Comrade Corbyn silly remarks / Trident

[think about it]

The biggest threat to our social construct is not the Bomb

 

It is Cyber Terrorism

 

Power stations, transport, water supply etc, all can be turned off through the click of a mouse

 

The sooner we all grow up and acccpt this the better. Ths is the 21st century, not the 1950s. Though Bomb the Commi and my bomb is bigger than yours rhetoric is still evident

 

Hence the reason why I've never fully understood why they wouldn't / won't do the easiest security measure in the history of man, and unplug the network cable...

[unclebulgaria67]

You seem to have missed my point unclebulgaria,

It is my understanding that we physically CANNOT launch without US physical authorisation (ie they have to press a button too), unlike France who could.

Nothing to do with 'agreements' saying we won't. We CAN'T.

eg We press the button - nothing happens until the US says OK and presses their 'launch UK missiles' button..

 

It is an independent weapons system. There is no 100% block from the US to stop us, but there is a protocol requiring US/NATO authorisation in normal circumstances.

 

I think you are correct that at one time it was physically impossible for the UK to use nuclear independently, but i think this changed the last time they upgraded the control systems.

[unclebulgaria67]

J

The biggest threat to our social construct is not the Bomb

 

It is Cyber Terrorism

 

Power stations, transport, water supply etc, all can be turned off through the click of a mouse

 

The sooner we all grow up and acccpt this the better. Ths is the 21st century, not the 1950s. Though Bomb the Commi and my bomb is bigger than yours rhetoric is still evident

 

That is a bigger threat.

 

It would not concern me if the UK decded not to renew Trident and decided to concentrate on other forms of defence.

[tobyjugg2]

It is an independent weapons system. There is no 100% block from the US to stop us, but there is a protocol requiring US/NATO authorisation in normal circumstances.

 

I think you are correct that at one time it was physically impossible for the UK to use nuclear independently, but i think this changed the last time they upgraded the control systems.

 

I think you will find that we CAN, and always could control the warheads should we choose, but the delivery systems (Trident) are always under US final control.

So we could nuke ourselves at the launchpads if we desired....

 

Which means to me there should be three options:

Disarm

US Trident

UK independent nuclear deterrent

 

maybe we are smarter than the Yanks realise and we have replaced their control systems with ours without them knowing, but I doubt it.

 

For balance:

The UK gov claims differently (see last line below) , but recent leaks have put this under doubt. I do sincerely hope the leaks and previous statements questioning this are false.

 

UK nuclear deterrence policy consists of 5 main principles:

 

• preventing attack - the UK’s nuclear weapons are not designed for military use during conflict but instead to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means
  
• the UK will retain only the minimum amount of destructive power required to achieve our deterrence objectives - this is known as ‘minimum deterrence’
  
• we deliberately maintain some ambiguity about precisely when, how and at what scale we would contemplate use of our nuclear deterrent. We do not want to simplify the calculations of a potential aggressor by defining more precisely the circumstances in which we might consider the use of our nuclear capabilities (for example, we do not define what we consider to be our vital interests), hence, we will not rule in or out the first use of nuclear weapons
  
• the UK’s nuclear deterrent supports collective security through NATO for the Euro-Atlantic area
  
• an independent centre of nuclear decision-making enhances the overall deterrent effect of allied nuclear forces: separately controlled but mutually supporting nuclear forces create an enhanced overall deterrent effect; the UK deterrent is operationally independent, and the UK does not require US or NATO authorisation to use its deterrent - UK nuclear weapons remain under political control at all times; only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of UK nuclear weapons
  

[obiter dictum]

According to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nine nations — the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — possess approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons. in total.

 

Is Corbyn so wrong in his view of a world without this monstrosity?

 

One Word

 

MAD

 

Mutually assured destruction

Edited October 1, 2015 by obiter dictum

[obiter dictum]

With 4 vangard submarines carrying a total payload of 768 individual targeted nukes

 

How can that possibly be a minimum deterent with a legitimate aim and not be offensive munitions?

 

Each nuke is 260 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. And that excludes a thermo nuclear device (H-BOMB)

[tobyjugg2]

With 4 vangard submarines carrying a total payload of 768 individual targeted nukes

 

How can that possibly be a minimum deterent with a legitimate aim and not be offensive munitions?

 

Each nuke is 260 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. And that excludes a thermo nuclear device (H-BOMB)

 

Only one at sea - so not a sitting target, and I believe we actually have the smallest nuclear arsenal of all the nuclear powers, with the possible exception of Israel - which is entirely unconfirmed.

 

Just imagine if the North Korean nutter with the haircut was the last nuclear power on the planet !!!

[obiter dictum]

North Korea might well have split the atom, but they are so technologically inferior to construct a launch system to carry the payload to its target

 

If that ever became possible i am sure an adequate response will be met to remove that threat.

 

Similar to Operation Opera/Babylon

[tobyjugg2]

North Korea might well have split the atom, but they are so technologically inferior to construct a launch system to carry the payload to its target

 

If that ever became possible i am sure an adequate response will be met to remove that threat.

 

Similar to Operation Opera/Babylon

 

I dont think the Israeli's see it as their issue, and I can't think of any other country who would do an 'opera'.

[obiter dictum]

Israel may not, but i am sure the people of south korea will

 

The same stategic plan will be used to deal with the North Koreans. The American sixth fleet comes to mind off the coast of japan for example.

 

A well targeted cruise missile with a conventional warhead should do the job

 

Remember the Korean war is not officially over, a sort of cold war

[tobyjugg2]

Israel may not, but i am sure the people of south korea will

 

The same stategic plan will be used to deal with the North Koreans. The American sixth fleet comes to mind off the coast of japan for example.

