[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

Glad you're so sure.

Offer an alternative scenario for the UK to be under Nuclear attack? Or explain what use nuclear weapons would be in retaliation against a nuclear strike perpetrated by terrorists?

[smudgie]

I reckon we need to keep them.

Ok, so I might be a teensy bit biased as my nephew is a submariner on one of the subs.
If I am not mistaken, we do not need any veto at all from the USA to fire a missile, the final word is up to the PM of the day.

[Northern Monkey]

No!As long as nuclear weapons exist,We need them.

[bitontheslide]

I would be happy for the UK to ditch nuclear weapons as soon as we have come up with a better more effective method of protection/attack. Until that day, nukes are here to stay.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by smudgie

I reckon we need to keep them.

Ok, so I might be a teensy bit biased as my nephew is a submariner on one of the subs.
If I am not mistaken, we do not need any veto at all from the USA to fire a missile, the final word is up to the PM of the day.

I think you will find we would need the USA's approval to do so,there was a cross party committee last year who looked at all aspects of trident and the UKs nuclear deterrent.
One of the things it came across and concluded was that it would be stretching credibility too far to assume a British PM could independently release nuclear missiles and that in fact a desire to do so could be obstructed or vetoed by the USA.

[Toy Soldier]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what possible use nuclear weapons would be against a terrorist organisation, or a military superpower that has pushed the game over button.

Or suggest another nuclear threat that we face. And if someone says "North Korea" I might actually lose my ****.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what possible use nuclear weapons would be against a terrorist organisation, or a military superpower that has pushed the game over button.

Or suggest another nuclear threat that we face. And if someone says "North Korea" I might actually lose my ****.

I doubt there is an answer that could be reasonably given to your scenario TS.

I agree with all your post above.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what possible use nuclear weapons would be against a terrorist organisation, or a military superpower that has pushed the game over button.

Or suggest another nuclear threat that we face. And if someone says "North Korea" I might actually lose my ****.

Well of course, its possible to pick any number of scenarios where a nuke is not effective or appropriate. They have a specific purpose and function. A nuke is not and never will be the answer to each and every conceivable scenario, and nobody should expect it to be so. It is but 1 part of an integrated package

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Well of course, its possible to pick any number of scenarios where a nuke is not effective or appropriate. They have a specific purpose and function. A nuke is not and never will be the answer to each and every conceivable scenario, and nobody should expect it to be so. It is but 1 part of an integrated package

I'm asking for someone to describe ANY scenario (for the UK) in which one would be effective or appropriate. I'll even accept a scenario where having them is useful just as a deterrent.

Come on guys... this shouldn't be hard, should it? I mean, people are arguing very heavily in favor of having them so I assume someone must be able to offer some reasoning.

Which country or group has nuclear weapons, or potential nuclear weapons, and would be deterred by our own nuclear weapons, or would be a viable target for actual nuclear retaliation.

Answers on a postcard. Anyone.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm asking for someone to describe ANY scenario (for the UK) in which one would be effective or appropriate. I'll even accept a scenario where having them is useful just as a deterrent.

Come on guys... this shouldn't be hard, should it? I mean, people are arguing very heavily in favor of having them so I assume someone must be able to offer some reasoning.

Which country or group has nuclear weapons, or potential nuclear weapons, and would be deterred by our own nuclear weapons, or would be a viable target for actual nuclear retaliation.

Answers on a postcard. Anyone.

You have really made me think Toy Soldier, I was in favour of having the nuclear deterrent, however the more you post,the more I move to the point you are at and the question you are asking is extremely valid..

I cannot answer your question with anything really logical,and it does I agree sound weak that just because this one or that one has them,then so should we.

You've made me think and it seems you are not likely going to get a convincing response to your question and thoughts on this issue.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm asking for someone to describe ANY scenario (for the UK) in which one would be effective or appropriate. I'll even accept a scenario where having them is useful just as a deterrent.

