[Closed] Nuclear weapons, where do you stand?

I try to be stood out of the way - they make a hell of a mess if they go bang.

Rachel

Sorry pal but I just cannot make sense of your post.

On the subject of nuclear weapons; how do they get such an enormous mushroom inside the casing? Impressive.

Nuclear weapons, where do you stand?

A long way away!

Normally right next to them when loading them to aircraft......

So, what did CMD do in SA then?

Let’s refresh our minds about what happened in 1989 when a young Tory researcher, David Cameron (under the apron strings of Maggie Thatcher), went to South Africa on a sanctions-busting all-expenses-paid trip (paid by ARMSCOR) to Pellindaba, a nuclear weapons facility. David Cameron was accompanied by Sir Kenneth Warren and the purpose of the trip was to purchase three, battlefield ready 20kt nuclear bombs that the Conservatives wanted to use on Saddam in the event he did not toe the line.

Under the UN radar, South Africa, with the help of Israel, developed ten bombs and test fired one at Prince Edward Island to the South of the country. This left nine weapons that caused South Africa, US, UK and Israel great concern as they did not want them to fall into the hands of the next black regime.

The plan was to ship the entire load to Chicago for decommissioning, but Maggie Thatcher had other ideas and so just before she left office she signed an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) document that listed them as being three cylinders! They were prepared and shipped in standard 20-foot sea containers from Durban to Oman without any security. There was a hidden observation window so that the core temperature could be checked as required.

The deal was arranged privately using British taxpayers money and involving arms dealer John Bredenkamp with the assistance of Sir Mark Thatcher and many high profile politicians. £17.8 million was siphoned off and went into the Tory Party Election Fund; which was exposed by the Labour Party in Parliament by Lord Doug Hoyle and Margaret Beckett MP and is listed in Hansard June 22 1993 from Column 197.

The nuclear bombs arrived in Oman and were put into an insecure compound and checked by Dr. David Kelly who had the responsibility to look after the weapons and check that they were in good condition prior to the release of the money. (So you see dear Dr. Kelly knew too much). Some time later the three weapons were stolen by the same arms dealer, John Bredenkamp, and sold on the black market. It was believed that these weapons found their way to Iraq, but were then moved into Syria in three ambulances as they were highly mobile.

Apparently

Any links to documentary evidence of any aspect of any of that?

and the purpose of the trip was to purchase three, battlefield ready 20kt nuclear bombs that the Conservatives wanted to use on Saddam in the event he did not toe the line.

😆 and 🙄

Any links to documentary evidence of any aspect of any of that?

Don't be daft

All that's missing is Elvis, Lord Lucan and Shergar from the evil plot.

That really is bollocks.

Why would you issue an UOR and then do everything else under the radar?

The shite about the shipping containers as well!

Umop - adult Jackanory; no more, no less!

Poor Dr Kelly. It still amazes me that Blair could press sanction to bump someone off so openly and obviously and get away with it.

Apparently

If someone had told you a few weeks ago Thatcher was on the brink of calling a state of emergency and bringing in troops for the miners strike, would that have also instantly been dismissed as dangleberries?

What reason is there for a continued nuclear program?

nearly fell for that then read who the ok was 😉 , excellent as ever.

bringing in troops

Yes, to drive the trucks.

you fools always looking at the smoke screen fed to you from your givt approved media sources.
You need to look at the real culprits here and the real people* behind it

* they are not people they are reptiles but you people cannot handle the truth

It's a well-known fact among the miners and their supporters that non-uniformed military police were seconded to support the civillian forces during the atrike.

I'd like one, but I don't have the space.

non-uniformed military police

So how do you spot them?

What did they actually do?

They were recognised by family members.

anyway back to the OP with the people who have them

We still maintain a nuclear arsenal because the govt. doesn't trust the govts. of other nuclear powers.

Does the UK still have any nuclear bombs or are we solely a missile power?

Yep, it's been a poor year for lying Tory scumbags, what with the Hillsborough revelations and the truth about the miner's strike finally coming out in the open.

As to nuclear, it'll destroy humanity eventually.
People make mistakes, it's inevitable. Just a case of when, not if.

Don't be daft.
Sir Mark Thatcher would never do anything like that.
He is such a nice guy.
He must be because he's a lord.
Can someone again please remind my why an arms dealing coup starting rat becomes a lord?

non-uniformed military police

Do they wear uniforms on their day off?

A poor year? They've been getting away with murder, aided and abetted by their lib-dem henchmen.

To clarify the uniform issue; the MPs were issued with civillian police overalls. That was the major reason for the furore at the time about the police identifying numbers not being publicly displayed at Orgreave and other clashes.

