Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Do We Really Need Nuclear Weapons
http://
1. Why do we have them ?
2. Under what circumstances would we use them ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Another interesting document :
http://
http://
I heard John Humphries interview Michael Fallon this morning, on the Today Program, who said that the nuclear weapons would be useful against terrorists. But he then declined to say in which particular way they could be used against terrorists, despite being every opportunity to do so by Humphries :::
http://
( interview with Fallon at 02:17:00 )
To answer your question head-on Bazile
1 ...we needed them in the 1950's, but I am not sure we need them now.
2....when Britain is faced with a threat from another nuclear state.
I have pointed out the following many times before. Only a small minority of countries represented at the UN have nuclear weapons....the vast majority do not, like all of South America, all of Africa, Canada, OZ, and most of Europe. They seem to manage quite well without these weapons and I can't see why we couldn't as well.
The biggest threat to Britain today, by far, is terrorism and just how would we use a nuclear weapon against terrorists ?
http://
( interview with Fallon at 02:17:00 )
To answer your question head-on Bazile
1 ...we needed them in the 1950's, but I am not sure we need them now.
2....when Britain is faced with a threat from another nuclear state.
I have pointed out the following many times before. Only a small minority of countries represented at the UN have nuclear weapons....the vast majority do not, like all of South America, all of Africa, Canada, OZ, and most of Europe. They seem to manage quite well without these weapons and I can't see why we couldn't as well.
The biggest threat to Britain today, by far, is terrorism and just how would we use a nuclear weapon against terrorists ?
TTT - it's all the infrastructure and kit too - given your routine distrust of the 'septics' (your word not mine), are you absolutely convinced they haven't got some locks in there?
Not a conspiracy theory - just musing - they must worry about our comms to the (single) operational sub being hacked. The US military regard the UK (even the Tories) as dangerously leftie loose cannons - wouldn't you put some secret fallbacks in if you were them?
Not a conspiracy theory - just musing - they must worry about our comms to the (single) operational sub being hacked. The US military regard the UK (even the Tories) as dangerously leftie loose cannons - wouldn't you put some secret fallbacks in if you were them?
Mikey
Not all nuclear warheads are the size of a rocket. We have had for some time, and so has Russia I believe, nuclear artillery shells for use in smaller battlefield conflicts.
A Daesh held town could easily be wiped out with a quick salvo.! No one would like to live there or rebuild for some time.
Not all nuclear warheads are the size of a rocket. We have had for some time, and so has Russia I believe, nuclear artillery shells for use in smaller battlefield conflicts.
A Daesh held town could easily be wiped out with a quick salvo.! No one would like to live there or rebuild for some time.
sunny-dave, why would the MOD and the commissioner's office for information lie regarding this freedom of information request?
Have you read the reply, it states No, the Americans do not have control whereas the commons committee consists of "might's, maybes and likely scenarios", not quite the same as NO.
Have you read the reply, it states No, the Americans do not have control whereas the commons committee consists of "might's, maybes and likely scenarios", not quite the same as NO.
http://
//I wonder what Mrs Mays decision was
//The new Prime Minister will then be asked to make probably the gravest decision of her premiership.
A decision that she will never live to witness.
She must decide how she wants the military to react in the event of nuclear war.
Her instructions will only be acted out if she, and her entire Cabinet, has been wiped out.
Mrs May will be given four options:
1. To retaliate.
2. To do nothing.
3. To place the submarine under the control of an ally - specifically the United States Navy or Royal Australian Navy.
4. To act according to how the Captain deems best.
She will be left alone to consider her options. It won't be easy. //
//I wonder what Mrs Mays decision was
//The new Prime Minister will then be asked to make probably the gravest decision of her premiership.
A decision that she will never live to witness.
She must decide how she wants the military to react in the event of nuclear war.
Her instructions will only be acted out if she, and her entire Cabinet, has been wiped out.
Mrs May will be given four options:
1. To retaliate.
2. To do nothing.
3. To place the submarine under the control of an ally - specifically the United States Navy or Royal Australian Navy.
4. To act according to how the Captain deems best.
She will be left alone to consider her options. It won't be easy. //
1. As a deterrent to other nuclear powers.
2. We would use them after a first strike by someone else, presumably
So, we have an "independent" deterrent, which means that we reserve the right to use, or threaten to use, them if our country is directly threatened by another nuclear power or perhaps a rogue state or group which was just about rational enough to be deterred.
The world has definitely changed since the concept of nuclear deterrence was first worked out, and one of the changes is the nature of warfare. We have seen how Russia operates, for example, using "hybrid" warfare tactics combining deception and denial, and aggressive propaganda. This sort of thing can't really be countered by having nuclear weapons. Arguably the money would be better spent on conventional forces and other counters to these tactics.
And then there are the groups like ISIS and nuclear states like Pakistan which in theory risk being overrun by fundamentalists. Would deterrents work with them?
But on the other hand, maybe the best reason for keeping them is the fact that we already have them (a bit like the reason for not leaving the EU, in a way) . Giving them up would send a message of weakness to potential enemies, and we'd also lose bargaining power with other friendly nuclear states like France and the US
2. We would use them after a first strike by someone else, presumably
So, we have an "independent" deterrent, which means that we reserve the right to use, or threaten to use, them if our country is directly threatened by another nuclear power or perhaps a rogue state or group which was just about rational enough to be deterred.
The world has definitely changed since the concept of nuclear deterrence was first worked out, and one of the changes is the nature of warfare. We have seen how Russia operates, for example, using "hybrid" warfare tactics combining deception and denial, and aggressive propaganda. This sort of thing can't really be countered by having nuclear weapons. Arguably the money would be better spent on conventional forces and other counters to these tactics.
And then there are the groups like ISIS and nuclear states like Pakistan which in theory risk being overrun by fundamentalists. Would deterrents work with them?
But on the other hand, maybe the best reason for keeping them is the fact that we already have them (a bit like the reason for not leaving the EU, in a way) . Giving them up would send a message of weakness to potential enemies, and we'd also lose bargaining power with other friendly nuclear states like France and the US
Back in the 1960s/ 70s there was a need for them. Now there is no need at all. The money for Trident should be reassigned to building aircraft carriers which have a very necessary function in our 21st century world of terror threats by the likes of ISIS.
A nuclear missile is useless against such threats whereas an aircraft carrier can sail anywhere in the world and act as a mobile base for air /sea /ground action as necessary. We can not rely on borrowing a carrier from the French if we need one much longer!
A nuclear missile is useless against such threats whereas an aircraft carrier can sail anywhere in the world and act as a mobile base for air /sea /ground action as necessary. We can not rely on borrowing a carrier from the French if we need one much longer!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.