Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 117 total)
  • 30 years of Nuclear disarmament about to be undone…
  • Premier Icon mboy
    Free Member

    And it’s still only Monday! 🤦🏻

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/15/cap-on-trident-nuclear-warhead-stockpile-to-rise-by-more-than-40?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3iXFAtNfpLCwPQhKA2XjiIDzfWcuRJw9fdj89rvSc5dniPWn0AH4K6mJ8#Echobox=1615841605

    I don’t know where to start with this (other than laying out the fact that I’m vehemently pro disarmament)… We’ve had women being blamed for bringing violence upon themselves this week, 10yr prison sentences mooted for peaceful protests, £millions given to a Russian contractor to do about half a days work updating the press room at Downing Street, £billions more given in contracts to their mates etc… And it’s STILL only Monday!!! 🤷🏻‍♂️

    The rest of the week should be fun… 😞

    Premier Icon garage-dweller
    Full Member

    I knew I shouldn’t have opened this thread. 😩

    Maybe they’ll take the rest of the week off?

    Premier Icon Poopscoop
    Full Member

    Too early to draw comparisons with a country that started to aggressively rearm in the 1930’s.😉

    To be clear, there are many that will lap this up as part of the “global Britain/ second Golden Age” BS.

    Premier Icon reluctantjumper
    Full Member

    180 nuclear warheads is surely more than enough to wipe a few countries off the face of the earth. How can they justify more when we are meant to be tightening the purse strings? Are they going to be kept in Scotland or is that too much of a risk due to the impending break up of the Union?

    Guarantee it’s another way to feed public money into one or more of their donor’s companies.

    Premier Icon tails
    Full Member

    Need the means to deploy them if you are going to build more. I’m not against military spending and you certainly don’t want to be building kit when you need them. I view it very much as a deterrent, not sure on bojos view but it’ll go down well with the voters he captured last GE.

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Full Member

    Still doesn’t quite put us in the same League as America/Russia/China really does it…

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    And it’s still only Monday!

    There is the feeling that they’re only just getting started, isn’t there. Imagine what they’ll be dreaming up to look all edgy and confrontational on the run up to the next election.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Full Member

    Still doesn’t quite put us in the same League as America/Russia/China really does it…

    In which case, why bother? Almost all the other nations of the world manage just fine without. It’s just that overbearing English sense of speshulness on show again.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    We want to be the loudest and shrillest little country out there. We might not be big by any measure anymore, but by jove can we sound self important.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Full Member

    I see what you did there!

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    Who, me? Edited, just in case it breaks some swear box rule.

    Premier Icon El-bent
    Free Member

    The review also warns of the “realistic possibility” that a terrorist group will “launch a successful CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear] attack by 2030”, although there is little extra detail to back up this assessment.

    Not sure how more nuclear weapons are going to protect us from non-state actors…but if we are being realistic this is just willy waving for home consumption from an increasingly fragile Government.

    Premier Icon mboy
    Free Member

    Too early to draw comparisons with a country that started to aggressively rearm in the 1930’s.

    The same as it’s still too early to consider investing in Bitcoin…? 🤔😉

    180 nuclear warheads is surely more than enough to wipe a few countries off the face of the earth.

    That’s the thing, modern nuclear warheads are 100x more powerful than Fatman and Little Boy. The US does stockhold some 7000 of them though, Russia approx 700… The point of Nuclear war is that if it happened, it would be total armageddon… NOTHING would be left. Having 260 vs having 180 of them is totally inconsequential, there would be nothing left to defend if we entered into a Nuclear War!

    They are a relic of the cold war era… A Broadsword when what is needed is a scalpel. A computer hacker can do more damage in 5 minutes than the threat of 260 Nukes could ever achieve, because EVERYBODY knows that NOBODY is ever going to use on in anger ever again!

    Guarantee it’s another way to feed public money into one or more of their donor’s companies.

    That’s all it is… Plain and simple…

    There is the feeling that they’re only just getting started, isn’t there. Imagine what they’ll be dreaming up to look all edgy and confrontational on the run up to the next election.

    Call me sceptical, but the next General Election will in no way be “free and fair”… In the Coronavirus Bill (bearing in mind they’re dragging this pandemic out as long as they can, the opportunities are so vast for them, it’s like all their Christmases come at once!) they will find the means to protect the electorate from “rogue” votes from certain sub sections of society (probably EU migrants who have long been settled here to start) that are statistically more likely to vote Labour… Middle Class Anglo Saxons will still be allowed to vote obviously, but it will be in vain!

    Premier Icon teesoo
    Full Member

    I’m no defence expert, but buying more nuclear weapons when we already have 180 seems like an idiotic waste of money to me. Aren’t our conventional forces stretched to breaking point? Wouldn’t it better to spend the money there if we want to put more into defence? Surely any scenario where 180 nuclear weapons from us alone isn’t enough is pretty much end of civilisation territory isn’t it?

