More nukes anyone?

Britain currently has around 200 nuclear warheads. We only have 4 Trident submarines each carrying 40 warheads but if they were ever deployed all life on earth would be permanently destroyed. Pretty confident we've already got the "nuclear deterrent" thing covered.
In fact it's so covered that until the Tory U turn this week, the UK had agreed to reduce the stockpile of warheads to 180 - just enough to destroy all life on earth twice.

The thing is I'm struggling to think of any modern threat scenario in which nukes could be used - 9/11? Iraq War? The Falklands? London Bomber? Novichok dude in Salisbury? We certainly wouldn't want to be going into a mutually-assured destruction scenario with one of the big 3.

So what possible justification is there for Boris to decide that we need more warheads? His mate is an arms broker?

Wouldn't the money be better spent on modern deterrents or saving society?

No more for me, it's a waste of money but the only drawback is that countries like Iran are determined to have their own nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, so i can't see them disappearing anytime soon.

Complete waste of money, shows what this governments priorities are.

Norpig wrote:No more for me, it's a waste of money but the only drawback is that countries like Iran are determined to have their own nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, so i can't see them disappearing anytime soon.

In what way does us having even more nukes than we currently have make a jot of difference to what countries like Iran are doing? Or will do?

We have have 200 hundred times more nuking power and the Yanks have thousands of times more nuking power than they have but it hasn't "deterred" them has it?

But the question is "if we have 240 times more nuke power as opposed to 200 times more nuke power - will that make a difference?"

I think not.

Why not spend the £billions on the NHS instead of giving it to Boris's mates?

Here we go again!

Why must they be Boris's mates?

Do we even have a nuclear bomb making facility in this country even, never mind owned by 'Boris's mates'.

And fwiw, has ANYTHING yet been PROVED about the governments cronyism yet because if it has I must have missed it.

As for having nuclear capacity at all, I personally don't see us having any need for it myself and guess we are tied in with France and linked with the US as some sort of security agreement dating back to the cold war days?

I guess the thinking is something along the lines of American's views on the 'right to bear arms' as a self deterent - you shoot at me and I'll shoot back - but if I don't have a gun I can't can I - sort of thing?

I guess the ultimate deterent is the belief that if 'we' the west are going to be blown to smithereens, then we will fire back whilst we can and blow you to smithereens to - even if that destroys the planet.

One could argue the deterent works simply because we haven't had a nuclear war yet - and I obviously hopes it stays that way too.

I think with Iran, if they did nuke Isreal then 'conventional' warfare would ensue rather than nuclear retaliation.

Anyway I suspect all the talk is really about international posturing, with China as the intended recipient - not that I think they would shake in their boots about us - but more to show a united front with other country's over their mistrust of China's global intent.

I doubt very much if we ever get around to having more nukes, unless they are more up to date replacements for the ones we already have.

Priorities all wrong at the moment: one statue seems to be worth more than 118 women in terms of the new bill and the proposed punishements for offenders; spaff billions on the abomination represented by nuclear warheads rather fund neglected parts of the country's essential institutions such as the NHS etc.

The question is that if...
* we have Trident and can already destroy the planet single-handedly
* we have the agreement with the US to back us up
* there are no foreseeable scenarios other than mutually-assured annihilation in which they are likely to be deployed 
* the so-called “nuclear deterrent” (which we already have) has been proven not to work when it comes down to rogue states’ development of their own 

And...
* our conventional forces are woefully underfunded and resourced to deal with modern day threats e.g cyberterrorism
* the government has put us deeper into debt than at any time in history so we’re not exactly rolling in money 
* our society is in need of massive investment to bolster industry and strengthen the NHS etc..

...why spend vast amounts of money on something that will either a) never be used or b) will ensure our own destruction?


As for the cronyism comment - we’ll it’s already been proven they’re doing it so I don’t understand why it might not be the case here. 
Unless there’s actually a sensible reason for this new procurement.
On that note, I see Hancock has now removed the photo of his mates pub from his study wall 

wanderlust wrote:The question is that if...
* we have Trident and can already destroy the planet single-handedly
* we have the agreement with the US to back us up
* there are no foreseeable scenarios other than mutually-assured annihilation in which they are likely to be deployed 
* the so-called “nuclear deterrent” (which we already have) has been proven not to work when it comes down to rogue states’ development of their own 

And...
* our conventional forces are woefully underfunded and resourced to deal with modern day threats e.g cyberterrorist
* the government has put us deeper into debt than at any time in history 
* our society is in need of massive investment to bolster industry and strengthen the NHS etc..

...why spend vast amounts of money on something that will either a) never be used or b) will ensure our own destruction?

