undergo before it falls. Which it didn't. And the USA doesn't even need a global Empire to sustain such an economy. And they've just found lots of oil in Texas.

Loud Whisper: Back in WWII, the UK had significant holdings in Asia that they don't have anymore. Concerns toward Japan don't apply as such.As for China being a concern for Australia, it's irrelevant as we were discussing the British nuclear program.

The Commonwealth means practically nothing. We only ever use it for sporting events.

The British and Australians have been allies since Australia's founding lasting through its independence to the modern day. Just in January the defence pact was renewed and signed, and maintaining operational ability in Asia for both Britain and Australia was of key concern. Historically Britain's nuclear program was born in Australia, and again, in the event of a catastrophe the Vanguard submarines are to submit either to the USA or Australia. You'd be M.A.D. not to include them... And China.

[Owlbread]

That isn't necessarily a Commonwealth matter though. We have a particularly close relationship with Australia and New Zealand and at times places like Fiji, but that is unusual. I don't see anything wrong with the Australians relying on the United States for nuclear weapons in any case, they're much closer to the USA and their pacific bases than us.

Again, though, I just can't see the catastrophe that is going to require nuclear weapons. Nobody has convinced me of this besides making vague references to Chinese instability/militarism. The best people can do, seemingly, is to say "we need them just in case", which sounds a lot like the argument for an American citizen to own a fully automatic rifle so that he can stop the murderer who could suddenly turn up at his house in the dead of night with another fully automatic weapon. There's probably a much greater risk of that happening in the USA than a situation going nuclear any time soon.

[Sheb]

10ebbor, while China can shoot in Europe, it cannot project significant conventional forces. Again, the only thing would be to deter against a Chinese nuclear strike. But why on Earth would China nuke Europe? Except if you're talking full-scale WWIII, in which case it's totally safe to rely on the US to deter them from nuking.

[Loud Whispers]

That isn't necessarily a Commonwealth matter though. We have a particularly close relationship with Australia and New Zealand and at times places like Fiji, but that is unusual. I don't see anything wrong with the Australians relying on the United States for nuclear weapons in any case, they're much closer to the USA and their pacific bases than us.

Maintaining the capabilities to oblige the defence pact is a rather nice thing to do.

Again, though, I just can't see the catastrophe that is going to require nuclear weapons. Nobody has convinced me of this besides making vague references to Chinese instability/militarism. The best people can do, seemingly, is to say "we need them just in case", which sounds a lot like the argument for an American citizen to own a fully automatic rifle so that he can stop the murderer who could suddenly turn up at his house in the dead of night with another fully automatic weapon. There's probably a much greater risk of that happening in the USA than a situation going nuclear any time soon.

If the automatic rifle was capable of killing the murderer even after the citizen was murdered and there was a big flashy sign following him saying [you will die if you kill me] then the argument sort of applies. Also it's not so much a catastrophe that is the big fear [well it is, but you can't really do much once you're dead], it's a deterrent. No one will seek to take advantage of you if you are capable of holding your own. Submarines are the cheapest delivery form, the Royal Navy's subs are nigh on undetectable and can operate in all open seas in addition to arctic environments and they also cannot be preemptively destroyed by other nukes. They provide no target. They are as has been said before, the gun that cannot be fired because their purpose is to warn people off that a firefight cannot begin in the first place. I would not leave sole control to America were it my decision, especially in light of their recent willingness to sell the serial numbers of the UKs current nuclear warheads. To maintain world peace, nuclear weapons must remain known to the world in the hands of a few stable countries.
There are a lot of people the UK has sworn to defend, some of them neighbours to popular bogeymen, but the principle will stay the same; we know little about what the future will look like. Once you lose nukes you will not regain them, and if you ever come into conflict with a nuclear power where you have none you are stuffed. Georgia isn't faring well looking at Russia on their rightful clay. The East is coming into conflict with the South-East, leading to instability and the possible restriction of sea lanes. It is the role of the Royal Navy to ensure that Britain's sea lanes are always open, and having a vast navy will mean nothing if you have no nuclear capability to contend with opposing nuclear countries. Strategic points like the straits of Hormuz are contended by nuclear powers like China, and 90% of all British imports come by sea. Maintaining these lanes with the minimal cost of billions is well worth the price of ensuring Britain's entire economy doesn't collapse.

10ebbor, while China can shoot in Europe, it cannot project significant conventional forces. Again, the only thing would be to deter against a Chinese nuclear strike. But why on Earth would China nuke Europe? Except if you're talking full-scale WWIII, in which case it's totally safe to rely on the US to deter them from nuking.

