thunderace
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 01:06 PM |
|
|
nuclear weapons
do we need them.
|
|
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 01:28 PM |
|
|
Do you really want America and the bad guys to be the only ones to have them?
They are undeniably bad things but you can't un-invent them. Your choices are 1) don't have them in a world where other countries do 2)
have them as a credible counter threat.
They exist as a weapon of last resort. You don't win by using them unless the other side don't have any. You assure the other side that
they will loose too in a "mutually assured destruction" type scenario. Otherwise known as "You nuke us and we take you down with
us". Sadly, that's the only way to deal with the unhinged dictator. If they had them and we didn't they could extort anything they
wanted.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 02:08 PM |
|
|
The best response was given in an episode of "Yes Prime Minister", in an episode called "The Grand Design" - where Hacker is
asked exactly when he'd launch the missiles if the Russians attacked.
Well worth a read...
|
|
|
carpmart
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 02:22 PM |
|
|
As a deterrent they are vital.
I just hope to god no one ever calls our bluff and that they stay unused!
You only live once - make the most of it!
Radical Clubsport, Kwaker motor
'94 MX5 MK1, 1.8
F10 M5 - 600bhp Daily Hack 
Range Rover Sport - Wife's Car
Mercedes A class - Son's Car
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 03:03 PM |
|
|
It's shocking how close America and Russia have come to using them, only pure chance and luck has prevented it
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 03:58 PM |
|
|
How can you resist a big red button that says "Do Not Press". It's just asking for trouble 
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 05:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
How can you resist a big red button that says "Do Not Press". It's just asking for trouble
 how cool is this -
http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/self-destruct-button-dx_3.jpg
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
Macbeast
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 06:48 PM |
|
|
Pakistan is not our friend.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Need I go on ?
|
|
|
AlphaX
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 08:00 PM |
|
|
iceland isnt friends with many countries either, but they don't even have an army. And nobody attacks them.
need I to go on?
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Macbeast
Pakistan is not our friend.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Need I go on ?
i think you'll actually find that pakistan DOES count as a friendly nation on the global scale of things.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 08:37 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AlphaX
iceland isnt friends with many countries either, but they don't even have an army. And nobody attacks them.
need I to go on?
iceland is part of nato, so is still defended if needed. But then, who would want to invade iceland?!
Fact is, if you want to be a world player you need influence. Nuclear weapons are just one part of the jigsaw.
|
|
|
Bob C
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 09:01 PM |
|
|
You don't think we actually HAVE atom bombs do you? Dear me no, they're far too expensive and are made of quite unpleasant chemicals.
Please don't let on to the enemies of democracy though........
|
|
|
Schrodinger
|
| posted on 10/2/08 at 11:47 PM |
|
|
I was reading a book recently by CP Snow called The Scientists and in the sixties a scientific advisor was asked how many bombs would it take to
destroy GB to which his response was 5 but to be on the safe side say 7 but all of the bombs that the USSR had would take out approx 50% of the
USA.
I don't think we would have much say in any war.
Keith
Aviemore
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 11/2/08 at 01:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bob C
You don't think we actually HAVE atom bombs do you? Dear me no, they're far too expensive and are made of quite unpleasant chemicals.
Please don't let on to the enemies of democracy though........
My thoughts too. Owned, controlled and maintained (at huge cost, no doubt) by our "friends" across the pond!
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Macbeast
Pakistan is not our friend.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Need I go on ?
They won't bomb us and jeopardise all those corner shops.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 11:23 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AlphaX
iceland isnt friends with many countries either, but they don't even have an army. And nobody attacks them.
need I to go on?
ofcourse not becasue then you'd have to trek to aldi. lidl or netto for cheap frozen food.
|
|
|
JUD
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 08:39 PM |
|
|
I was at a defence conference where an American General was asked about the US position on the Iranian nuclear program. He categorically stated that
should they identify clear "evidence" that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons capability then the US would react - irrespective of the
Iranian capability to deploy the weapon. The US position was stated as being the belief that Iran would us the weapons as a means to dominate the
Middle East using conventional weapons, under the protection of a nuclear deterant.
Add the capability to deploy devices over a short range (in a truck driven into a neighboring country) then the threat becomes very real.
Then add the possibility of Iran arming anybody that had the same mutual enemies (most of the western world) and the threat reaches further
afield...
The matter of fact way he delivered his answer to a question from the audience (not a prepared speech) was cold, and very calculated. A very
interesting, if somewhat scarey chap.
It is only a matter of time...
---------------------
MK Indy Blade
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:27 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JUD
I was at a defence conference where an American General was asked about the US position on the Iranian nuclear program. He categorically stated that
should they identify clear "evidence" that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons capability then the US would react - irrespective of the
Iranian capability to deploy the weapon. The US position was stated as being the belief that Iran would us the weapons as a means to dominate the
Middle East using conventional weapons, under the protection of a nuclear deterant.
Add the capability to deploy devices over a short range (in a truck driven into a neighboring country) then the threat becomes very real.
Then add the possibility of Iran arming anybody that had the same mutual enemies (most of the western world) and the threat reaches further
afield...
The matter of fact way he delivered his answer to a question from the audience (not a prepared speech) was cold, and very calculated. A very
interesting, if somewhat scarey chap.
It is only a matter of time...
That is only because some Americans (and others) think that they are the only ones allowed to do "all of the above" without threat of
retaliation.
It used to be our role to inflict rule over other nations. All the way back to the crusades.
The development of new killing weapons has always been critical in domination. It is just the scale of killing that increases.
Spyderman
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 04:26 PM |
|
|
Any small nation that actually used a bomb on another would suddenly find itself getting a right proper kicking by America while all the others quite
happily turn a blind eye. No one would object.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 08:52 PM |
|
|
I listened to a very scary talk many years ago, mostly to do with civil defence. A large part of it was about how to protect yourself in the event of
a nuclear explosion - gave me the willies, and a few nightmares in the weeks following. It was mostly to do with surviving the fallout.
Allegedly the big worry now is not something being delivered on a missile - the main risk is something packed into a container and stuck on the back
of a lorry. And I live just over 10 miles from the 2nd biggest container port in the UK...
|
|
|
