|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: MAD and Britain's Nuclear Deterrent
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, I'm going to disagree with you. I was raised in the triangle between Aldermaston, Burghfield and Bramley, with Greenham Common just down the road.
Admittedly, it would have been all over for us in the blink of an eye, but feeling safe? No. Never. We were all one accident away from annihilation. And still are, for that matter.
Fair do's. DT.
'Feeling safe' isn't something easy to quantify. Myself and many friends and family lived within the burn/radiation sickness zone of a strategic Naval base all our lives.
The idea of a pre-emptive nuclear strike wasn't something we thought about much. Two of my elder brothers saw 'The War Game' locally and resisted the CND sign-on desk at the exit. I later watched 'Threads' on the TV, and was shaken, but not sufficiently moved towards thinking Britain should get rid of nukes.
Obviously no one wants a bloomin great target strapped to their butt. However I think most of the world's population realises, the same as CND, namely that when your talking about the possibility of WW3 with nukes If one room catches fire, the whole house is going to go up.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Dor Tor, I felt safe even in the time when on May Day the USSR liked to strut around in Red Square, hauling their phallic missiles around. Safe in the knowledge that the Communist leadership had to think extremely long and hard before ever lighting the fuses on those Birds.
Well, I'm going to disagree with you. I was raised in the triangle between Aldermaston, Burghfield and Bramley, with Greenham Common just down the road.
Admittedly, it would have been all over for us in the blink of an eye, but feeling safe? No. Never. We were all one accident away from annihilation. And still are, for that matter.
Indeed. I was fairly sure the reason the USSR had them was the same reason the USA did - MAD. I could not conceive, and still cannot, any circumstances where the USSR would use them unless they thought we had launched an attack; I have no idea why we thought a country that was struggling to hold down Afghanistan would want to rule over a nuclear wasteland to the West as well. So our possession of them never made me feel safe. Quite the opposite.
I have never thought that either side is going to consciously escalate to a nuclear exchange, because once it gets to that stage there really is no point. I was, and remain, mostly worried about the possibility of a mistake or malfunction. Indeed, taking the long view, it can only be a matter of time.
[ 12. October 2015, 10:36: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm having a hard time imagining a Paleo conservative United States President in favor of a fascist French and Communist Russian alliance. Maybe if they brought back the Czar....
Paleos have a guarded respect for Putin and see him closer to a Czar than Soviet General Secretary.
quote:
originally posted by alienfromzog:
If you argue that MAD worked in the sense that a true East / West confrontation never happened, you probably can't avoid the conclusion that the major powers fought multiple conflicts through surrogates because they were terrified of fighting each other directly. Whilst this may be less horrific for the main powers, I suspect that is no comfort to those affected.
No, the Soviet Union and NATO would have just fought each other directly in nations all over the world instead of fighting proxy wars. Those affected by the proxy wars would have suffered even more if the great powers had fought each other directly. The proxy wars didn't happen in nations where everybody was happy with the status quo in the first place.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I was fairly sure the reason the USSR had them was the same reason the USA did - MAD.
That's true of every nuclear power. No one ever develops nuclear weapons because they want to nuke someone, it's always because they're scared of someone else with nukes. The U.S. invented them because they were worried that the Nazis were working on them. (They weren't seriously, but fog of war and all that.) The Soviet Union got the bomb because the Americans had the bomb. The U.K. and the French went nuclear because the Soviets had the bomb and they were worried about what might happen if the U.S. ever withdrew its protection. China developed nukes when relations with the USSR got chilly. India got the bomb because it was scared of China, and Pakistan got the bomb because it was scared of India. North Korea wanted nuclear weapons because it wanted something to fend off South Korea's nuclear-armed ally, the U.S.
No one wants the things just to have the things. They all want them because they're scared of someone else.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by alienfromzog:
If you argue that MAD worked in the sense that a true East / West confrontation never happened, you probably can't avoid the conclusion that the major powers fought multiple conflicts through surrogates because they were terrified of fighting each other directly. Whilst this may be less horrific for the main powers, I suspect that is no comfort to those affected.