Oh, I agree.
This lot are far, far worse than that woman and her acolytes.

But no-one cares anymore. Apathy in the face of attack, combined with the creation of a new disenfranchised, depoliticised underclass ensures that they can exploit the country for their own good, without any chance of being called to account.

ohnohesback - Member
A poor year? They've been getting away with murder, aided and abetted by their lib-dem henchmen.

Did you invade somewhere (well 2 places) again, did they present complete and utter crap to parliament to justify invading somewhere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier)? Did they deregulate the financial sector and look at building an economy on the city? Did they impose tuition fees? try and scrap a 10p tax rate?

at least there is an alternative
[img] [/img]

Under the UN radar, South Africa, with the help of Israel, developed ten bombs and test fired one at Prince Edward

Suppose they had to aim at something.

Why exactly would we be buying nukes from SA in 1989, when we had good stocks of our own WE177 tactical warheads (which are now all decommissioned)?

Sounds like utter testes, frankly.

Why exactly would we be buying nukes from SA in 1989, when we had good stocks of our own WE177 tactical warheads (which are now all decommissioned)?

Regards having our own WE177's:

plus of course access to a more than extensive NATO shared stockpile of all sorts and sizes of tactical nuclear weapons!

Regardless of availability of weapons through official channels, deals of this nature are often for diplomatic purposes to open trading avenues and in this case, allegedly a means of securing back door funding for the party.

Could this be relevant?:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8521641/David-Cameron-rules-out-further-inquiries-into-death-of-Dr-David-Kelly.html

When a conspiracy is declared it can never be disproved.....

When a conspiracy is declared it can never be disproved.....

Often they can be disproved; you're welcome to do so with this one if you have legitimate materials to achieve that end 😉

Often they can be disproved; you're welcome to do so with this one if you have legitimate materials to achieve that end

deals of this nature are often for diplomatic purposes

Buying nuclear weapons? yeah cause we do that all the time 🙄

Come for the bike chat, stay for the preposterous conspiracy theories that Dan Brown & Jeffrey Archer would turn down.
Where's my "I like Icke" badge gone?

On the OP's question, if Hollywood tells us anything, then crouching in a 50s American fridge will provide sufficient blast protection.

Conspiracy theories summarised.

Often they can be disproved; you're welcome to do so with this one if you have legitimate materials to achieve that end

[img] [/img]

My uncle designs Nuclear warheads, says business is slow ATM.. 😉

Great link Drac

Thanks, MikeWS - 😀

Watergate was once a conspiracy theory, before sufficient evidence swung public opinion to the extent it became historic fact.

Surely by now you know call me Dave is more bent than a contortionist caterpillar and lower than limbo under a snakes arsehole to boot, just like Blair before him and Thatcher before that etc etc.

Apathy is understandable, but when governments are infringing on so many basic rights and spending public money for dark deeds, standing by and letting it happen isn't going to leave much of a future for your kids kids.

Peace and love, not greedy thugs 😉

Love that film drac!

Good isn't it.

Not sure if I found it on here or was linked on twitter but either way it's great at demonstrating the mess conspiracy theories get themselves in when the explanation is often the simple one that no one thought to ask.

😀

I must say I am prepared to accept that our current and past politicians would do anything Tory support for Pol Pot , Pinochet and Suharto spring to mind but this just does not pass the common sense test. Why on earth would we do this when we have a fully functioning nuclear arsenal ?

Ever notice how every stage of Blair's career involved a convenient death?

In relation to the wider question I am with
Thucydides " one nuclear bomb can ruin your entire day. "

Generally, when our governments have time after time completely failed to even make a few trains run on time and reliably, how are we meant to believe that they can actually manage to get these horendously complicated and tenuous "conspiracies" to happen? 😉

I like the way those nutty theorists put in "fake science" to make it sound plausable, except that it generally does the exact opposite. Like the "with special windows to monitor core temp" Hey? It's a bomb, not a reactor you nutters, it ain't critical before it goes off!

Oh yeah, the the answer to the original question:

"As far back as possible"........ 😉

I feel sad about them. Sad because we have this beautiful and amazing planet to live on, and instead of using our brains and money to help each other and protect our world, we produce terrible weapons that can poison it and kill hundreds of thousands of living things.

maxtorque - Member
Generally, when our governments have time after time completely failed to even make a few trains run on time and reliably, how are we meant to believe that they can actually manage to get these horendously complicated and tenuous "conspiracies" to happen?

Exactly. It's like the mythical powers attributed regularly to Mrs T (on both sides)!!!

Jhj is a spokesman for the lizard overlords, putting out disinformation to divert our attention from the [i]real[/i] conspiracies!
There's YouTube videos about it to show the truth and everything!

