The £20bn Nuclear Programme

[SupraAyf]

What's the point of having weapons that we aren't ultimately in control of?

 

 

We could change that sentence round to read:

 

"What's the point of having Supra's that we aren't ultimately in control of?"

 

In affect, it's like some peoples egos on here (i.e. it makes us the big man on the block!)

[tbourner]

April 13th 2029, a meteor is going to be passing Earth, closer than Sky satellites are orbiting, returning 7 years later actually hitting the Earth with the force of 560 million tons, wiping out a country nuclear winter, blah, blah. So our nukes pale into insignificance

 

We've got 50 megatonne nukes now haven't we? The Deuterium ones not the measly WWII atom bombs! In 30 years we should have increased that ten fold? And I'm sure we'll have some form of base station on the moon or Mars by then - even if only in the early stages - enough to fire a missile from. Fight fire with fire I say.

[Cable]

Bang on Sir!

 

Just to add one thing but the £20Bn estimate is the 'end-price', including the full support and operational maintenance package for the life of the new missile system - this covers many thousands of jobs for many years so it's not just the cost of 160 warheads! A good % of that will be going back in to procurement services and the labour rates of the 15000+ guys (and their families) that will help design and maintain the systems.

 

It may sound a shed-load of dosh but the money gets ploughed back in to the UK economy and we receive the added advantage of continuing our insurance policy as what Ewen has already stated!

 

 

Totally agree and I'm glad that they're being built. I just hope we wont have to use them.

[Matt H]

April 13th 2029, a meteor is going to be passing Earth, closer than Sky satellites are orbiting, returning 7 years later actually hitting the Earth with the force of 560 million tons, wiping out a country nuclear winter, blah, blah. So our nukes pale into insignificance

 

thats actually a myth mate, we are no where close to a collision with an asteriod

 

Edit to add a collision with anything worthy of taking the planet apart

[Ian C]

The Deuterium ones not the measly WWII atom bombs!

 

Deuterium is heavy weater, dude. I assume we drop it in a big rubber balloon?

 

-Ian

[JustGav]

It is nothing other than MAD....

 

I for one am not a big fan of nuclear weapons, after all we all know what they can do... why not spend the money on nuclear research into power generation, get rid of the coal burners and provide cheap nuclear power...

 

Damn, I sound like a right greenie...

[tbourner]

Deuterium is heavy weater, dude. I assume we drop it in a big rubber balloon?

 

-Ian

 

Yep, it's an isotope of Hydrogen I believe though, which is what's used in Hydrogen bombs. A regular atom bomb (Plutonium/Uranium?) is used to create compression that forces fission from the Deuterium.

That's what I've always understood anyway.

[Ian C]

Yep, it's an isotope of Hydrogen I believe though, which is what's used in Hydrogen bombs. A regular atom bomb (Plutonium/Uranium?) is used to create compression that forces fission from the Deuterium.

That's what I've always understood anyway.

 

Thanks for deflating my big water balloon joke with scientific stuff

 

-Ian

[TLicense]

So why exactly can't we just keep the ones we've got at the moment? Do nukes have a use by date? I mean the stuff has a half life of millions of years....

 

Also, why do we need so many? Surely you only need 1? I mean if you're the only person to bring a gun to a knife fight, you're the least likely to be stabbed right?

[Matt H]

So why exactly can't we just keep the ones we've got at the moment? Do nukes have a use by date? I mean the stuff has a half life of millions of years....

 

Also, why do we need so many? Surely you only need 1? I mean if you're the only person to bring a gun to a knife fight, you're the least likely to be stabbed right?

 

your right there mate, but i think other people are bringing guns too which is why we need to bring a rocket launcher! I think the problem may be range or ability to lauch etc not just explosive power

[Matt H]

It is nothing other than MAD....

 

I for one am not a big fan of nuclear weapons, after all we all know what they can do... why not spend the money on nuclear research into power generation, get rid of the coal burners and provide cheap nuclear power...

 

Damn, I sound like a right greenie...

 

Because if we dont, then nuts country's will be able to at least hold us at ransom, if not be able to blow us up without us being able to react

[JohnA]

April 13th 2029, a meteor is going to be passing Earth, closer than Sky satellites are orbiting, returning 7 years later actually hitting the Earth with the force of 560 million tons, wiping out a country nuclear winter, blah, blah.