 

A well targeted cruise missile with a conventional warhead should do the job

 

Remember the Korean war is not officially over, a sort of cold war

 

South Korea wont or they already would have done. They don't want nukes going off on their doorstep.

[Conniff]

Spy satellites will pick up any launch through heat signatures

The yanks have NORAD, the soviets similar anywhere on the planet, no doubt the chinese as well

They pick up any surface launch Instantaneously and reactive procedures put into place until identified

 

What corbyn is saying is not silly

 

It makes perfect sense

 

He will not push the button

 

HE WILL LEAVE THAT UP TO NATO

 

If you are saying he will leave it up to Nato to press 'our' button, wrong again. Our system has nothing whatsoever to do with the US or Nato.

[Conniff]

With 4 vangard submarines carrying a total payload of 768 individual targeted nukes

 

How can that possibly be a minimum deterent with a legitimate aim and not be offensive munitions?

 

Each nuke is 260 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. And that excludes a thermo nuclear device (H-BOMB)

 

In response to that, you can bet your life the yanks wouldn't have dropped this bomb on Japan if Japan also had nuclear weapons. See, deterrent.

[unclebulgaria67]

In response to that, you can bet your life the yanks wouldn't have dropped this bomb on Japan if Japan also had nuclear weapons. See, deterrent.

 

I am not convinced that in the event of the UK being attacked using conventional weapons, that we would threaten using full nuclear missiles. I would think any attacking force would believe it was a bluff. UK/NATO would respond using conventional weapons.

 

There may be some merit in investing in some form of small nuclear or other technology that could act as a warning, that the full nuclear missiles will be used. In the event of say Russia attacking, the less powerful missiles could be targetted on less densely populated areas, so that they could see the consequences. Perhaps there are other defence options to just renewing Trident,

 

But yes US would not have attacked Japan had they been a nuclear power.

[tobyjugg2]

But yes US would not have attacked Japan had they been a nuclear power.

 

I dont doubt that the US would have been on the receiving end of a first strike if Japan had been a nuclear power - just as Japan was by the US.

Lets not forget that the US only used 2 bombs because they only HAD 2 bombs.

[Conniff]

I am not convinced that in the event of the UK being attacked using conventional weapons, that we would threaten using full nuclear missiles. I would think any attacking force would believe it was a bluff. UK/NATO would respond using conventional weapons.

 

There may be some merit in investing in some form of small nuclear or other technology that could act as a warning, that the full nuclear missiles will be used. In the event of say Russia attacking, the less powerful missiles could be targetted on less densely populated areas, so that they could see the consequences. Perhaps there are other defence options to just renewing Trident,

 

But yes US would not have attacked Japan had they been a nuclear power.

 

They aren't held as a deterent to conventional weapons but as retaliatory weapons. Any country dispatching one to the UK would know that they will get at least the same back so won't do it.

 

I dont doubt that the US would have been on the receiving end of a first strike if Japan had been a nuclear power - just as Japan was by the US.

Lets not forget that the US only used 2 bombs because they only HAD 2 bombs.

 

It only took two bombs to get them to capitulate which they refused. In this particular case, though a lot of people died, a whole lot more on both sides would have died had the US

gone for an invasion.

[obiter dictum]

It has been unanimously agreed that any full scale invasion by the soviets during the cold war would have resulted in a nuclear exchange. NATO forces would have been swept aside due to russian armoured superiority.

 

The only way to halt the advance would be to use a limited tactical nuke launched from a land based vehicle. If memory serves me right the code name for such a nuke was an "Honest John". The soviets would then have retailated in kind leading to a full nuclear exchange

 

That is the real issue with these current games of bluf and counter bluf in the middle east. Look at 1962 for a comparrison

 

You start poking the bear and he will bite back

 

The only reason the bombs were dropped on japan was to make Stalin aware they had the bomb if he had ideas on future conquest. The soviet army outnumbered the allies

[unclebulgaria67]

I dont doubt that the US would have been on the receiving end of a first strike if Japan had been a nuclear power - just as Japan was by the US.

Lets not forget that the US only used 2 bombs because they only HAD 2 bombs.

 

Yes that is true. Some say that the Nazis were within a few weeks of having a nuclear bomb. If that had happened, i suspect that London may have been the target.

[Conniff]

It has been unanimously agreed that any full scale invasion by the soviets during the cold war would have resulted in a nuclear exchange. NATO forces would have been swept aside due to russian armoured superiority.

 

The only way to halt the advance would be to use a limited tactical nuke launched from a land based vehicle. If memory serves me right the code name for such a nuke was an "Honest John". The soviets would then have retailated in kind leading to a full nuclear exchange

 

That is the real issue with these current games of bluf and counter bluf in the middle east. Look at 1962 for a comparrison

 

You start poking the bear and he will bite back

 

 

 

I've said before, no one is getting at comrade Putin, it is him getting at the rest of the world. He is only helping Assad because he has no other friends and want's to retain his base there.

 

Nice copy from Wiki by the way, have you got a link ?

 

I still don't see that these ramblings have anything to do with Corbyn

[tobyjugg2]

and the best answer I've seen for 'why didn't the Americans nuclear bomb Tokyo' -

 

They are Americans, they intended to - but missed.

[obiter dictum]

Corbyn can see the bigger picture

 

The United kingdom has no need for nukes, they are an expensive luxuary for a country that is no longer a world super power

 

If getting rid of nukes ends food banks then that is a step in the right direction.

 

If a country launches a nuke at us there is SFA we can do to stop it, and NATO will respond to the agressor

 

You do not have to have the bomb to be a member of NATO

 

And i do not use WIKI unlike some i do not care to mention, i was stationed in Germany

 

Mönchengladbach and Minden

Edited October 1, 2015 by obiter dictum

[honeybee13]

This thread seems to have run its course. I'm closing it.

 

HB