Well the highlighted bit above is clearly bollocks as we've not had any nuclear bombs launched from rogue states have we - so how can it be 'proven' that the nuclear deterent doesn't work??? The deterent being not that country's get the 'bomb' but rather they don't use it when they have them!

Clearly it can't thus be proven can it?

I suspect Trident is old hat now and there's probably new technology now that could stop them getting to their targets - that's why I said in my previous post about 'replacements' for them as being more likely than not, as long as we do keep a nuclear deterent.

Who knows if the US would back us up when push comes to shove - I doubt Trump would have for instance.

There IS a scenario of a limited nuclear war strategy, so there could be a nuclear war that would not result in armageddon but clearly NO nuclear war is desired obviously.

As for your 'a' and 'b' points, I refer you back to my post above again in that the thinking is probably similar to why people want to carry arms in America - they buy a gun but hope they never need to use it - and maybe if the other party knows we could blow them off the face of the planet, then they might seriously think long and hard before doing it to us first - the point being if we can't hit back, then maybe they would!

No mention of Boris's mates in your reply - fancy that!

Tbh it isn't going to happen so I can't see why anyone should be getting worked up about it?

Another poor decision:-- The hideous, £2.6 million refit of the government's press briefing room was carried out by a Russian firm, Megahertz, which has links to the state broadcaster, Russia Today.

Meanwhile, a great number of UK craftsmen, skilled in the relevant fields of carpentry, decorating, design, building etc., and formerly employed in the arts and theatre-world, lie idle due to lockdown.

Sluffy wrote:

Well the highlighted bit above is clearly bollocks as we've not had any nuclear bombs launched from rogue states have we - so how can it be 'proven' that the nuclear deterent doesn't work???  The deterent being not that country's get the 'bomb' but rather they don't use it when they have them!

Clearly it can't thus be proven can it?

I suspect Trident is old hat now and there's probably new technology now that could stop them getting to their targets - that's why I said in my previous post about 'replacements' for them as being more likely than not, as long as we do keep a nuclear deterent.

Who knows if the US would back us up when push comes to shove - I doubt Trump would have for instance.

There IS a scenario of a limited nuclear war strategy, so there could be a nuclear war that would not result in armageddon but clearly NO nuclear war is desired obviously.

As for your 'a' and 'b' points, I refer you back to my post above again in that the thinking is probably similar to why people want to carry arms in America - they buy a gun but hope they never need to use it - and maybe if the other party knows we could blow them off the face of the planet, then they might seriously think long and hard before doing it to us first - the point being if we can't hit back, then maybe they would!

No mention of Boris's mates in your reply - fancy that!


Tbh it isn't going to happen so I can't see why anyone should be getting worked up about it?

fancy that! You didn’t read it properly before going off on one again.

okocha wrote:Another poor decision:-- The hideous, £2.6 million refit of the government's press briefing room was carried out by a Russian firm, Megahertz, which has links to the state broadcaster, Russia Today.

Meanwhile, a great number of UK craftsmen, skilled in the relevant fields of carpentry, decorating, design, building etc., and formerly employed in the arts and theatre-world, lie idle due to lockdown.

Wrong thread mate. Although they could have put the money towards another warhead
On second thoughts there is a common theme and putting aside commissions for deal brokers, both these procurements could be to to clear the way for larger trade deals albeit at the expense of British manufacturers. Trident warheads are bought in from Lockheed in the States so sweetening the yanks and the russkis could be a tactical move to salvage Brexit. Who knows?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Well the highlighted bit above is clearly bollocks as we've not had any nuclear bombs launched from rogue states have we - so how can it be 'proven' that the nuclear deterent doesn't work???  The deterent being not that country's get the 'bomb' but rather they don't use it when they have them!

Clearly it can't thus be proven can it?

I suspect Trident is old hat now and there's probably new technology now that could stop them getting to their targets - that's why I said in my previous post about 'replacements' for them as being more likely than not, as long as we do keep a nuclear deterent.

Who knows if the US would back us up when push comes to shove - I doubt Trump would have for instance.

There IS a scenario of a limited nuclear war strategy, so there could be a nuclear war that would not result in armageddon but clearly NO nuclear war is desired obviously.

As for your 'a' and 'b' points, I refer you back to my post above again in that the thinking is probably similar to why people want to carry arms in America - they buy a gun but hope they never need to use it - and maybe if the other party knows we could blow them off the face of the planet, then they might seriously think long and hard before doing it to us first - the point being if we can't hit back, then maybe they would!

No mention of Boris's mates in your reply - fancy that!


Tbh it isn't going to happen so I can't see why anyone should be getting worked up about it?

fancy that! You didn’t read it properly before going off on one again.

???