The UK gets its juicy stuff like oil from other countries, and is a great exporter of funnily enough, machine bits like nuclear reactors and boilers. Everywhere the sea is the UK needs the ability to wander. Such is the cost of an island.

[Owlbread]

Maintaining the capabilities to oblige the defence pact is a rather nice thing to do.

I would prefer to break said defence pact.

If the automatic rifle was capable of killing the murderer even after the citizen was murdered and there was a big flashy sign following him saying [you will die if you kill me] then the argument sort of applies.

I would have thought that MAD could extend to a situation where two people were evenly matched.

Also it's not so much a catastrophe that is the big fear [well it is, but you can't really do much once you're dead], it's a deterrent. No one will seek to take advantage of you if you are capable of holding your own.

We aren't, however. We're prioritising our nuclear defence system and our armed forces (despite the cuts) as opposed to our Navy, who urgently need more funding. We would struggle to defend our overseas territories in the event of another conflict.

Submarines are the cheapest delivery form, the Royal Navy's subs are nigh on undetectable and can operate in all open seas in addition to arctic environments and they also cannot be preemptively destroyed by other nukes. They provide no target. They are as has been said before, the gun that cannot be fired because their purpose is to warn people off that a firefight cannot begin in the first place.

A firefight that would never begin in the first place. Even if they are the cheapest delivery form, they are far too expensive.

I would not leave sole control to America were it my decision, especially in light of their recent willingness to sell the serial numbers of the UKs current nuclear warheads. To maintain world peace, nuclear weapons must remain known to the world in the hands of a few stable countries.

I disagree, I believe that forming international police forces who would hunt down those who would seek to create nuclear bombs is a preferable course of action.

There are a lot of people the UK has sworn to defend, some of them neighbours to popular bogeymen,

I would scrap as many of those treaties as I could and start again from a clean slate.

but the principle will stay the same; we know little about what the future will look like. Once you lose nukes you will not regain them, and if you ever come into conflict with a nuclear power where you have none you are stuffed. Georgia isn't faring well looking at Russia on their rightful clay. The East is coming into conflict with the South-East, leading to instability and the possible restriction of sea lanes. It is the role of the Royal Navy to ensure that Britain's sea lanes are always open, and having a vast navy will mean nothing if you have no nuclear capability to contend with opposing nuclear countries. Strategic points like the straits of Hormuz are contended by nuclear powers like China, and 90% of all British imports come by sea. Maintaining these lanes with the minimal cost of billions is well worth the price of ensuring Britain's entire economy doesn't collapse.

Instability, instability, instability. Nothing tangible. I keep hearing about shaky situations, but nothing that could possibly go nuclear or warrant waving the nuclear submarines in our enemy's face.

[Loud Whispers]

I would prefer to break said defence pact.

Wot

If the automatic rifle was capable of killing the murderer even after the citizen was murdered and there was a big flashy sign following him saying [you will die if you kill me] then the argument sort of applies.

I would have thought that MAD could extend to a situation where two people were evenly matched.

They are? They both die.

Also it's not so much a catastrophe that is the big fear [well it is, but you can't really do much once you're dead], it's a deterrent. No one will seek to take advantage of you if you are capable of holding your own.

We aren't, however. We're prioritising our nuclear defence system and our armed forces (despite the cuts) as opposed to our Navy, who urgently need more funding. We would struggle to defend our overseas territories in the event of another conflict.

Relevant quote is relevant:

I honestly can't comment too much on the future of the UK post independence. The thing is though, the UK already can't really protect its overseas territories with the focus our government has put on the army rather than the Navy.

The focus has been on the army because of the degradation of the expeditionary force, within this decade we could be seeing the two largest ships ever created by the Royal Navy and the astute class submarines have been sailing since 2011, it looks functional for the first time since the harriers were scrapped. The UK can as of now, but Scotland's independence could change that. What immediately comes to mind is the loss of a quarter or so of naval bases, but then there are also things about the loss of specialist recruits and training centers alongside production facilities. Moreso when the modern ships of the fleet are not built in one shipyard and the modern aircraft aren't even built in one country. An easy example would be the Queen Elizabeth which is currently in Rosyth shipyard in Scotland.

As long as the UK maintains its blue water navy and its nuclear projection capabilities, its clay, allies and ports will always be lively and protected.

Submarines are the cheapest delivery form, the Royal Navy's subs are nigh on undetectable and can operate in all open seas in addition to arctic environments and they also cannot be preemptively destroyed by other nukes. They provide no target. They are as has been said before, the gun that cannot be fired because their purpose is to warn people off that a firefight cannot begin in the first place.

A firefight that would never begin in the first place. Even if they are the cheapest delivery form, they are far too expensive.

How so? They are a small fraction of most cost effective method of maintaining the most amount of military power from the defence budget for a country whose military budget is actually in proportion. It is absurd to say they are far too expensive, we are not America. And America's nukes aren't even what drains their defence budget, their defence budgets surmounts to $683 billion and the NNSA's separate budget surmounts to $11 billion. I could see the argument for downsizing the conventional armed forces including the nuclear stockpile, whilst maintaining operational capabilities for both, but the great thing about this is it is what I see, it is what is happening.

I would not leave sole control to America were it my decision, especially in light of their recent willingness to sell the serial numbers of the UKs current nuclear warheads. To maintain world peace, nuclear weapons must remain known to the world in the hands of a few stable countries.

I disagree, I believe that forming international police forces who would hunt down those who would seek to create nuclear bombs is a preferable course of action.

And until that even becomes a possibility, nukes.

There are a lot of people the UK has sworn to defend, some of them neighbours to popular bogeymen,

I would scrap as many of those treaties as I could and start again from a clean slate.

Wooooaat

but the principle will stay the same; we know little about what the future will look like. Once you lose nukes you will not regain them, and if you ever come into conflict with a nuclear power where you have none you are stuffed. Georgia isn't faring well looking at Russia on their rightful clay. The East is coming into conflict with the South-East, leading to instability and the possible restriction of sea lanes. It is the role of the Royal Navy to ensure that Britain's sea lanes are always open, and having a vast navy will mean nothing if you have no nuclear capability to contend with opposing

Instability, instability, instability. Nothing tangible. I keep hearing about shaky situations, but nothing that could possibly go nuclear or warrant waving the nuclear submarines in our enemy's face.

Tankers coming in from Qatar pass through at least the Straits of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mendeb, Suez, Gibraltar, Dover. Let's say China and Iran decided to try shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, maybe just setting up mines in it to hell and back. enjoying their new pipeline. Will they allow British tankers through if they have the backing of nukes, or no nukes?

[Another]

And how possessing nukes would prevent Iran from mining the Gulf? What could be done with them, nuclear bomb Tehran, really?

[10ebbor10]

And how possessing nukes would prevent Iran from mining the Gulf? What could be done with them, nuclear bomb Tehran, really?

Assume a nuclear armed Iran, and a non armed competitor.

What are you going to do then? Invade. Can't do that, because they would nuke you. Having nukes ensures that they won't use theirs, allowing other measures to be taken.

[MonkeyHead]

Iran's enemies/competitors having a nuclear strike capability has not stopped it acting like a dick in the recent past - though its hard to quantify how they might have behaved if thier rivals/enemies did not have said nuclear capability.

[10ebbor10]

Iran didn't do to much bad things lately. It's mainly bad press from the US because they held their embassy hostage all those years ago.

[hector13]

Iran didn't do to much bad things lately. It's mainly bad press from the US because they held their embassy hostage all those years ago.

They're enriching uranium. As in, something you need to do before getting nuke-yelir weapons. They may claim they're developing a civvy energy program, but I imagine, of the almost 20,000 centrifuges they have for enrichment, it would be quite easy to 'lose' some to a secret project for weaponising it.

The problem with Iran is they're an Islamic republic. One thing that religion is good at, is producing extremists, irrespective of their religious manual and bent. If an extremist individual gets their hands on a nuclear weapon, I don't think any nuclear power can convince them not to use it.

[Dutchling]

Yup. People don't like want 'nuke Tehran' to be the only diplomatic option with Iran. Not the current Iran of course, they're not that crazy.

[10ebbor10]

Iran didn't do to much bad things lately. It's mainly bad press from the US because they held their embassy hostage all those years ago.

They're enriching uranium. As in, something you need to do before getting nuke-yelir weapons. They may claim they're developing a civvy energy program, but I imagine, of the almost 20,000 centrifuges they have for enrichment, it would be quite easy to 'lose' some to a secret project for weaponising it.

Please find any non-US supplied proof of that. I mean, Iraq had nuclear weaponry too, didn't they. ((Also, Pakistan has nuclear weaponry too, and isn't the most stable of states. I don't see the problem about them getting their own Nuclear program.))

The problem with Iran is they're an Islamic republic. One thing that religion is good at, is producing extremists, irrespective of their religious manual and bent. If an extremist individual gets their hands on a nuclear weapon, I don't think any nuclear power can convince them not to use it.

Extremists are not insane. They might sound like that, but they won't shoot for no reason. As long as you don't provoke them.

Besides, the US is just as capable of electing warmongering leaders.