    Premier Icon poly
    Free Member

    they will find the means to protect the electorate from “rogue” votes from certain sub sections of society (probably EU migrants who have long been settled here to start) that are statistically more likely to vote Labour…

    Is that true? Of the EU migrants I know I’m not certain they are all left leaning. At least one is vocally brexit supporter… a few others don’t like paying tax, and as a general rule they’ve moved here to earn more / improve their own personal circumstances which all sounds quite Conservative sympathetic!

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Full Member

    Is it as simple as just a bit of willy waving and a bit of cranking up trident so that the pointless trident replacement seems more proportional? Or am I missing something?

    I like the absolute lack of awareness from the people lobbying about the threat of China- “The threat has grown, they’ve launched cyber attacks etc, clearly we need to upgrade our nuclear deterrant because it’s… uh, completely useless at dealing with any of that”. As it has been with literally every other threat we’ve faced since the cold war.

    Premier Icon mboy
    Free Member

    Is that true? Of the EU migrants I know I’m not certain they are all left leaning. At least one is vocally brexit supporter

    I was over simplifying to make my point… Might not be ex-pat EU nationals, will be some other sector of society that is overwhelmingly likely to vote for a centre-left party… Young people for instance! 🤷🏻‍♂️

    I like the absolute lack of awareness from the people lobbying about the threat of China- “The threat has grown, they’ve launched cyber attacks etc, clearly we need to upgrade our nuclear deterrant because it’s… uh, completely useless at dealing with any of that”. As it has been with literally every other threat we’ve faced since the cold war.

    Tells you as much about British Politics right now as you need to know… It’s regressed 50 odd years in just 5, the right thinks we’re back in the height of the cold war and is hoping to take us back to WW2 sooner than later!

    Sadly it’s just comical, but then when has rationale come into politics…? More Nukes to deal with the socio-economic threat of China FFS?!?! 🤦🏻

    Premier Icon Poopscoop
    Full Member

    We really are the little guy in the pub, always p*ssed and looking for a fight.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56410532

    From the link:

    They will include a White House-style situation room built in the Cabinet Office as well as a new counter-terrorism operations centre intended to improve the speed of response to terrorist incidents.

    Looks like Boris has been watching too many Bourne films mixed in with watching Zero Dark Thirty for the lolz.

    We are also going to “stand up to China” on the Indo-Pacific. They must be bricking it.

    (Though we won’t stand up to them too much as we need their money of course…no way our government is going to pay for the reconstruction needed after covid/Brexit after all.)

    Premier Icon dyna-ti
    Free Member

    It sickens me on how the US used these. In fact did they even need to with total air supremacy ?. Tehy were already on a bombing campaign turning Japanese city’s into firestorms so that was just a matter of time and no boots would ever have been needed to set foot on Japanese soil before the capitulated. No I feel they wanted to test them on city’s, on people. to see what the death toll was and how much damage they actually did.
    The even had two types, One Uranium, one plutonium, and they decided to test both. The first they set off they saw the damage it did(uranium), be really really wanted to test the other(Plutonium) and that is the only reason they dropped the second.
    Hiroshima was dropped on the 6th of August, Nagasaki was dropped on the 9th of August. So no time was allowed for the Japanese to take stock and make a decision, they dropped them so close together so they wouldnt have had time to take stock.
    In fact seeing how the Americans have acted since ww2, its unlikely the Japanese could he done anything to prevent a 2nd bombing.

    Premier Icon fazzini
    Full Member

    In the playground trying to be Billy-big-bollocks. FFS

    Premier Icon Daffy
    Full Member

    More warheads will mean very little as the new Dreadnaught class subs will carry less of them. Having more will probably be some agreement with the Americans about storage, maintenance and cycling. It makes no difference to our deterrent capability unless we buy more Ballistic Missile submarines, which we won’t.

    Premier Icon willard
    Full Member

    I’m not even sure that, if they built the submarines to launch them from, they could find the sailors to staff the boats. Shit, they built two carriers and immediately mothballed one.

    And yet we have an ageing and ineffective tank fleet and an army that keeps being reduced and combined. How about that new ‘brigade’ they stood up to counter hybrid/information warfare?

    Sorry, sarcasm on the last bit and showing a slight bit of bias.

    Personally I think that even contemplating nuclear weapon use is retarded. The U.K. has a seat at the special table for historic reasons and is desperate to keep it and seem relevant and will do almost anything to stay there, despite there being no place in the world for nukes and them being practically useless in real terms.

    The last trident upgrade cost 50 billion or something, right? But it had to be done because you can’t _not_ do it.

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    Just more tragic macho posturing from the Empire 2.0 Brexiteer lot to appeal to their gammony base.

    A desperate attempt to look more relevant as the parochial little backwater that is the UK becomes less and less relevant globally

    It’s a country saying “do you want to see how many press-ups I can do?”

    It’s pathetic!

    Premier Icon ads678
    Full Member

    We really are a shit house of a country aren’t we. Knew I should have left years ago!!

