This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
leggedstruggle  Croydon 01 Oct 15 11.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Sooner or later the likes of ISIS will succeed in detonating some sort of nuclear device in a Western city. (Jamie and his chums will of course then say 'only a small minority of Muslims detonate nuclear devices, so it is nothing to worry about'.) Personally I would like us to keep the capability of lobbing some back.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 sydtheeagle England 01 Oct 15 11.46am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Oct 2015 11.39am
Sooner or later the likes of ISIS will succeed in detonating some sort of nuclear device in a Western city. (Jamie and his chums will of course then say 'only a small minority of Muslims detonate nuclear devices, so it is nothing to worry about'.) Personally I would like us to keep the capability of lobbing some back. That's possibly, maybe even probably, true. But there are two obvious issues: 1. ISIS, unlike a nation state, is not going to be deterred. If they do get their hands on nuclear weapons and they do decide to use what will probably be a dirty bomb, they are not going to be remotely dissuaded from doing so by whatever nuclear arsenal we have. This we already know; that's why there's a "suicide" in "suicide bomber." So the only use in our having nukes would be vengeance after the fact and I can think of better things to spend 100 million on than payback. 2. Even in the scenario above, I suspect if there was a serious fear that ISIS had become or was near to becoming a nuclear threat, we'd increase our actions against them in a non-nuclear way. I don't imagine we'd use nukes as a pre-emptive weapon against them. In light of the above, Trident has no offensive value and no defensive value, at least against ISIS, terrorists, or rogue states. If you want to "lob something back" at those sorts of people, tell me what you'll get out of it and how you intend to target them?
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 01 Oct 15 11.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 01 Oct 2015 11.46am
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Oct 2015 11.39am
Sooner or later the likes of ISIS will succeed in detonating some sort of nuclear device in a Western city. (Jamie and his chums will of course then say 'only a small minority of Muslims detonate nuclear devices, so it is nothing to worry about'.) Personally I would like us to keep the capability of lobbing some back. That's possibly, maybe even probably, true. But there are two obvious issues: 1. ISIS, unlike a nation state, is not going to be deterred. If they do get their hands on nuclear weapons and they do decide to use what will probably be a dirty bomb, they are not going to be remotely dissuaded from doing so by whatever nuclear arsenal we have. This we already know; that's why there's a "suicide" in "suicide bomber." So the only use in our having nukes would be vengeance after the fact and I can think of better things to spend 100 million on than payback. 2. Even in the scenario above, I suspect if there was a serious fear that ISIS had become or was near to becoming a nuclear threat, we'd increase our actions against them in a non-nuclear way. I don't imagine we'd use nukes as a pre-emptive weapon against them. In light of the above, Trident has no offensive value and no defensive value, at least against ISIS, terrorists, or rogue states. If you want to "lob something back" at those sorts of people, tell me what you'll get out of it and how you intend to target them?
Revenge. Target where they hang out (would leave Tower Hamlets alone though for obvious reasons).
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 01 Oct 15 11.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Oct 2015 11.51am
Revenge. Target where they hang out (would leave Tower Hamlets alone though for obvious reasons). Aaah. So you're advocating we pay 100 million on weapons which we'd use against ourselves? I know parts of Birmingham need rebuilding but that's quite an extreme, not to mention expensive, way to go about it. On a serious note, revenge will do no one any good.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 01 Oct 15 12.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 01 Oct 2015 11.58am
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Oct 2015 11.51am
Revenge. Target where they hang out (would leave Tower Hamlets alone though for obvious reasons). Aaah. So you're advocating we pay 100 million on weapons which we'd use against ourselves? I know parts of Birmingham need rebuilding but that's quite an extreme, not to mention expensive, way to go about it. On a serious note, revenge will do no one any good.
Revenge is underrated. Beating Liverpool 4-3 in the Cup after losing 9-0 to them felt pretty good.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 01 Oct 15 12.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Sep 2015 3.14pm
Quote chris123 at 30 Sep 2015 2.46pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Sep 2015 2.32pm
Quote We are goin up! at 30 Sep 2015 2.26pm
To those who think Corbyn could be good for Labour... 40% of voters believe immigration is the single biggest issue that faces this country. Corbyn believes high levels of immigration is a good thing. In my eyes, Corbyn's election is a huge opportunity for UKIP to make gains in the North.