No, the Soviet Union and NATO would have just fought each other directly in nations all over the world instead of fighting proxy wars. Those affected by the proxy wars would have suffered even more if the great powers had fought each other directly. The proxy wars didn't happen in nations where everybody was happy with the status quo in the first place.
Do you not think that the shadow-involvement of the superpowers in various parts of the world made things really quite bad for their proxies?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Do you not think that the shadow-involvement of the superpowers in various parts of the world made things really quite bad for their proxies?
Of course. The question, however, is whether the proxy countries would have been any better off in a full-scale World War. Experience suggests that they probably wouldn't have been.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have never thought that either side is going to consciously escalate to a nuclear exchange, because once it gets to that stage there really is no point. I was, and remain, mostly worried about the possibility of a mistake or malfunction. Indeed, taking the long view, it can only be a matter of time.
Read Eric Schlosser's "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety." We've already come close multiple times (not even counting the Cuban Missile Crisis when it came down to the decision of a single Soviet Navy officer to avoid a nuclear war).
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Do you not think that the shadow-involvement of the superpowers in various parts of the world made things really quite bad for their proxies?
Of course. The question, however, is whether the proxy countries would have been any better off in a full-scale World War. Experience suggests that they probably wouldn't have been.
Indeed but I suspect that's of little comfort to those involved. Dead is dead from whatever means. My point is that the argument MAD may be ridiculous but it kept the peace is only partially true. It's more accurate to say it redirected the war. Thus intellectual honesty at least demands we ask the question can it truly be said to have achieved any kind of peace at all?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have never thought that either side is going to consciously escalate to a nuclear exchange, because once it gets to that stage there really is no point. I was, and remain, mostly worried about the possibility of a mistake or malfunction. Indeed, taking the long view, it can only be a matter of time.
Read Eric Schlosser's "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety." We've already come close multiple times (not even counting the Cuban Missile Crisis when it came down to the decision of a single Soviet Navy officer to avoid a nuclear war).
I know. Knowing that I was right through the cold war and we were bloody lucky not to turn into Tom Lehrer's <fill in number here> billion hunks of well-done steak is little comfort. Especially when we're still following the same recipe for disaster and anyone opposing it is pilloried as a kind of naive, stupid crank.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have never thought that either side is going to consciously escalate to a nuclear exchange, because once it gets to that stage there really is no point. I was, and remain, mostly worried about the possibility of a mistake or malfunction. Indeed, taking the long view, it can only be a matter of time.
Read Eric Schlosser's "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety." We've already come close multiple times (not even counting the Cuban Missile Crisis when it came down to the decision of a single Soviet Navy officer to avoid a nuclear war).
I know. Knowing that I was right through the cold war and we were bloody lucky not to turn into Tom Lehrer's <fill in number here> billion hunks of well-done steak is little comfort. Especially when we're still following the same recipe for disaster and anyone opposing it is pilloried as a kind of naive, stupid crank.
It think this is an important point and reconsidering my initial 2 questions there is a 3rd question about having nuclear weapons and the risks of accidents both domestically and leading to all-out war. In order to justify having a nuclear force one must therefore be clear that the benefits out-weigh this risk.
so...
1. Does it make strategic sense to have nuclear weapons?
2. Is it morally acceptable?
3. Does the strategic benefit outweigh the risks of nuclear accidents both in domestically and in terms of inadevertant triggering of a nuclear crisis?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
1. Does it make strategic sense to have nuclear weapons?
2. Is it morally acceptable?
3. Does the strategic benefit outweigh the risks of nuclear accidents both in domestically and in terms of inadvertent triggering of a nuclear crisis?
I'd word the last differently.
3. Does the strategic benefit outweigh the inevitable nuclear accidents both domestically and in terms of inadvertent triggering of a nuclear crisis?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Knowing that I was right through the cold war and we were bloody lucky not to turn into Tom Lehrer's <fill in number here> billion hunks of well-done steak is little comfort.