Yeah, I read that too.

If it's true, that would be a good time to buy real estate. The End of the world --- everybody will be selling like mad, to spend, spend, spend

 

Smart people will be buying, buying, buying for peanuts.

If the world ends it won't matter either way

If it doesn't, they'll be tycoons;)

It has happened before (Haley's comet had created hysteria and mad panic. Now with the media it can be much worse)

 

Start saving.

 

 

As for the nukes, well, it makes all the threats and promises (to nuke wannabes) looks as hollow as they've always been.

What we've got we keep. You have to agree that you will never get any of them though, to promote our peace.

Very noble indeed.

[stevie_b]

I don't think the big ones can ever be used. If they're city-killers, public opinion in the UK won't stomach the sight of foreign civilians on TV being scorched by a nuclear blast, and coughing up their internal organs.

 

Keeping non-military casualties to a minimum is the main drive in conflicts these days, and big nukes simply don't allow you to do this. Much better to have tactical nukes that can be a bit more precise in the damage that they cause. "Pinpoint" is the wrong word, but you get my drift.

[dangerous brain]

I'm just hazarding a guess but missiles designed in the 60's will have been made with materials from that era. I'm also just putting the idea out there that the material that holds the nucleary stuff where its meant to be held doesn't have a half life of zillions of years. Its also my guess that letting the nucleary stuff leak out is a bad thing. Also the propellent system won't have a half life of zillions of years either, you just aint gonna be happy to light that firework and see it just sit there ticking away because the rocket went fizzle fizzle pop. The kaboom parts will no doubt be recycled and the delivery system renewed.

[JohnA]

Multi-Megaton warheads can't really be used with impunity. The fallout can go around the globe a few times, you can't really use them without contaminating yourself, your allies, third parties or all of the above. That's bound to create some bad blood.

So much for the 'deterrent' value.

 

Then there are mini-nukes of course, way less than a kiloton each. They don't advertise them too much, I wonder how they will decide to brand them when they feel compelled to use them.

[LeeT]

I'm just hazarding a guess but missiles designed in the 60's will have been made with materials from that era. I'm also just putting the idea out there that the material that holds the nucleary stuff where its meant to be held doesn't have a half life of zillions of years. Its also my guess that letting the nucleary stuff leak out is a bad thing. Also the propellent system won't have a half life of zillions of years either, you just aint gonna be happy to light that firework and see it just sit there ticking away because the rocket went fizzle fizzle pop. The kaboom parts will no doubt be recycled and the delivery system renewed.

 

You're not far off there mate. It means more work for me anyway

[TLicense]

I'm just hazarding a guess but missiles designed in the 60's will have been made with materials from that era. I'm also just putting the idea out there that the material that holds the nucleary stuff where its meant to be held doesn't have a half life of zillions of years. Its also my guess that letting the nucleary stuff leak out is a bad thing. Also the propellent system won't have a half life of zillions of years either, you just aint gonna be happy to light that firework and see it just sit there ticking away because the rocket went fizzle fizzle pop. The kaboom parts will no doubt be recycled and the delivery system renewed.

 

I see what you're saying, but it's a deterrant isn't it? You shouldn't actually ever need to light the blue touch paper. You keep the fact that your nuclear firework is as damp as a soon to be teenage mum on holiday in Ibiza to yourself and hey presto. You've still got your nuclear deterrant. Plough the money into sorting out the environment/energy issues/NHS/schools/road infrastructure/public transport/pensions/farepak compensation and hey presto jobs a good 'un.

Plus with the NATO treaty (an attack on a member state is considered an attack on all member states) surely only one country needs to have a nuclear arsenal?

[JohnA]

... with the NATO treaty (an attack on a member state is considered an attack on all member states) surely only one country needs to have a nuclear arsenal?

Only one at a time, yes.

 

But then you'd have a 'first among equals' scenario, shifting the balance of power inside NATO. The effective terms for the non-nuke members may be degrading and offensive.

 

The treaty ain't gonna last long this way, is it?

 

In any case it has done it's course and now it is more like a solution looking for a problem.

 

Some of the new games now revolve around Russia-EU integration, and carving up of Turkey (not that anyone would ever admit that any of these would ever happen:taped: )

 

The NATO terms of engagement are a bit irrelevant there...

