.. to use as a deterrent? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6205174.stm Other than Blair, what do other people in the country think about this?
I'm not really sure what to think about this. Obviouisly having no nukes at all is the nicest way to be for everyone, but that just isn't going to happen - you can't uninvent stuff, all we can hope for is a future invention that renders nukes useless. In the meantime I'm not sure I'd want a bunch of crusty old radioactive bombs that were made 30 years ago floating around with my submariners if I were the leader either. So, assuming I can't just scrap them and let my country step down as a highly defended high tech country, I'd have to renew the old nukes I have already. THe whole nuke a fair has been a bit of a paradox since it started 60 odd years ago I think.
I agree with Mal. Nuclear weapons aren't going to disappear until they're made to be useless. Even then, I think the closest we can really hope for is to make the delivery systems useless. So if a country keeps its nuclear arms, it had better make sure that its own delivery system (three or four subs, in this case) aren't rust-heaps. Would it be better to just refurbish the existing subs instead of deciding on new ones? No idea. The decision to make new ones looks like an industrial decision to me, and not really a security decision. *shrug* at the end of the day, people need jobs.
Judging from a local news story commenting on the declining relations between the UK and the USA, the new weapons would be useless in any case as it appears they will rely on US guidance satellites. Who says Bush would turn them on if the situation got out of control and we needed to use them. Perhaps they could keep the debate going on for a few thousand years, by which time the radioactive material would be harmless.
When talking of delivery systems - everybody thinks of rockets - wherever they are launched from - what about ships coming into harbour, cars or lorries driving off ferries or even cross-country, components being brought in and put together on the spot? Now I've maybe triggered a few nightmares, I have to sign off - a lot to do tomorrow!
And, even if there were no nukes, there would still be boards, with nails in them. "Look out, he's got a board, with a nail in it" "It seems the earthlings won." "Did they? That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all! " Treehouse of Horror II Philosophy through The Simpsons
Wasnt the Star Wars project designed to neutralize missiles? I seem to recall they put a stop to its development as an offering to the USSR near the end of the weapons talks and then when the USSR disbanded it became surplus to requirements as only the "West" had nuclear missles. The above is a pobably highly over simplified version of what happened but I think its roughly right. Of course as mentioned by another poster missiles are not the only delivery method so even if they got Star Wars to work it wouldnt make us safe.
I actually read of the scenario Pixel mentioned in a spy thriller or two. Be that it may, stopping the missile-borne nuclear bombs will be a massive stepping stone in putting a stop to nuclear arms as a world-destroying weapon(as one launched missile that actually hits will mean many more launches to follow), reducing it to a city-block destroying weapon at best, as a portable bomb of the kind Pixel described would most likely also be a great deal weaker than the missile-borne kind. Now, if I were a type to panic, I *would* panic from the fact that the former USSR is missing some of its suitcase-borne nuclear bombs which it was so keen on making... Now, Star Wars. I think there was a similar plan being worked on up to 1993, not sure how operation-ready it was. The Clinton administration scrapped it, and I think the general reasoning there was that once one puts a weapon of any kind in space, even be it a defensive one, then everyone will. As for today, there's the newest Patriot system, there's the (currently experimental) Israeli Arrow, there's that thing with mounting a great big laser on a Boeing 747 that seems to actually work... None of these will be too effective against a cruise missile, mind, except maybe the Boeing Death Ray.
the 'star wars' program was stopped because it is utterly unrealistic and there are better ways to siphon american tax payer's money into the pockets of the military industrial complex backers.
Blair's plan decreases UK nuclear arms, Sam. And Joculator, declining relations or not I don't forsee our two countries going to war in the next 2 years. I'd also bet that an EU guidance sat system would be set up way before relations deteriorated to the point of beligerance. Also, Star Wars, with it's X-ray "lasers", and many other systems would have destroyed Soviet nuclear missle capability if it worked leaving the West's just fine. Out the window goes MAD, and now the Warsaw Pact has to up the ante ... Similar reason why Russia objected to the current round of US missle defence initiatives.
[quote:8526d79309="sampanna"]So how is the old nuclear arsenal retired then?[/quote:8526d79309] Each device is presented with carriage clock at a party where they all wander around with soggy butties and glasses of sherry. One of the new fangled killing devices will get up and give a speech about how wonderfull the old bombs were back in the day but how its time to make way for devices that can kill more people more efficently now. Then they will shift them off to retirement homes to sit out the remaining days looking out the window and reminiscing to each other.