People can be scared of change. I get that. But i think both sides of the political divide are hungry for it. It's just finding that middle ground. Something like saving tens of billions and doing away with our nuclear arsenal could be a start and he's talking about that today. We don't really need the weapons anymore. The state of European peace is more fragile now that for the last 20 years - Russia in Ukraine in particular - these things have a deterrent value just by having them, and to unilaterally disarm is not defending the realm, which should be any Governments priority. Problem is, that we don't really have a nuclear solution suitable to the modern world (very long story, but Trident isn't it - ideal for a cold war scenario where the enemy has the capacity to destroy you in a single strike). The problem is that the credible threats are China and Russia, both of which are economically so heavily entwined with Europe that they're unlikely to end up in a war (Plus Russia's own capability has greatly reduced with the break up of the Soviet Union). Problem is, all bar one of the alternatives is more expensive than Trident renewal (it seems) because the UK would need to develop things like cruise missile technologies etc. Basically in the 90s we made a choice to scrap our non-trident nuclear options - and that has come back to haunt us. So the reality of the 'Nuclear option' is a bit more complicated, as we can either have a fairly unsuited option, a new, but very expensive solution, a reduced solution (that's cheaper than trident, but offers lower firepower) or no solution (and spend the money elsewhere). The problem is that Trident will 'run out' before most of the alternatives would be ready. Incidentally, I lean towards the cheaper, scaled back lower destructive capability option - as long term it offers a greater flexibility and capacity to expand it.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 01 Oct 15 12.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 30 Sep 2015 3.54pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Sep 2015 2.32pm
Quote We are goin up! at 30 Sep 2015 2.26pm
To those who think Corbyn could be good for Labour... 40% of voters believe immigration is the single biggest issue that faces this country. Corbyn believes high levels of immigration is a good thing. In my eyes, Corbyn's election is a huge opportunity for UKIP to make gains in the North.
People can be scared of change. I get that. But i think both sides of the political divide are hungry for it. It's just finding that middle ground. Something like saving tens of billions and doing away with our nuclear arsenal could be a start and he's talking about that today. We don't really need the weapons anymore.
I'll definitely get shot down for saying this, but Blair was far more brave in trying to drag all of his membership into the centre ground to make himself electable. Actually listening to people's opinions and adapting your principles to them is far braver than what Corbyn is doing, and is actually is what democracy is meant to be there for.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Oct 15 12.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Oct 2015 11.39am
Sooner or later the likes of ISIS will succeed in detonating some sort of nuclear device in a Western city. (Jamie and his chums will of course then say 'only a small minority of Muslims detonate nuclear devices, so it is nothing to worry about'.) Personally I would like us to keep the capability of lobbing some back. Probably less likely them actually being able to construct a Nuclear weapon, or maintain one. If it was actually easy to build a nuclear weapon, most countries would have them (especially in the middle east). I like the way you get your defense in first. Its not like you can just knock these things up in your back garden out of stuff you can buy at radio shack. Iran have spent the best part of a decade and an eye watering amount of finance and resources to get to the stage where they could, now in theory, begin weapons development.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Oct 15 1.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Lyons550 at 01 Oct 2015 12.54pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Sep 2015 3.14pm
Quote chris123 at 30 Sep 2015 2.46pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Sep 2015 2.32pm
Quote We are goin up! at 30 Sep 2015 2.26pm
To those who think Corbyn could be good for Labour... 40% of voters believe immigration is the single biggest issue that faces this country. Corbyn believes high levels of immigration is a good thing. In my eyes, Corbyn's election is a huge opportunity for UKIP to make gains in the North.
People can be scared of change. I get that. But i think both sides of the political divide are hungry for it. It's just finding that middle ground. Something like saving tens of billions and doing away with our nuclear arsenal could be a start and he's talking about that today. We don't really need the weapons anymore. The state of European peace is more fragile now that for the last 20 years - Russia in Ukraine in particular - these things have a deterrent value just by having them, and to unilaterally disarm is not defending the realm, which should be any Governments priority. Problem is, that we don't really have a nuclear solution suitable to the modern world (very long story, but Trident isn't it - ideal for a cold war scenario where the enemy has the capacity to destroy you in a single strike). The problem is that the credible threats are China and Russia, both of which are economically so heavily entwined with Europe that they're unlikely to end up in a war (Plus Russia's own capability has greatly reduced with the break up of the Soviet Union). Problem is, all bar one of the alternatives is more expensive than Trident renewal (it seems) because the UK would need to develop things like cruise missile technologies etc. Basically in the 90s we made a choice to scrap our non-trident nuclear options - and that has come back to haunt us. So the reality of the 'Nuclear option' is a bit more complicated, as we can either have a fairly unsuited option, a new, but very expensive solution, a reduced solution (that's cheaper than trident, but offers lower firepower) or no solution (and spend the money elsewhere). The problem is that Trident will 'run out' before most of the alternatives would be ready. Incidentally, I lean towards the cheaper, scaled back lower destructive capability option - as long term it offers a greater flexibility and capacity to expand it.
