LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
does this mean that we cn only launch at night when there is a clear sky?rick_chasey said:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/surrey_commuter said:
I disagree with both of you which is par for the course but finding out that Rick wants to buy more nukes from the Yanks that we can't use without their permission has completely discombobulated meballysmate said:My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!
The missile uses a kind of stellar sighting guidance system and inertial navigation to take a reading from the stars to work out the missile’s position and make any adjustments necessary.0 -
ICBMs go virtually into space.surrey_commuter said:
does this mean that we cn only launch at night when there is a clear sky?rick_chasey said:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/surrey_commuter said:
I disagree with both of you which is par for the course but finding out that Rick wants to buy more nukes from the Yanks that we can't use without their permission has completely discombobulated meballysmate said:My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!
The missile uses a kind of stellar sighting guidance system and inertial navigation to take a reading from the stars to work out the missile’s position and make any adjustments necessary.0 -
I guess they still need to be able to inflict massive amounts of destruction even after the satellites are all off line.0
-
that would widen our window of opportunity.rick_chasey said:
ICBMs go virtually into space.surrey_commuter said:
does this mean that we cn only launch at night when there is a clear sky?rick_chasey said:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/surrey_commuter said:
I disagree with both of you which is par for the course but finding out that Rick wants to buy more nukes from the Yanks that we can't use without their permission has completely discombobulated meballysmate said:My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!
The missile uses a kind of stellar sighting guidance system and inertial navigation to take a reading from the stars to work out the missile’s position and make any adjustments necessary.
as a matter of interest would you share your list of countries that you would be happy to nuke? I assume it is quite long, and growing, if you feel the need for some additional warheads0 -
Yeah you need to assume that Star Wars are happening at the same time.kingstongraham said:I guess they still need to be able to inflict massive amounts of destruction even after the satellites are all off line.
Ultimately you want missiles that don’t require any additional support or infrastructure once they’re fired.
0 -
Any ideas?kingstongraham said:Are they going to have more submarines, or more missiles per submarine, or just more destructive capability in each missile?
If the latter, seems deranged.
0 -
Yeah I’m not necessarily sold on the idea. I suspect better value for money is sending the money to the foreign office and or the aid budget.surrey_commuter said:
that would widen our window of opportunity.rick_chasey said:
ICBMs go virtually into space.surrey_commuter said:
does this mean that we cn only launch at night when there is a clear sky?rick_chasey said:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/surrey_commuter said:
I disagree with both of you which is par for the course but finding out that Rick wants to buy more nukes from the Yanks that we can't use without their permission has completely discombobulated meballysmate said:My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!
The missile uses a kind of stellar sighting guidance system and inertial navigation to take a reading from the stars to work out the missile’s position and make any adjustments necessary.
as a matter of interest would you share your list of countries that you would be happy to nuke? I assume it is quite long, and growing, if you feel the need for some additional warheads
If you believe in the deterrent doctrine (I am on the fence) then any nation who would want to wage a serious war against the UK is on the list.
You can guarantee for example that America has various submarines with missiles pointed at most of North Korea.0 -
Nuclear policy is not just about the requirements for this week, it has to be looking perhaps a decade into the future.
As defence systems evolve, so needs the missile technology to also evolve.
If you believe as I do in the MAD principle then it is imperative that anyone considering a strike on us must believe that our warheads would penetrate their defences.
0 -
you think they would nuke N. Korea?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I’m not necessarily sold on the idea. I suspect better value for money is sending the money to the foreign office and or the aid budget.surrey_commuter said:
that would widen our window of opportunity.rick_chasey said:
ICBMs go virtually into space.surrey_commuter said:
does this mean that we cn only launch at night when there is a clear sky?rick_chasey said:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/surrey_commuter said:
I disagree with both of you which is par for the course but finding out that Rick wants to buy more nukes from the Yanks that we can't use without their permission has completely discombobulated meballysmate said:My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!
The missile uses a kind of stellar sighting guidance system and inertial navigation to take a reading from the stars to work out the missile’s position and make any adjustments necessary.
as a matter of interest would you share your list of countries that you would be happy to nuke? I assume it is quite long, and growing, if you feel the need for some additional warheads
If you believe in the deterrent doctrine (I am on the fence) then any nation who would want to wage a serious war against the UK is on the list.
You can guarantee for example that America has various submarines with missiles pointed at most of North Korea.0 -
It's the missiles that need to do that bit, isn't it?ballysmate said:Nuclear policy is not just about the requirements for this week, it has to be looking perhaps a decade into the future.
As defence systems evolve, so needs the missile technology to also evolve.
If you believe as I do in the MAD principle then it is imperative that anyone considering a strike on us must believe that our warheads would penetrate their defences.0 -
We're both still in NATO and we have a separate military agreement with France for joint operations haven't we?rick_chasey said:There's also the issue of perhaps reduced co-operation with EU nations (namely France, in this instance), who currently has a bigger arsenal than the UK, so there might also be a strategic shortfall there too.
0 -
From what I understand, two subs at sea would be quite a struggle.ballysmate said:Nuclear policy is not just about the requirements for this week, it has to be looking perhaps a decade into the future.
