Who wants to give up our Nukes now ? - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
Poll Room You got it, just random polls in here

View Poll Results: Do you think we should give up our independent nuclear deterrent ?
Yes 5 18.52%
No 21 77.78%
Other 1 3.70%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
(Post Link) post #1 of 57 Old 02-09-14 Thread Starter
Status: Not my PM
AO Platinum Member
 
AlfaDrivingFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: European Union
Posts: 44,632
Who wants to give up our Nukes now ?

There has always been a group of people who think giving up our independent nuclear deterrent would somehow make us safe. I've never believed this, I always thought if someone launched a first strike against us I would want to make sure they were blown to oblivion too.
AlfaDrivingFan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: The BSD says konnichiwa
Global Mod Team
 
BigFoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Japan
County: Tokyo
Posts: 114,689
Why would anyone want to obliterate a whole country off? Really.
BigFoot is offline  
Status: Breraless :(
AO Platinum Member
 
Squadrone Rosso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Neath Port Talbot
Posts: 30,126
No. Peace is through superior firepower or mutually assured destruction.
Squadrone Rosso is offline  
(Post Link) post #4 of 57 Old 02-09-14 Thread Starter
Status: Not my PM
AO Platinum Member
 
AlfaDrivingFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: European Union
Posts: 44,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFoot View Post
Why would anyone want to obliterate a whole country off? Really.
There are some bad and mad people in the world Biggie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squadrone Rosso View Post
No. Peace is through superior firepower or mutually assured destruction.
The answer I was looking for
AlfaDrivingFan is offline  
Status: strongstablestrongst able
AO Platinum Member
 
keithyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Cambodia
County: Phnom Penh
Posts: 14,107

Member car:

CRV/Jaaag

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squadrone Rosso View Post
No. Peace is through superior firepower or mutually assured destruction.
It's not something I'm happy about but I have to agree on this one.
keithyboy is offline  
Status: Reflated!
AO Silver Member
 
MarkiT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: United Kingdom
County: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,754
Garage
I disagree. Won't protect us from ISIS etc. nutjobs, or help us to influence or intervene in events in the mid-east etc., where I predict major conflict over water resources, let alone oil. It is in my view a white elephant which costs a fortune - I'd much rather see that money go on things like aircraft to fly off our carriers, better and more armoured personnel carriers and other military equipment etc. for our army, and more ships for the navy (including things like corvettes and frigates for shipping protection and anti-piracy duties in around the Gulf or off the coast of East Africa), let alone actually having enough actual sailors, soldiers and airmen. And that equipment should be designed and built in the UK, so we at least get some direct economic benefit (in supporting jobs/industry).

It may be my ignorance, but I'm not really sure it is independant anyway? Trident is an American system, needing American parts etc - could our govenrment actually order a first strike anyway without American approval/access codes? If the answer is no, then its not independant. Happy to be corrected on this.
MarkiT is offline  
Status: -
AO Gold Member
 
chrishendrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 10,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkiT View Post
I disagree. Won't protect us from ISIS etc. nutjobs, or help us to influence or intervene in events in the mid-east etc., where I predict major conflict over water resources, let alone oil. It is in my view a white elephant which costs a fortune - I'd much rather see that money go on things like aircraft to fly off our carriers, better and more armoured personnel carriers and other military equipment etc.
Wouldn't it make even more sense to spend the money on supplying food and water - thus avoiding conflict over water?
And education of the people being radicalised by extremist 'nutjobs'?
chrishendrix is offline  
Status: Coffee with MILF
AO Platinum Member
 
Al Faromeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Netherlands
County: Limburg
Posts: 25,986
Many will think me naive but I'm fully with Chris on this.

Food, water, housing. Education.
Al Faromeo is offline  
(Post Link) post #9 of 57 Old 02-09-14 Thread Starter
Status: Not my PM
AO Platinum Member
 
AlfaDrivingFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: European Union
Posts: 44,632
Give it away when the French have it ! Never !

If the events in Ukraine have taught us anything it is that friends we have today can soon become enemies tomorrow.
AlfaDrivingFan is offline  
Status: Reflated!
AO Silver Member
 
MarkiT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: United Kingdom
County: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,754
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrishendrix View Post
Wouldn't it make even more sense to spend the money on supplying food and water - thus avoiding conflict over water?
And education of the people being radicalised by extremist 'nutjobs'?
Point taken.
MarkiT is offline  
Status: Reflated!
AO Silver Member
 
MarkiT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: United Kingdom
County: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,754
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfaDrivingFan View Post
Give it away when the French have it ! Never !
Zut alors - pas les Francais!!!

Beware, Rosbifs - soon the Vieille Alliance will be reborn! - all those new French nuclear submarines will be looking for a base - and Scotland may well soon have some empty births .