[stevie_b]

Multi-Megaton warheads can't really be used with impunity. The fallout can go around the globe a few times, you can't really use them without contaminating yourself, your allies, third parties or all of the above. That's bound to create some bad blood.

 

My point exactly. The huge warheads almost cannot fail to kill a few million people (either immediately, or over a few months due to radiation sickness). I can't think of any possible conflict whereby the UK govt would be willing to do that.

 

One of the current hot-spots in the world is of course N Korea. I can't think of any conflict between N Korea and the UK where the UK would deem it necessary to launch a big warhead at Pyongyang, killing everyone who lives there.

 

Also, is it still a deterrent if your opponent truly believes that you'll never pull the trigger?

[JohnA]

...One of the current hot-spots in the world is of course N Korea. I can't think of any conflict between N Korea and the UK where the UK would deem it necessary to launch a big warhead at Pyongyang, killing everyone who lives there.

Killing/contaminating most of South Corea, along with part of China and Japan (depending on weather conditions)

Who is going to compensate these parties, who is going to make up for their lost GDP after massive radiation poisoning, who is going to pay for cleaning up their lands, who is going to pay for healthcare of the millions born afterwards with fins and third eyes?

Can the fragile global economy survive this kind of shockwaves anyway?

 

Questions, questions...

Also, is it still a deterrent if your opponent truly believes that you'll never pull the trigger?

It's not yet clear who the opponent is.

 

From what I've seen the real opponent is the taxpayer, who needs to be shielded from knowing where his/her tax money goes.

Cold wars, Star wars and such 'top secret' projects are ideal for diverting billions into dodgy accounts without democratic scrutinies.

 

It works for the Americans, as much as it works for the UK probably France, certainly worked for the USSR.

Big con.

[imi]

Because if we dont, then nuts country's will be able to at least hold us at ransom, if not be able to blow us up without us being able to react

 

Wonder who they would be.....have we stopped funding them?

[imi]

Looks like we missed out on a deal.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6219998.stm

[Ewen]

The new-age smaller yield nuclear missiles bring a new aspect to the 'deterrent' school of thought. The 'deterrent' is an assumption of a reciprical strike back by the country whos just been attacked. Fine if the countries at loggerheads have large weapons or equal numbers of weapons, but what if a country has just become the proud owners of some small nuclear weapons and has a beef with a country that has none ? If said country attacked, would the superpowers back the poor victim and retaliate on their behalf ? I think not, rather they will do all they can to smooth the incident over to prevent escalation. Hence, the fact that we own these things will not really maintain world peace, just help ensure that we will not be the first hit.

[dangerous brain]

People also quickly forget and ignore. The Soviet block lost the cold war because it just couldn't afford it. Now they are soaking money back into that area (the owner of chelsea FC proves the money is there now). There are still hardliners in Russia that would be happy to see the old way brought back. In a way the yanks are playing straight into their hands, they are slowly bankrupting themselves policing petty conflicts around the world (I know Iraq doesn't seem petty at the minute but in world war scales it really is).

On a superpower nuclear basis its not about first strike its about having an automated system that will guarantee complete obliteration of any opponent should they strike you in a WMD way. It actually makes a first strike suicidal.

If your current delivery system cannot be guaranteed to deliver its payload to any and every destination in this world despite complete devastation of your country then it ceases to have its effect.

The world is currently quaking in its boots because some organisations have the potential to develop nuclear weapons, these aren't intended to be retaliatory weapons but first strike. These weapons are effective because their source is not clear so it renders the retaliatory weapons ineffective. "Our" weapons aren't to protect us against those weapons, they are to protect us from the bigger picture, the likes of the eastern block that goes wrong, the indo-chinese area destabilising over a decade or so etc.

Its a bit late to start re-developing nuclear abilities when the blue touch paper has been lit elsewhere and a bucket of instant sunshine is on its way to give you a tan.

[Gazboy]

If the Iranians lobbed a nuke over here and kileld 1 million poeple, I very much doubt any British tears will be shed if we lobbed one back and killed 20 million Iranians. Also solves the mandatory 'draft' if world war 3 happens- dead civilains can't take up arms and fight you on their governments orders.