I'm rather fond of this one.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Dead is dead from whatever means. My point is that the argument MAD may be ridiculous but it kept the peace is only partially true. It's more accurate to say it redirected the war. Thus intellectual honesty at least demands we ask the question can it truly be said to have achieved any kind of peace at all?
AFZ
The arms race pre-1914 failed to keep the peace. The League of Nations and pacifism failed to keep the peace pre-1939.
Nuclear arms kept the peace between East and West for 40yrs simple because both were absolutely shit-scared of a full scale Hot exchange with nukes. Even I'll agree that hardly amounted to peace in the ideological sense. However has the whole of civilised humanity ever enjoyed that type of peace in it's 10,000 year history?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Dead is dead from whatever means. My point is that the argument MAD may be ridiculous but it kept the peace is only partially true. It's more accurate to say it redirected the war. Thus intellectual honesty at least demands we ask the question can it truly be said to have achieved any kind of peace at all?
AFZ
The arms race pre-1914 failed to keep the peace. The League of Nations and pacifism failed to keep the peace pre-1939.
Nuclear arms kept the peace between East and West for 40yrs simple because both were absolutely shit-scared of a full scale Hot exchange with nukes. Even I'll agree that hardly amounted to peace in the ideological sense. However has the whole of civilised humanity ever enjoyed that type of peace in it's 10,000 year history?
No. That's an interesting way of looking at it. A sort of partial-peace; which is arguably impressive in view of the fact that nothing else seems to have done better.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Dead is dead from whatever means. My point is that the argument MAD may be ridiculous but it kept the peace is only partially true. It's more accurate to say it redirected the war. Thus intellectual honesty at least demands we ask the question can it truly be said to have achieved any kind of peace at all?
AFZ
The arms race pre-1914 failed to keep the peace. The League of Nations and pacifism failed to keep the peace pre-1939.
Those situations were very different. Before 1914 there was war fever for some years but no one expected a war of attrition. When the League of Nations was founded one basis was that there would not be a major war in Europe for ten years, but that became a rolling ten years, hence the unpreparedness of many countries in WW2.
quote:
Nuclear arms kept the peace between East and West for 40yrs simple because both were absolutely shit-scared of a full scale Hot exchange with nukes. Even I'll agree that hardly amounted to peace in the ideological sense. However has the whole of civilised humanity ever enjoyed that type of peace in it's 10,000 year history?
I wouldn't call a period of peace. We saw:
- The Communist takeover of China
- The Korean War
- France and the USA in Vietnam
- Malayan insurgency
- Successive wars between Pakistan and India, culminating in the Bangladesh tragedy
- Biafra
- At least three wars between Israel and Arab states
- Iran and Iraq at war
- Falklands War
- Who knows how many colonial and post-colonial wars in Africa
- Rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia crushed
Most of those were East v West by proxy.
I'm not sure the Cuban missile crisis was caused by or defused by nuclear weapons. I do know that the US withdrew nuclear weapons operated by the RAF when the Russians withdrew theirs from Cuba.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
One wonders if we're not seeing the return of the the by-proxy East West confrontiation in the Ukraine, and now in Syria ?
And so it goes on. Post 1945 has not been world peace by any stretch of the imagination, merely the best we can manage it would seem.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
My concern about MAD is that it prevents us seeing how naked we are. Nuclear weapons are no defence against an irrational enemy, an error, a miscalculation, or an enemy without territory. Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists or extremists of some sort seems one of the more likely dangers today, and Trident would be utterly irrelevant.
We need to learn how to make peace. That means dialogue, listening and learning, and making sure that those involved in the causes that turn to terrorist actions, see that they have viable alternatives. Continued possession of nuclear weapons and the sense of security they seem to give some people makes worthwhile peace making less likely.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hi Sioni Sais. I'm aware of the Jupiter missiles being pulled out of Italy and Turkey. How could the US recall weapons held by the RAF?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hi Sioni Sais. I'm aware of the Jupiter missiles being pulled out of Italy and Turkey. How could the US recall weapons held by the RAF?