The systems are air gapped, so the firing system is not connected to the communications network, and it requires two physical manual keys and codes to be used, to engage the system, and a code to authenticate that only is available to the captain via the final failsafe, the Prime Ministers or appointed nuclear deputy. Apparently a lot of thought has gone into ensuring that even if a submarine commander went rogue or it was captured, it could almost certainly not fire its missiles. Whilst the submarine remains in radio silence, it does monitor messages - it simply doesn't reply, so they have some idea of what is going on in the world, even if they don't actually know where they are or where the missiles are targeted.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 01 Oct 15 1.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The point remains that we're now in a time where a spotty teenager in his bedroom could do more damage to a Nation than a Nuke could.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Oct 15 1.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 01 Oct 2015 11.46am
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Oct 2015 11.39am
Sooner or later the likes of ISIS will succeed in detonating some sort of nuclear device in a Western city. (Jamie and his chums will of course then say 'only a small minority of Muslims detonate nuclear devices, so it is nothing to worry about'.) Personally I would like us to keep the capability of lobbing some back. That's possibly, maybe even probably, true. But there are two obvious issues: 1. ISIS, unlike a nation state, is not going to be deterred. If they do get their hands on nuclear weapons and they do decide to use what will probably be a dirty bomb, they are not going to be remotely dissuaded from doing so by whatever nuclear arsenal we have. This we already know; that's why there's a "suicide" in "suicide bomber." So the only use in our having nukes would be vengeance after the fact and I can think of better things to spend 100 million on than payback. 2. Even in the scenario above, I suspect if there was a serious fear that ISIS had become or was near to becoming a nuclear threat, we'd increase our actions against them in a non-nuclear way. I don't imagine we'd use nukes as a pre-emptive weapon against them. In light of the above, Trident has no offensive value and no defensive value, at least against ISIS, terrorists, or rogue states. If you want to "lob something back" at those sorts of people, tell me what you'll get out of it and how you intend to target them?
Dirty bombs aren't really anywhere near as horrible as they've been made out to be (in fact it can be argued that in terms of actual casualties, they're better than fragmentation bombs). This is because in order to spread the dust effectively, you have to have a directional explosion to the force, and no fragmentation. The risk of actually being killed in the blast radius is likely to be reduced, and contamination by radioactive dust isn't as bad as it sounds. Risk of certain diseases over the life span of an individual are certainly increased, maybe as much as ten fold if you're at the epicenter, but that's probably actually better than being at the epicenter of a suicide bomber, where the prospect of being torn to pieces is the likely outcome. Radiological weapons are more about the fear, and cost of clean up and how people would 'shun an area', rather than any real lethality (as the really nasty radioactive materials aren't widely available in large quantities in nature or research - because if they existed in large amounts, we'd all be dead).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Oct 15 1.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Lyons550 at 01 Oct 2015 1.12pm
The point remains that we're now in a time where a spotty teenager in his bedroom could do more damage to a Nation than a Nuke could. I'm not sure that's true. Whilst you could cause a lot of chaos, there is a limit to how much trouble a hacker could cause, outside of economical. You might be able to do things like switch off power to areas, stop water supplies, scramble signals to aircraft, erase data etc But all of these systems have multiple built in redundancies and recovery. You could for example wipe every singe stock exchange piece of data, and it would only be inconvenient, because there a multiple back ups kept in different locations, including off line as well as a back up system, so that if the first system crashes, a second kicks in. Most systems of importance are backed up with a off site and air gaps to protect the 'key operations' (ie they're on an internal network that isn't connected to the internet or even the local networks). where as a nuclear warhead generally kills and levels everything, permanently.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.