Is their "Force de dissuasion" actually independent? Home grown I would guess, at least.
MarkiT is offline  
Status: T-5 Days to Unicorn Paradise
AO Platinum Member
 
TheGrimJeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: France
County: Riviera
Posts: 38,319
All safe here:

Nukes for 'leccy.
Nukes for pushing other countries around.

Sorted.



Last edited by TheGrimJeeper; 03-09-14 at 06:15.
TheGrimJeeper is offline  
Durty dog
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squadrone Rosso View Post
No. Peace is through superior firepower or mutually assured destruction.
Perfect answer
 
Status: zzzzzzzz
AO Platinum Member
 
symon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Oxfordshire
Posts: 37,014
The answer IMO if for everyone to give them up.

But as long as other countries have them then we should have them as well.

The main problem is one day the time may come when some deranged nutter gets their hands on a few. They may not care about getting a few in return if they fire some off.

I am thinking of terrorists mostly in this instance.
symon is online now  
Status: Make Covfefe great again!!
AO Platinum Member
 
Greener123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Southampton
County: Hampshire
Posts: 41,384
Garage

Member car:

159 2.0 JTDM Ti

we need something to keep Shant away
Greener123 is offline  
Status: Alfaless
AO Member
 
Alfa Seltzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hants
Posts: 948

Member car:

GT...Golf GT

Imagine the worst...

Scotland go independant soon with Alex Salmond & a bitter and twisted Gordon Brown teaming up at Faslane in a Dr Strangelove type situation with England in their sights.

Imagine our proud nation with Barrow in Furness and Rotherham reduced to nuclear wastelands
Alfa Seltzer is offline  
Status: Thinking about a Scirrocco
AO Platinum Member
 
Starkers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brighton.
County: Good old Sussex by the sea
Posts: 12,837

Member car:

The train :(

To the OP, nuclear weapons are a 1950s answer to a 1950s problem, what is the point in having them today? If we ever did get to use them, it is more than likely that we would just expose ourselves to the dangers of retaliation and escalation and since I do not have a desire to experience the horror of a nuclear device exploding within 500 - 1,000 miles of Britain, or even most of Europe for that matter, we would be much better off spending money on a deterrent, such as Israel's iron dome, which intercepts missiles

We should spend the money on tools that are relevant to countering the threats we face today: better personal protection for those brave men and women who help to protect our country and giving them more ships, tanks, helicopters etc.

However, as others have pointed out, the best things to spend that money on, would be humanity - giving people abroad water, food and access to medicine where they need it and at home, doing something to help educate people to try and prevent them from whatever it is that makes them feel that they need to join an organisation whose sole intent appears to be the establishment of an undemocratic state and the imposition of their religious beliefs on innocent people.
Starkers is offline  
Status: Alfaless
AO Member
 
Alfa Seltzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hants
Posts: 948

Member car:

GT...Golf GT

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starkers View Post

We should spend the money on tools that are relevant to countering the threats we face today: better personal protection for those brave men and women who help to protect our country and giving them more ships, tanks, helicopters etc.

However, as others have pointed out, the best things to spend that money on, would be humanity - giving people abroad water, food and access to medicine where they need it and at home, doing something to help educate people to try and prevent them from whatever it is that makes them feel that they need to join an organisation whose sole intent appears to be the establishment of an undemocratic state and the imposition of their religious beliefs on innocent people.
An admirable sentiment but I think you need to keep your "big guns" in reserve to avoid certain nations taking the mick to excess.

Quite why we need to spend so much money on the deterrent is another matter though, Trident seems to be a license to print money for the various parties involved as it gets upgraded every so often...I'd have thought the old Polaris job would have been fine if we were going for armageddon anyway?
Alfa Seltzer is offline  
Status: Breraless :(
AO Platinum Member
 
Squadrone Rosso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Neath Port Talbot
Posts: 30,126
I actually agree ref IS as you can't bomb an ideology.

The only way to tackle those ****ers is infiltration / operatives on the ground plus surgical air strikes.
Squadrone Rosso is offline  
Status: Winning small victories
AO Platinum Member
 
73GTVJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater Manchester
Posts: 24,469
I hate the idea of nuclear weapons but they exist so no country can pretend otherwise.

