Heartland

So I hear that Gordon Brown wants to renew and update Britain's nukes.

OK, I know the Labour party abandoned the unilateral disarmament policy a long time ago, but I never thought they'd go as far as renewing Trident. What a waste of money.

We all saw what a great job a deterrent does to stop major attacks back on 9/11 and 7/7.

Thoughts anyone?

Bit of a tricky one really..

One must consider that the UK's armed forces are probably totally inadequate to defend ourselves should we ever be subjected to attack.

In strategic terms, I probably would agree to some form of deterrent and the submarine option is probably the best as such. Thing is, some of might consider terrorism to be the only threat we're faced with right now but if you look at things a bit more closely there are more succinct threats facing us that maybe right now are not that imminent but could be in the future..

Consider the following threats:

1. Russia - A once great superpower that is becoming increasingly authoritarian and could look to re-establish its global presence through force, especially with a change of government to a more hardline nature.

2. North Korea - currently testing what amounts to INF weapons - how long before they develop intercontinental capability?

3. China - Although currently an economic superpoer, how long before this country wants to make its presence felt on the world stage? The Taiwan issue is the perfect excuse for it to branch out from the mainland and any conflict in this area will most likely involve the United States and "allies" dare I say. I would consider this to be the "hottest" hot spot in the world and one that would escalate rapidly should it kick off..

However, I think the rift between Europe and the US is going to leave Britain in a pretty dire position in a few years time, unless there is a marked change in direction of American foreign policy, which frankly I don't think will happen. Additionally, I think the Chinese will probably do the same as what America did to Russia in the Cold War and that is shaft them economically. Already the Americans are in serious debt to China and its only a matter of time before they apply the screws even tighter, especially aiming to devalue the dollar and the like. America's power is definitely waning and China is most likely going to be THE world power within a few decades, but only if it can manage to change socially as well - but that's another matter altogether..

Surely the top priority for Russia, China and North Korea over the next decades will be to invade the U.K. Only the threat of nuclear annihilation can stop them.

Doktor Gott: I'd pretty much agree with your analysis of possible threats.

However, I fail to see how any of these threats involve the necessity of an independent British nuclear arsenal. As mugabe points out, the UK is hardly a primary target.

On another level, I'm not sure that the "deterrent" idea actually works; OK, the Mutual Assured Destruction idea was supposed to prevent a nuclear war, and to be fair, no nuclear war has (so far) happened.

However, during the cold war, there was an interminable seres of conflicts and brinkmanship involving the Superpowers (Korea, Vietnam, the Berlin blockade, the Cuban missile crisis, etc. etc.) any of which could have boiled over into nuclear war. IMO it was largely a matter of luck rather than the MAD concept that they didn't.

You mention terrorism; given the mentality that can produce suicide bombers, how can we be certain that any deterrent will dissuade a "rogue state" from launching an attack? And there are what you might call "stateless groups" such as Al-Qaeeda (spelling?) against whom it's impossible to target nuclear weapons at all.

Furthermore, there's the question of the morality of (the threat of) using nuclear weapons. How can the destruction of large civilian populations be morally justified?

Think of it : we only need to detonate one third of all the nuclear arsenals in the world to kill 90% of all living species on Earth. Only insects and possibly rats would survive a nuclear holocaust. What we need to make the world a better, safer place is not more sophisticated weapons, it is a major disarmament wave.
And that includes weapons of mass destruction just as well as conventional weapons.

Doktor Gott wrote: 1. Russia - A once great superpower that is becoming increasingly authoritarian and could look to re-establish its global presence through force, especially with a change of government to a more hardline nature.

Increasingly ? I'm not quite sure. When a country is governed by ex-KGB agents, authoritarianism comes as no surprise. Old habits die hard.

markfiend wrote: Furthermore, there's the question of the morality of (the threat of) using nuclear weapons. How can the destruction of large civilian populations be morally justified?

It's more than a moral issue. In terms of international law (Geneva conventions) it is clearly unacceptable : only fighters can be targeted in a conflict. Now laugh all you can.