As defence systems evolve, so needs the missile technology to also evolve.
If you believe as I do in the MAD principle then it is imperative that anyone considering a strike on us must believe that our warheads would penetrate their defences.0 -
Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently0
-
With 260 warheadssurrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
0 -
What if someone was fishing our waters?surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
pangolin said:
What if someone was fishing our waters?surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
I think you mean "kidnapping British fish".0 -
So the thread posted seems to suggest that there are warheads and warheads - some are used in tactical warfare situations which the Russians apparently have the capability to do a lot, and some are strategic, as in, total annihilation.surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
0 -
Kidnapping and murdering.briantrumpet said:pangolin said:
What if someone was fishing our waters?surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
I think you mean "kidnapping British fish".0 -
Aren't tactical nuclear warheads pretty much banned under current non-proliferation treaties?rick_chasey said:
So the thread posted seems to suggest that there are warheads and warheads - some are used in tactical warfare situations which the Russians apparently have the capability to do a lot, and some are strategic, as in, total annihilation.surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
0 -
Yeah, read the thread yourself.elbowloh said:
Aren't tactical nuclear warheads pretty much banned under current non-proliferation treaties?rick_chasey said:
So the thread posted seems to suggest that there are warheads and warheads - some are used in tactical warfare situations which the Russians apparently have the capability to do a lot, and some are strategic, as in, total annihilation.surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
0 -
I don't do twitterrick_chasey said:
Yeah, read the thread yourself.elbowloh said:
Aren't tactical nuclear warheads pretty much banned under current non-proliferation treaties?rick_chasey said:
So the thread posted seems to suggest that there are warheads and warheads - some are used in tactical warfare situations which the Russians apparently have the capability to do a lot, and some are strategic, as in, total annihilation.surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
0 -
elbowloh said:
I don't do twitterrick_chasey said:
Yeah, read the thread yourself.elbowloh said:
Aren't tactical nuclear warheads pretty much banned under current non-proliferation treaties?rick_chasey said:
So the thread posted seems to suggest that there are warheads and warheads - some are used in tactical warfare situations which the Russians apparently have the capability to do a lot, and some are strategic, as in, total annihilation.surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
It's part of the internet - you won't disappear into a puff of smoke if you have a look. Well, unless you get nuked at the same time.0 -
Maybe not, but I'm still staying off twitter.briantrumpet said:elbowloh said:
I don't do twitterrick_chasey said:
Yeah, read the thread yourself.elbowloh said:
Aren't tactical nuclear warheads pretty much banned under current non-proliferation treaties?rick_chasey said:
So the thread posted seems to suggest that there are warheads and warheads - some are used in tactical warfare situations which the Russians apparently have the capability to do a lot, and some are strategic, as in, total annihilation.surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
It's part of the internet - you won't disappear into a puff of smoke if you have a look. Well, unless you get nuked at the same time.0 -
elbowloh said:
Maybe not, but I'm still staying off twitter.briantrumpet said:elbowloh said:
I don't do twitterrick_chasey said:
Yeah, read the thread yourself.elbowloh said:
Aren't tactical nuclear warheads pretty much banned under current non-proliferation treaties?rick_chasey said:
So the thread posted seems to suggest that there are warheads and warheads - some are used in tactical warfare situations which the Russians apparently have the capability to do a lot, and some are strategic, as in, total annihilation.surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
It's part of the internet - you won't disappear into a puff of smoke if you have a look. Well, unless you get nuked at the same time.
Well, you'll not learn what's in that thread, then, unless RC copies and pastes it for you. Or would you refuse to read that?0 -
This isn't on twitter, maybe read this instead. Much the same thrust though.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1371837330378661893.html0 -
There are two types of nuclear war. The first is the age old cold war scenario between two states following the MAD deterent. The more worrying one is a group able to get a weapon maybe as low end as a dirty bomb, infiltrate a city and set it off. You might suspect say Iran for doing it but are you going to commit genocide and destroy them with you weapons. This is why we are mainly interested in the whereabouts of plutonium etc.0
-
I see the strategy.
Gather up all the plutonium and hide it in our missiles. Genius!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I've read about it elsewhere, it's ok.briantrumpet said:elbowloh said:
Maybe not, but I'm still staying off twitter.briantrumpet said:elbowloh said:
I don't do twitterrick_chasey said:
Yeah, read the thread yourself.elbowloh said:
Aren't tactical nuclear warheads pretty much banned under current non-proliferation treaties?rick_chasey said:
So the thread posted seems to suggest that there are warheads and warheads - some are used in tactical warfare situations which the Russians apparently have the capability to do a lot, and some are strategic, as in, total annihilation.surrey_commuter said:Can somebody give me a scenario where GB may need/want to nuke somebody independently
It's part of the internet - you won't disappear into a puff of smoke if you have a look. Well, unless you get nuked at the same time.
Well, you'll not learn what's in that thread, then, unless RC copies and pastes it for you. Or would you refuse to read that?
There is no justification for needing 80 more warheads.
If a potential enemy is not out off by 180 warheads, then upping it to 260 will make no difference.0