The earlier posts about fanatical Muslims such as IS not having them so no longer relevant is short sighted and naive. IS already controls a land mass bigger than Belgium. If they continue they could become a state. Irrespective of that they have massive wealth. IF they got their hands on nuclear weapons I suggest it is a fair risk assessment to say they'd seriously consider using them against us or the US and any non Muslim state since their agenda is hate and our destruction. The prospect of fellow Muslims or their home lands being devastated in response is a deterrent.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Jan 2019 New Giulia Veloce Misano Blue
2008-15 New 159Ti experience: overwhelmingly positive. Reliable and fun over nearly 100k.
2015-18 147 1.6TS runaround
6/9/12 - 15 New Mito 135MA Distinctive - 100% reliable 37k
73GTVJim is offline  
Status: I'm not really here
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Club Member Number: 59
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 76,926
Garage
Mooney

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfaDrivingFan View Post
There has always been a group of people who think giving up our independent nuclear deterrent would somehow make us safe. I've never believed this, I always thought if someone launched a first strike against us I would want to make sure they were blown to oblivion too.
That isn't the point of an independent nuclear deterrent, is it?

Also, how independent do you think it is? Do you really think we have a unique and independent perspective on when might be the time to push the button?

Can you really think of a scenario we might use it?

I'm no lover of the military, but if you give yourself one massive baseball bat, and nothing smaller in terms of weaponry, isn't that just going to end badly for someone?

People aren't thinking this through at all.
steveisfrowning is offline  
Status: I'm not really here
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Club Member Number: 59
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 76,926
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkiT View Post
I disagree. Won't protect us from ISIS etc. nutjobs, or help us to influence or intervene in events in the mid-east etc., where I predict major conflict over water resources, let alone oil. It is in my view a white elephant which costs a fortune - I'd much rather see that money go on things like aircraft to fly off our carriers, better and more armoured personnel carriers and other military equipment etc. for our army, and more ships for the navy (including things like corvettes and frigates for shipping protection and anti-piracy duties in around the Gulf or off the coast of East Africa), let alone actually having enough actual sailors, soldiers and airmen. And that equipment should be designed and built in the UK, so we at least get some direct economic benefit (in supporting jobs/industry).

It may be my ignorance, but I'm not really sure it is independant anyway? Trident is an American system, needing American parts etc - could our govenrment actually order a first strike anyway without American approval/access codes? If the answer is no, then its not independant. Happy to be corrected on this.
All of the above.
steveisfrowning is offline  
Status: I'm not really here
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Club Member Number: 59
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 76,926
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrishendrix View Post
Wouldn't it make even more sense to spend the money on supplying food and water - thus avoiding conflict over water?
And education of the people being radicalised by extremist 'nutjobs'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Faromeo View Post
Many will think me naive but I'm fully with Chris on this.

Food, water, housing. Education.
And this.
steveisfrowning is offline  
Status: I'm not really here
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Club Member Number: 59
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 76,926
Garage
Over the years we have eroded our overall military capability. The Tories have taken the armed forces apart limb from limb and retained the option of nuclear deterrent. To be fair, Labour are complicit also. Other NATO countries have done likewise to some degree, I think.

As Starkers says, the deterrent was always the unthinkable response to the unthinkable outrage - mutually assured destruction. There is no tactical aspect to the weaponry other than that.

The real world is tactical and strategic and complex. It's politics and nationalism and religion and factions. It's ideology and self-interest. It's a combination of all of the best and worst of human traits - and the answer, if all of that boils down to something outrageous, is what? A massive thermonuclear strike aimed at the very heart of what?

At people who are being subjugated by ISIS but who just happen to exist close to the centre of ISIS power? There's a lot of collateral potential when the only hammer you've got reckons at 100 megatons x 8. Nagasaki about 20 megatons I think.

The answer, if there ever is one, is around politics, international relations, diplomacy, charity, humanity, friendship and negotiation.
steveisfrowning is offline  
Durty dog
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starkers View Post
To the OP, nuclear weapons are a 1950s answer to a 1950s problem, what is the point in having them today? If we ever did get to use them, it is more than likely that we would just expose ourselves to the dangers of retaliation and escalation and since I do not have a desire to experience the horror of a nuclear device exploding within 500 - 1,000 miles of Britain, or even most of Europe for that matter, we would be much better off spending money on a deterrent, such as Israel's iron dome, which intercepts missiles

We should spend the money on tools that are relevant to countering the threats we face today: better personal protection for those brave men and women who help to protect our country and giving them more ships, tanks, helicopters etc.

However, as others have pointed out, the best things to spend that money on, would be humanity - giving people abroad water, food and access to medicine where they need it and at home, doing something to help educate people to try and prevent them from whatever it is that makes them feel that they need to join an organisation whose sole intent appears to be the establishment of an undemocratic state and the imposition of their religious beliefs on innocent people.
Nuclear weapons are a defensive weapon, they don't get used in aggressive behaviour and even in the conflicts around the world today no one has even uttered the words ' we are going to nuke you'

the term used is MAD , mutually assured destruction, it balances the status quo.

Iron dome only has a 4km interception range.
 
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Misc Lounges > Community Discussions > Poll Room

Tags
give , nukes

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome