Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Nuclear War and all that jazz
Comments
-
That wasn’t the premiseblackpool72 said:
Then the programme was bollox.ShootersHillGuru said:
I don’t think I’ve made myself particularly clear. The Russian attack was directed at NATO so those countries of NATO were also under the attack. Obviously the UK response was the only one discussed. Basically it was the end of the UK and all NATO countries.CAFCTrev said:
Well the motivating factor to retaliate would be to prevent Russia from attacking further. If Putin went full crazy I doubt he would stop at the UK.ShootersHillGuru said:
Kind of. The scenario was that Russia had gone full nuke and in about seven minutes the U.K. would without question be obliterated. The moral dilemma was that seeing how the UKs fate was sealed, could you justify the killing of millions of Russians. The bottom line being that the deterrent had ultimately failed. Everyone in the U.K. was effectively dead. Under those circumstances why kill millions of men, women and children in Russia ?CAFCTrev said:
So the experts were saying if Russia nuked us, they would win the war because no one would retaliate? Am I reading that right?ShootersHillGuru said:
once the missiles from Russia we’re flying and nothing could be done and it was effectively game over for these islands they couldn’t justify retaliating and killing countless millions of innocents in Russia.
The notion that Russia could destroy all NATO countries which incidentally includes America is ridiculous.0 -
Am I the only person appalled by Starmer's decision to spend billions on 12 US built nuclear bombers. Curiously, multiple searches don't reveal the cost to the British taxpayer. We can't even refuel them in the air.
This warmongering and proposed defence spending up to 5% GDP is a sop to a deranged Trump who will be gone on four years.
This is with the background of continued austerity, attacks on finances of the disabled and pensioners (most of whom now pay tax twice on money previously deducted from their gross salary) and leading to increased poverty per independent bodies.
This is not Statesmanship, it is appeasement. Trump's policies are negatively impacting World Trade and reducing our GDP. Tell him to do one.2 -
Trump will be replaced by JD Vance. There’s little prospect of The USA backing away from coercion to force up europes defence spending. It’s been floated by presidents long before Trump. Now the idea is out there it’s out there to stay.1
-
Oh yes, forgot about that twat. But it assumes the Democrats are as disorganised as last time. Donald is upsetting a number of Republicans.ShootersHillGuru said:Trump will be replaced by JD Vance. There’s little prospect of The USA backing away from coercion to force up europes defence spending. It’s been floated by presidents long before Trump. Now the idea is out there it’s out there to stay.0 -
Sadly I think the whole democratic world is moving right. I can see The USA a very different place by the time of the next election. Trump has effectively only held the reins since January and he’s already challenging the judiciary and academia. He’s doing the groundwork to facilitate much more presidential power.Gisappointed said:
Oh yes, forgot about that twat. But it assumes the Democrats are as disorganised as last time. Donald is upsetting a number of Republicans.ShootersHillGuru said:Trump will be replaced by JD Vance. There’s little prospect of The USA backing away from coercion to force up europes defence spending. It’s been floated by presidents long before Trump. Now the idea is out there it’s out there to stay.0 -
ShootersHillGuru said:Trump will be replaced by JD Vance. There’s little prospect of The USA backing away from coercion to force up europes defence spending. It’s been floated by presidents long before Trump. Now the idea is out there it’s out there to stay.Maybe.Vance's chances of gaining the GOP nomination and subsequently winning the election rest on how the next 3 years pan out. If Trump's second term is viewed as successful then Vance will glow in that - if it isn't (currently Trump's approval rating is 40% but that can change of course) then the Republican Party will drop Vance like a ton of bricks. There is a Trump cult and Vance will never be abler to replicate that, he can only hope to bathe in the Trump glow. I also think the Democrats will win back Congress next year leaving Trump as a lame duck President, potentially further dimming any glow there may be.