Saw this the other day, scared the poop out of me! It's on Netflix.

I am THE lizard overlord and I don't take kindly to your impertinence; you shall all be consumed in due course.

Don't say I didn't warn you out of a pang of evolution.

I feel the same way about insurance. Bit of a rip off but not when you need it.

Do you think between us we could get a subscription to the scientologits and get all of the proper vids about what really hapened?

More population, less food and energy reserves....they'll be used sometime this century.

I feel the same way about insurance. Bit of a rip off but not when you need it.

That pretty much sums it for me.

To answear the question when I was on a nuke sub far to close for comfort(still no danger to me just not sure liked being that close to it)

War: Ever had an angry dispute over a garden fence? It's like that with 100,000,000 indignant people egging you on. But mutually assured destruction tends to stop the egging on as people realise that it won't just be foreign soldiers on remote battlefields who will be killed. Since sub launched ICBMs can't effectively be defended against, they are the ultimate preventer of war because no one could ever "win".

Horrible invention, but they seem to keep the peace.

"Horrible invention, but they seem to keep the peace."

Really? There has been only one year since they were invented when a British soldier has not been killed in combat.

If you are amongst the people with high probability of dying from nuclear incineration then there is no escaping, because you are just another statistic in the grand scheme of things.

🙄

Does the UK still have any nuclear bombs or are we solely a missile power?

the only nuclear weapons we have are trident missiles delivered from a nuclear (powered) submarine.

one of the biggest reasons we still have nuclear weapons program is to remain one of the perminant members of nato.

which gives us a lot of power in the worlds defence, you only need to look at how our goverment stopped a missile attack on Syria.

obviously with my job im for nuclear weapons lol

And some people say that manmade global warming is a conspiracy! 🙄

That makes no sense at all.

Obviously, its the lizard overlords who are responsible! Since they're cold blooded, a warmer climate is more suitable to them.

1) In 1989, Iraq and the US were allies and there was no reason for the US to worry about Iraq invading Kuwait hence the 1990 misunderstanding which resulted in Iraq thinking the US ambassador had tacitly approved the invasion plan.

2) if the UK and US wanted to stop the ANC getting hold of the nukes and had the cooperation of the apartheid regime, it could have just decommissioned the lot in exchange for cash or a relaxation of sanctions.

3) if the UK wanted to stop the ANC getting nukes, it would have bought all of them, not just a couple.

4) what is the point of a nuclear power secretly acquiring a nuclear bomb? If it were ever used everyone would know.

Soviet vs sino vs West world war would have happened before now without MAD, no? Would the Germans have tried to annex the rest of Europe twice? No.

crankboy - Member

"Horrible invention, but they seem to keep the peace."

Really? There has been only one year since they were invented when a British soldier has not been killed in combat.

I'm sure that there is some logic in your flaw, but I just don't see it at the moment.

Take a look at 1945 - the year that nuclear weapons were used and when they forced Japan to the peace table. They saved an estimated 2 million lives - those that would have perished had an invasion of Japan been necessary.

buzz-lightyear - Member

Soviet vs sino vs West world war would have happened before now without MAD, no?

Possibly. Show us your working?

Soviet vs sino vs West world war would have happened before now without MAD, no?

Possibly. Show us your working?

Have any two nuclear powers ever declared war against each other? Not as far as I am aware.

So we have correlation. Now we just need causation.

Korea Vietnam the Falklands the Gulf versions one and two even only one side having "the Bomb" does not prevent war the reason the Big West East war never happened may well be due to a lack of willingness to go through the devastation of large scale conventional war given how rosy an experience the first two were particularly for the Russians.

Have any two nuclear powers ever declared war against each other? Not as far as I am aware.

It's also worth noting that modern conventional "smart" weapons have reduced some of the nuclear weapons advantages.

Back in WW2, the problem with just lobbing things out of planes was that it was very difficult to actually hit the thing you wanted to hit. Nuclear devices solved that problem with the "sledgehammer to a nut" response. I.e. you no longer needed accuracy if the bomb was big enough.

Fast forward 70 years, and we can now send a smart bomb/missile or whatever pretty much through the correct letterbox on your front door from 1000 miles away, and so massive explosive power has become unnecessary. In fact, concerns over killing "innocents" and the massive collateral damage caused as a result of using enormous explosive power weapons pretty much relegates Nuclear weapons to that "last ditch" MAD only strategy use.

As far away as possible

Nuclear weapons didn't prevent war, they just displaced and prolonged it.

That's true though it's hard to weigh up the more 'real' suffering and pain of people from conventional weaponry against the absolute devastation and (very) long term impact of nuclear war.