The RAF had sixty US-built Thor missiles on a "dual key" basis with the US. My Dad worked on them. They were based in silos around Lincolshire and Norfolk, and I remember them being transported into RAF Hemswell where we lived from where they were flown home by huge USAF transports.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wow! Thanks.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
We've already come close multiple times (not even counting the Cuban Missile Crisis when it came down to the decision of a single Soviet Navy officer to avoid a nuclear war).
There's also the well-known case of Maj. Harold Hering, discharged in 1973 from the U.S. Air Force for asking,
quote:
"How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"
In the U.S., and indeed in most every country that fields nuclear weapons, the system is designed to ensure that the person giving the order is who he says he is; i.e., it authenticates the person's identity. Checks to ensure the person is sane are, woefully, virtually non-existent.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
We've already come close multiple times (not even counting the Cuban Missile Crisis when it came down to the decision of a single Soviet Navy officer to avoid a nuclear war).
There's also the well-known case of Maj. Harold Hering, discharged in 1973 from the U.S. Air Force for asking,
quote:
"How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"
In the U.S., and indeed in most every country that fields nuclear weapons, the system is designed to ensure that the person giving the order is who he says he is; i.e., it authenticates the person's identity. Checks to ensure the person is sane are, woefully, virtually non-existent.
A very wise observation. Two hundred years before then the King was palpably insane. In 1973 the President was, at best, paranoid.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
A very wise observation. Two hundred years before then the King was palpably insane. In 1973 the President was, at best, paranoid.
Indeed. This little tidbit from Ron Rosenbaum is, at best, disturbing:
quote:
But you've probably read about Richard Nixon acting erratically, drinking heavily as Watergate closed in on him. You may not have read about the time he told a dinner party at the White House, "I could leave this room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million people would be dead." (Try that line out at one of your dinner parties. I've always found it a good conversation starter.)
Also this one:
quote:
James Schlesinger, secretary of defense at that time, No. 2 in the nuclear chain of command, was reported to be so concerned about Nixon's behavior that he sent word down the chain of command that if anyone received any "unusual orders" from the president they should double-check with him before carrying them out.
source
[ 16. October 2015, 13:58: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
I also heard an interview with a retired general years ago who said that at the time, he was contemplating having his troops ready to move into Washington D.C. to intervene against Nixon.
[ 16. October 2015, 15:06: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Update on total cost of Trident replacement. It is now reckoned at £167 billion, a far cry from the figures mentioned elsewhere. A senior named official at the MoD reckon the project is a "Monster".
At that figure, I think there is an economic argument. Add that to the ethical dimension, the obfuscation about whether the missiles really are under the independent command of the UK and the question about who they deter and there appear to be far greater priorities.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Of course, the moral argument has traction with moral people. There is no circumstance in which annihilating cities full of innocent civilians would be ethically justified.
The whole MAD justification stands or falls on whether the enemy is that moral; if he is, he won't nuke us. If he isn't, he might just be deterred that his people will be nuked, back. Either way, it is arguably strategically better to have a nuke option, than not have one.
If we face a moral enemy, there is no issue. But if we face an immoral one, armed with nuke/chemical/biological threats, we need to be playing the same game, or just be prepared to roll over and die.
Cheers, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The trouble with warfare and morality is that they don't often sit well together.
It in WW1 we saw it with the use of gas, in WW2 we saw it with area bombing. I'm not blaming one side over the other, it's more that a desperate situation usually produces desperate measures, one in which rules of engagement and morality are no longer a fixed point.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Update on total cost of Trident replacement. It is now reckoned at £167 billion, a far cry from the figures mentioned elsewhere. A senior named official at the MoD reckon the project is a "Monster".
At that figure, I think there is an economic argument. Add that to the ethical dimension, the obfuscation about whether the missiles really are under the independent command of the UK and the question about who they deter and there appear to be far greater priorities.
Sioni, at that figure, I would agree there is an economic argument. The thing is, it's so far from previous figures, I am somewhat skeptical. It has to be said though, if the strategic argument is really strong then the economics are not that critical as defence of the realm from annihilation is worth almost any price. Also, £167Bn over 55 years is only just over £3Bn/year, and should be seen in that context - the article says an extension to 2060 is included in the figures.
For me though, I am still not completely decided on the moral/strategic arguments one way or another.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
In the U.S., and indeed in most every country that fields nuclear weapons, the system is designed to ensure that the person giving the order is who he says he is; i.e., it authenticates the person's identity. Checks to ensure the person is sane are, woefully, virtually non-existent.
Presumably because checking the sanity of the person giving the orders would diminish their value as a deterrent, given that no sane person would ever launch them (barring the odd moustache-twirling super villain).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
167 Billion certainly seems a lorra lorra dosh for simply tooling up 4 subs.
Makes one wonder what the combined bill is for the States and Russia to keep their nukes all ship-shape and Bristol fashion.
Indeed MAD in all senses of the definition. Suppose it's not such a big price against the cost of another World War.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
So, everyone would be happy for S. Korea to acquire nukes then? Keep the North in check?
And Japan could certainly do with some to keep China in line. They have the technology. No problem.
And while we're at it surely the Finns and the Ukrainians would be foolish not to tool up - make that dodgy Mr. Putin think twice wouldn't it? They could sell some to the Baltic states.
Don't all these countries have much better reasons for having nuclear weapons than the UK?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
167 Billion certainly seems a lorra lorra dosh for simply tooling up 4 subs.
Makes one wonder what the combined bill is for the States and Russia to keep their nukes all ship-shape and Bristol fashion.
Indeed MAD in all senses of the definition. Suppose it's not such a big price against the cost of another World War.
But given the near misses previously referenced, can it not also be seen as a very large price to accidentally start another World War?
It's bad enough being turned to dust in an instant, but paying for the privilege...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
So, everyone would be happy for S. Korea to acquire nukes then? Keep the North in check?
And Japan could certainly do with some to keep China in line. They have the technology. No problem.
And while we're at it surely the Finns and the Ukrainians would be foolish not to tool up - make that dodgy Mr. Putin think twice wouldn't it? They could sell some to the Baltic states.
I always felt it to be theoretically true that world peace could be achieved if every seperate country had it's own nuclear deterrent.
Admittedly this could well be a fragile monolith, built on a possibly naive premise that the fear of mutually assured destruction can actually prevent every warlike tendency, in every culture, across the entire globe. Even i'll concede that a situation whereby hundreds of seperate countries, having their own computer based, retaliatory nukes at strike readiness isn't Peace on Earth in the generally accepted sense.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
So, everyone would be happy for S. Korea to acquire nukes then? Keep the North in check?
And Japan could certainly do with some to keep China in line. They have the technology. No problem.
And while we're at it surely the Finns and the Ukrainians would be foolish not to tool up - make that dodgy Mr. Putin think twice wouldn't it? They could sell some to the Baltic states.
I always felt it to be theoretically true that world peace could be achieved if every seperate country had it's own nuclear deterrent.
Admittedly this could well be a fragile monolith, built on a possibly naive premise that the fear of mutually assured destruction can actually prevent every warlike tendency, in every culture, across the entire globe. Even i'll concede that a situation whereby hundreds of seperate countries, having their own computer based, retaliatory nukes at strike readiness isn't Peace on Earth in the generally accepted sense.
Each of them dependent on no technical issues causing a false alarm and retaliatory launch.
We'd be dead in a decade.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
This is probably a tangent.
The way the media (in totality as far as I can see) has it, Labour is tearing itself apart over Trident renewal.
This from the Guardian has a different perspective. I think it also summarised the debate quite nicely.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
This was posted on the Corbyn thread, but entirely relevant here too.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wonder if Corbyn has ever watched this?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Sounds like JC would be prepared to keep Trident so long as it only fires blanks.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