Come on guys... this shouldn't be hard, should it? I mean, people are arguing very heavily in favor of having them so I assume someone must be able to offer some reasoning.

Which country or group has nuclear weapons, or potential nuclear weapons, and would be deterred by our own nuclear weapons, or would be a viable target for actual nuclear retaliation.

Answers on a postcard. Anyone.

When countries decide to pick on others, they do so by judging their chances of success. Do they have the advantage. As the UK is a small country, having a nuclear capability allows us to stand up and defend ourselves against much bigger opponents than we would ever be able to do with just conventional weapons, should the need arise.

This sort of stuff is pretty obvious really. Making up scenario's showing where something is not appropriate is nonsensical in this context.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

When countries decide to pick on others, they do so by judging their chances of success. Do they have the advantage. As the UK is a small country, having a nuclear capability allows us to stand up and defend ourselves against much bigger opponents than we would ever be able to do with just conventional weapons, should the need arise.

This sort of stuff is pretty obvious really. Making up scenario's showing where something is not appropriate is nonsensical in this context.

Which bigger opponents? Again, realistically.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Which bigger opponents? Again, realistically.

How many countries or countries grouped together are bigger than the UK? Take your pick.

blah blah blah will never happen, is always the biggest mistake. Just because we have had no threat of these type during the time we have been in possession of nuclear weapons, doesn't mean things will remain the same if we decided to ditch them.

In all honesty, this is a pretty juvenile discussion, so I'm out now.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm asking for someone to describe ANY scenario (for the UK) in which one would be effective or appropriate. I'll even accept a scenario where having them is useful just as a deterrent.

Come on guys... this shouldn't be hard, should it? I mean, people are arguing very heavily in favor of having them so I assume someone must be able to offer some reasoning.

Which country or group has nuclear weapons, or potential nuclear weapons, and would be deterred by our own nuclear weapons, or would be a viable target for actual nuclear retaliation.

Answers on a postcard. Anyone.

Yes its a USA contract
they demand the money

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Offer an alternative scenario for the UK to be under Nuclear attack? Or explain what use nuclear weapons would be in retaliation against a nuclear strike perpetrated by terrorists?

White Van parked in London W1
Paying the parking charge . all Legal.


the Nuke set to go off

The Terrorist says his prayers
then Bang
he vanishes and leaves no trace
London is gone in a Mega Nuke.


The only record is in space
on a Sat. recording
So after some weeks they could track the Van before it arrived.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by arista

White Van parked in London W1
Paying the parking charge . all Legal.


the Nuke set to go off

The Terrorist says his prayers
then Bang
he vanishes and leaves no trace
London is gone in a Mega Nuke.


The only record is in space
on a Sat. recording
So after some weeks they could track the Van before it arrived.

This is indeed a viable scenario for a nuclear attack, albeit an unlikely one, as the likelihood of a terrorist organisation obtaining enough weapons grade nuclear material to build a bomb - let alone a viable bomb with a high yield - is exceptionally low.

However, yes, possible. I guess they could steal one.

Regardless... Let's say your scenario comes to pass Arista.

A) do you think the terrorists would be deterred from carrying out this attack for even one second by the fact that we have nuclear weapons?

B) At what, exactly, would we fire our own nukes in retaliation? Which country? Which city?

[arista]

"do you think the terrorists would be deterred from carrying out this attack for even one second by the fact that we have nuclear weapons?"

Its does not matter
as there are not Firing a Nuke
they are in White Van.

and
We can not Fire back
as we do not know who was in the Van
until Digital images emerge in America
as they get Images who was in the van before
it parked. but that takes a few weeks.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

How many countries or countries grouped together are bigger than the UK? Take your pick.

blah blah blah will never happen, is always the biggest mistake. Just because we have had no threat of these type during the time we have been in possession of nuclear weapons, doesn't mean things will remain the same if we decided to ditch them.

In all honesty, this is a pretty juvenile discussion, so I'm out now.

In what way is it juvenile?

I think you must mean "frustrating", I'm asking a very simple question regarding a very important political issue and, thus far, the answers have been vague at best.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by arista

"do you think the terrorists would be deterred from carrying out this attack for even one second by the fact that we have nuclear weapons?"

Its does not matter
as there are not Firing a Nuke
they are in White Van.

and
We can not Fire back
as we do not know who was in the Van
until Digital images emerge in America
as they get Images who was in the van before
it parked. but that takes a few weeks.

Correct on both counts arista. Which is why in your scenario our nukes are 100% useless as both a deterrent and as a retaliatory strike.

The billions spent on the program would have been better spent on military intelligence (and... Space data Satellites I guess?) that might have stopped the attack from ever being planned.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Correct on both counts arista. Which is why in your scenario our nukes are 100% useless as both a deterrent and as a retaliatory strike.

The billions spent on the program would have been better spent on military intelligence (and... Space data Satellites I guess?) that might have stopped the attack from ever being planned.

Yes going to USA
its Fecking Wrong

[Northern Monkey]

Hopefully we would never have to use Trident.The most likely scenario in which we would have to use it would thermo nuclear war.We definately don't want that.

Britain used to be a great and powerful nation.We had the best navy in the world,Which being an island we should!
That should be our strongest asset.But unfortunately it has been depleated to the point where it is a joke for an island nation.
Our armed forces are now small and we would struggle in a solo campaign against one country never mind fighting on multiple stages.
This once great nation is a shell of its former glory.
The unfortunate truth is that the most powerful nations in the world have the most influence and respect wether we like it or not and when it all boils down to it power equates to strength and military capability.
Just about the only ounce of respect this country has left is our nuclear capability.Us and France are the most powerful nations in Europe militarily because of our nuclear capabilities.
We are one of the reasons Russia would think twice about invading EU or Nato countries.
Other countries look to us as a nuclear power to help keep them secure.
Trident is our biggest bargaining chip on the world stage and if we got rid of it,We would have nothing.No power and no influence.
No other western country would want us to scrap our nuclear weapons systems.

It is better to have it and never use it than to not have it lose our status as a nuclear state.
We would be foolish to get rid and we would threaten the security of not just ourselves but the whole of Europe.

[Toy Soldier]

I was with you for the first half of that Paul... The reason "we" want them and have them is because Britain was once an empire and - in so SO many pointless, pathetic ways - we want to pretend that we are still "big boys" on the world stage. So we happily see billions of pounds poured into a radioactive dick-waving contest whilst children are dying of cancer through lack of NHS funding, and the disabled literally starve to death.

The only scenario for the use of Trident is global thermonuclear war. In that scenario, the world is finished. Full stop. We don't "need" them for that because in that scenario we won't "need" anything at all, we will be dead or slowly and painfully dying.

The other function of holding nuclear weapons is as a deterrent - "mutually assured destruction" - and the reasoning for that only applies to the nuclear heavy hitters. Mainly The US and Russia, also China. Global superpowers. I would not recommend for a second that any of these nations become nuke-free. We are NOT a global superpower.

Now, if someone were to suggest that a united European force should hold a number of nuclear weapons, with the cost spread across all member states, I wouldn't necessarily disagree... But a "euroforce" (judging by the other thread) doesn't appear to be a very popular suggestion.

[MTVN]

We're one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, probably the most important global body for international relations and maintaining peace, I think it's fair to say we are still a super power. Our role in that becomes completely pointless the day its not underpinned by nuclear weapons.

[Northern Monkey]

We have already emasculated our country enough,Let us not finish the job by cutting its balls off too.
Let us not turn it into the giant pussy of Europe laying waiting for any other nation who chooses...to **** us.Imo

[Toy Soldier]

So the main answer thus far is "we need them so that other countries will think that we are big and important, because being big and important is big and important".

Im hardly surprised, but find myself crushingly disappointed all over again that Scotland didn't break away from this ridiculous littleman syndrome.