    Premier Icon paino
    Full Member

    Knowing how this works, they’ll buy the nukes then realise they’ve nothing compatible to launch them from, so will end up buying some ridiculously expensive mega tech from the US to render them useable.
    The biggest single waste of UK tax payer money, is the F35 fleet. £90k per hour running costs, half of which are unserviceable. An absolute travesty that needs to abandoned in favour of UK drone technology.

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    Even the BBC seems to be printing what they are told from the government now, with matching machismo photo to match.

    It does feel like the government are desperate to be seen as The Big Man.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56410532

    Premier Icon dannyh
    Full Member

    A win-win for Johnson as he appeals to the insecure little saddos who love a bit of sabre rattling. And all the time vast amounts of money can be siphoned off into the pockets of mates.

    Exceptionalism, nationalism, stupidity.

    The ‘look how many press ups I can do analogy’ looks even more stupid when you see that this isn’t even down the pub. It is more like the middle of an academic conference.

    Great Britain – the international equivalent of Gareth Keenan.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Full Member

    And here’s me thinking there was simply no money in the pot.

    Premier Icon dannyh
    Full Member

    Actually more David Brent. I think this clip is the perfect metaphor.

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    As the last 12 months have shown, there is literally limitless cash available to throw at your mates with dodgy untendered contracts if you’re a government minister.

    If you’re a nurse after a pay rise… not so much

    Boris has always loved chucking billions at his little vanity projects, so a few more billion so he can try and look like a big swinging dick on the world stage is neither here nor there

    Premier Icon teesoo
    Full Member

    With regard to the BBC story about post Brexit policy. What kind of message are they sending out when the picture they use to illustrate it is an aircraft carrier?

    Premier Icon Daffy
    Full Member

    In fairness the article talks about stronger co-operation with India, Australia, etc and its the first deployment of the carrier to that region, so it is kinda flying the flag, especially in the Transpac Trade agreement that we hope to participate in.

    Premier Icon BillMC
    Full Member

    It’s just a very expensive way of protecting vested interests in the arms and military industries plus amazing for diplomatic bunga bunga and willy waving. Not much good at stopping a 19 year old with a bomb belt nor a cyber attack on institutions. Corporeal Johnson must be chuffed to have moved on from second hand water cannons with no MOTs.’The world needs global Britain’ apparently to defend the world against China and Russia (oh really?). When people are out on their harris without a job and a home they’ll be chuffed to bits about those nuclear subs. ‘We’ll stand up for human rights’, just look at what we do to women on a vigil. We were warned.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Full Member

    . It makes no difference to our deterrent capability unless we buy more Ballistic Missile submarines, which we won’t.

    I thought the missiles currently each carried fewer than the maximum number of warheads?

    Premier Icon Klunk
    Free Member

    must be rumours going round the UN about us being kicked off the security council.

    Premier Icon martinhutch
    Full Member

    Alternative: can they simply not afford to decommission the oldest ones?

    Premier Icon BillMC
    Full Member

    The decommissioning must be an equally thriving business, build em up, knock em down, no unions, armed security on site, will the LP oppose?

    Premier Icon willard
    Full Member

    That in itself is a really expensive task. It’s not just the warheads, but the delivery system and the vehicle they sit in all have to be taken apart and there’s a lot of stuff that will have to be disposed of very carefully.

    Nuclear is kind of a lose:lose weapon. If you have to use it, something has gone seriously seriously wrong. Globally wrong. And yet, if you don’t use them, then you spend years paying for them and years paying for them again when they are taken apart, modernised and/or decommissioned.

    As other people have said, they are not the future. Not of warfare, not of politics. This is, sadly, just a good example of people thinking about the last war and planning for that and not really looking at what is likely to be the next war. You can’t use a Trident to threaten a terrorist cell, or a re-surging IRA. You can’t use an aircraft carrier to support troops in Afghanistan and their jump-jet aircraft are way less capable than the other models of F35 are.

    As for UK drones… Please no. Watchkeeper is seriously crap compared to even the older Predator. If we had bought Reapers, we would have had a much better capability. Hell, we only lease our C-17s now and they are about the most useful transport aircraft we have in our fleet.

    Premier Icon ginsterdrz
    Free Member

    (ex-Great) Britain is just a Russian holiday island/retreat so they’ll never nuke us. Most of their dirty money is laundered through our financial houses so we’re too important to them.

    It’ll take a while for the feckless British public to realise BJ is a charlatan but by then: he’ll be a millionaire disappeared in a cloud of dust, a generation of Tory voting gammons will be boxed up and buried and the Iranians will be a nuclear power!

    Buckle up kids, it’s going to be an eventful decade 🤣🤣🤣

    Premier Icon mashr
    Free Member

    As for UK drones… Please no. Watchkeeper is seriously crap compared to even the older Predator. If we had bought Reapers, we would have had a much better capability.

    Not comparable bits of kit, and it’s a stretch to call Watchkeeper a U.K. drone anyway

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 117 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.