I don't think it's about the direct threat of invasion per se, but you have to consider what if a country with nuclear capability did decide to launch something at us? They are more likely to do it to a country with no deterrent whatsoever.. Personally I think the only time there is no need for a deterrent would be if there was complete nuclear disarmament, but that isn't going to happen for a very long time if ever alas..

4. Iran. A much more likely nuclear threat than the other mentioned above.

canon docre wrote:4. Iran. A much more likely nuclear threat than the other mentioned above.

Not really.. in strategic terms - which is how I am looking at this - Iran is decades behind. It has very little in the way of delivery technology aside from modified Scuds, which are essentially descended from the V2 and have very little range nor accuracy..

The thing is, China and Russia both have ICBM capability and considerable arsenals.. North Korea is already approach INF capability with frightening rapidity and could within a decade or two have something close to ICBM capbility, especially if it obtains technology from outside.

The only way that Iran will become a threat is if it does the same, but it is quite far behind..

In terms of the first nuclear war... my money would be on India/Pakistan, especially if Musharaf falls to a radical islamic government and the Indians vote in ultra-Hindus as such..

Damn good topic, Marky - heard about this on the news at the pub last night, but I was too sloshed to actually do anything...

It all depends on what we want to deter, right? The time of fractious superpowers is almost back, but the majority of the population are too worried about terrorism. As Mark and Badlander have pointed out, there's nothing like the targets required for ballistic missile strikes - how do you, if someone pops a suitcase nuke in Charing Cross?

In the long term, I think we do require an independant nuclear option, as the gulf between us and America increases. Although thinking about it, what about a unified European strategic nuclear response? Maybe if China and America, or the Middle East and America are edging towards Armageddon, maybe Europe should have some of those rumoured 'secret treaties', promising no involvement in a conflict just with America...

We could sit this one out. Harsh, but effective.

timsinister wrote:
It all depends on what we want to deter, right? The time of fractious superpowers is almost back, but the majority of the population are too worried about terrorism. As Mark and Badlander have pointed out, there's nothing like the targets required for ballistic missile strikes - how do you, if someone pops a suitcase nuke in Charing Cross?


We could sit this one out. Harsh, but effective.

Suitcase bombs are pretty much the stuff of myth.. the amount of fissable material required for a decent warhead is pretty large and there's the sheer size of the actual detonation mechanism.. even low-yield nuclear bombs, which are really in their infancy, are still some size..

The only thing that a terrorist could do is to use a "dirty bomb" made with low-grade nuclear waste that would still render an area uninhabitale for quite some time


Suitcase bombs:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Do ... Exist.html

This article basically equates suitcase bombs with low-yield devices..

We were f**ked to begin with when nukes were invented.

Chances are if they were abolished tomorrow, someone would keep one and use it.

Lose-lose situation. I personally don't see why we should be so pissed off at countries who want nuclear energy when we're going to be updating our own little world-destroyers.

Doktor Gott wrote:the amount of fissable material required for a decent warhead is pretty large

16kg of plutonium is a critical mass:

Wiki wrote:The isotope 239Pu is a key fissile component in modern nuclear weapons, due to its ease of fissioning and availability. The critical mass for an unreflected sphere of plutonium is 16 kg, [...] Complete detonation of plutonium will produce an explosion equivalent to the explosion of 20 kilotons of trinitrotoluene (TNT) per kilogram.

It's not that hard once you've got the enriched plutonium; take two 12cm hemispheres of 239Pu, whack them together flat face to flat face, bingo, 350 kiloton explosion.

Edit: I just read the suitcase bombs link. OK, maybe not 350kT then. But still a big bang and a f*ck of a lot of radiation.

Dark wrote:We were f**ked to begin with when nukes were invented.

Not when some geezer invented them, but when another one thought 'Hey, we might actually use those'

Obviously, being a nuclear power, it'd be hard to say you'll all throw them out of the window. Especially as your adversaries (past, present or future that is) still keep quite a stock, and will not throw theirs away because you just did that. But then again, what's the difference between being able to destroy the world once, twice or even three times. I don't know how big Britain's nuke stock is, but keeping it down to one time would suffice, methinks. It also seems rockets would be of more use than submarines, but then that's all down to tactics, which isn't my business

Though, when you want to keep nuclear devices, you must update them every now and then (especially as you never actually get round to actually using them - hopefully - but they do get outdated, rusty, ...) especially with new countries like Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea getting into nuclear weapons. Coming to think of it: Does China actually have any Don't remember seeing them in any of those lists.

Abolishing would be ideal, but I'm afraid neither of us will see that happening in the future sadly. And still, there are many bombs more powerful and damaging around at the moment, like the MOAB/Daisycutter or several 'dirty' bombs (radiation, no nuclear explosion) which are in some cases more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb IIRC

Obviousman wrote: Coming to think of it: Does China actually have any Don't remember seeing them in any of those lists.

And still, there are many bombs more powerful and damaging around at the moment, like the MOAB/Daisycutter or several 'dirty' bombs (radiation, no nuclear explosion) which are in some cases more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb IIRC

China has several weapons and is one of only three countries with ICBM capability (USA, Russia and itself..)

Here's all you need to know about nukes..

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html


As for daisycutters being more powerful that the fat man and little boy.. incorrect.. go to the back of the class!


fat man was 25kt and little boy 13kt..

A daisycutter is about 7,500 kg of explosive - so its quite some distance away from the early nukes..

Ah, it's been a while There was this other bomb, used in recent days more powerful though, that I'm quite sure of. Don't what it was called though. But you seem to be the expert

Thanks for the nuclear forces guide!

Obviousman wrote:Ah, it's been a while There was this other bomb, used in recent days more powerful though, that I'm quite sure of. Don't what it was called though. But you seem to be the expert

Thanks for the nuclear forces guide!

Possbily fuel-air bombs, but they work through pressure rather than conventional explosive force.. although used in the field in Iraq they were originally intended for use against reinforced submarine pens where they would literally liquify anything that wasn't solid through overpressure..

And yes I am sick knowing all this stuff but I wanted to do strategic studies at Uni but never quite made the grade..

Never made the grade? You're an encyclopedia

Sounds something you'd rather not find on your way, those fuel-air ones Always pleasant to find out they're still researching deeper and deeper to get more things destructed, isn't it.

Obviousman wrote:Never made the grade? You're an encyclopedia

Sounds something you'd rather not find on your way, those fuel-air ones Always pleasant to find out they're still researching deeper and deeper to get more things destructed, isn't it.

exactly.. worst of it is, Bush is looking to renege on the test ban treaty so that he can develop "intelligent" nuclear weapons - now that is an oxymoron - i.e low yield devices for taking out bunkers.. If that's not a red rag to the likes of Iran hell knows what is..


http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0, ... 31,00.html

Yes it does

Succinct, Ez.

Gott, where does Strategic Studies? I've tried looking, but UCAS doesn't know. I really wouldn't mind...

Regarding low-yield Tactical Nuclear Weapons ( ) what about Atomic Annie, or even the ludicrously dangerous Davy Crockett shoulder launched 1kt. nuke?

Insane! Despite the horror of a flashpoint at Fulda Gap, a war of conventional terms would be infinitely preferable to a tactical nuclear engagement - you cross that line, and strategic strikes are the next option, and then multilateral global conflict, with pre-emptive strikes against capital cities, command centers, manufacturing plants, and anything else in the way!

Never play the nuclear card. It's the ultimate picture of war - no winners.

paint it black wrote:Yes it does

I disagree.

How many wars in the last 60 years have been stopped or detered by threat of a nuclear responce?

markfiend wrote:

paint it black wrote:Yes it does

I disagree.

yes. i read that. i disagree with your argument there needs to be more logic applied

mr hawkins has the right idea

Why don't you point out these alleged flaws in my logic then?

Who is Mr Hawkins and what right idea does he have?

timsinister wrote:Succinct, Ez.

Gott, where does Strategic Studies? I've tried looking, but UCAS doesn't know. I really wouldn't mind...

Regarding low-yield Tactical Nuclear Weapons ( ) what about Atomic Annie, or even the ludicrously dangerous Davy Crockett shoulder launched 1kt. nuke?
.

Strategic studies was mainly done at Aberdeen Uni and Aberystwyth as far as I remember.. might be merged with other subjects these days..


As for the Davy Crockket.. did they not figure that it was worth too much hassle than it was worth and destroy all of them they built after testing..?