0 -
I really hope you’re right.bobmunro said:ShootersHillGuru said:Trump will be replaced by JD Vance. There’s little prospect of The USA backing away from coercion to force up europes defence spending. It’s been floated by presidents long before Trump. Now the idea is out there it’s out there to stay.Maybe.Vance's chances of gaining the GOP nomination and subsequently winning the election rest on how the next 3 years pan out. If Trump's second term is viewed as successful then Vance will glow in that - if it isn't (currently Trump's approval rating is 40% but that can change of course) then the Republican Party will drop Vance like a ton of bricks. There is a Trump cult and Vance will never be abler to replicate that, he can only hope to bathe in the Trump glow. I also think the Democrats will win back Congress next year leaving Trump as a lame duck President, potentially further dimming any glow there may be.1 -
Mamdani is upsetting the applecart.1
-
Free and fair elections in 2026 seem like a long shot at this point but like @ShootersHillGuru I hope you're right.1
-
Are you suggesting that Russia may interfere in Western democracy? Must have happened since Brexit.SantaClaus said:Free and fair elections in 2026 seem like a long shot at this point but like @ShootersHillGuru I hope you're right.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I doubt we will need to refuel them in midair, they would probably be dispersed to aircraft carriers and nato airbase. 1 tank of fuel would probably be their last tank of fuel. I feel like it or not we are heading back to the 60’s with defence and the spending % of gdp but without nice all British made aircraft. Air shows were so much better back then. Us in Europe really don’t want another war but as usual we are not the ones that get to decide, that privilege goes to the one elected or placed there, old men sending young men to die. We’ve had a relatively peaceful time in western Europe for 80 years and prospered because of it. Shame other don’t share our views and values.Gisappointed said:Am I the only person appalled by Starmer's decision to spend billions on 12 US built nuclear bombers. Curiously, multiple searches don't reveal the cost to the British taxpayer. We can't even refuel them in the air.
This warmongering and proposed defence spending up to 5% GDP is a sop to a deranged Trump who will be gone on four years.
This is with the background of continued austerity, attacks on finances of the disabled and pensioners (most of whom now pay tax twice on money previously deducted from their gross salary) and leading to increased poverty per independent bodies.
This is not Statesmanship, it is appeasement. Trump's policies are negatively impacting World Trade and reducing our GDP. Tell him to do one.Bloody depressing, my wife takes early retirement this week and I only plan for another 3 years max. We both have worked since we were teenagers, paid into pensions mortgages and housing costs for the best part of 40 years. We should have spent it as we earned it and had a few more holidays.0 -
Boomerangs. With the emphasis on the boom.blackpool72 said:
Even better make them return to baseKarim_myBagheri said:
I think our best defensive strategy would be to try and hack into the Russian systems and put in a bit of code that makes their missiles useless and not detiernate or find it's target.ME14addick said:I just got this reply from Grok, the AI tool.on X:The UK has limited defenses against a nuclear missile attack from Russia. Here's a concise overview:- Detection and Warning: The UK relies on early warning systems, including radar stations like RAF Fylingdales, which can detect incoming missiles. These provide minutes of warning, but not enough to neutralize the threat.
- Interception: The UK lacks a dedicated ballistic missile defense system like the US's Aegis or THAAD. The Royal Navy's Sea Viper system on Type 45 destroyers can intercept short- and medium-range missiles, but its effectiveness against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from Russia is unproven and likely limited due to the speed and altitude of ICBMs.
- Retaliation: The UK's primary defense strategy is deterrence through its nuclear arsenal, carried by Vanguard-class submarines with Trident missiles. A Russian strike would likely trigger a retaliatory response, but this doesn't prevent the initial attack.
- Challenges: Modern Russian ICBMs, like the RS-28 Sarmat, travel at hypersonic speeds and can deploy multiple warheads with decoys, making interception extremely difficult. No current UK system is designed to reliably counter such threats.
0 -
I don't think this is the one you're referring to @ShootersHillGuru but it's a very similar conceptShootersHillGuru said:There was a drama / documentary a few years back where some people who had previously been in positions where they would have been in the position of being at the forefront of decision making regarding nuclear response during a crisis. People like heads of armed services, MOD experts, politicians etc. They were given a scenario of escalating tensions in the Baltic with Russia which ultimately resulted in Russia launching a full scale ICBM attack on Europe including The UK. To cut a long story short the group decided that once the missiles from Russia we’re flying and nothing could be done and it was effectively game over for these islands they couldn’t justify retaliating and killing countless millions of innocents in Russia. You could run the exercise again any number of times with different people and get a different result but I found the process and deliberations fascinating. Wish I could find it and watch it again.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-wargame-new-sky-news-and-tortoise-media-podcast-series-simulates-a-russian-attack-on-uk-133714621 -
So our need to increase defence spending is due to Trump and not Putin?Gisappointed said:Am I the only person appalled by Starmer's decision to spend billions on 12 US built nuclear bombers. Curiously, multiple searches don't reveal the cost to the British taxpayer. We can't even refuel them in the air.
This warmongering and proposed defence spending up to 5% GDP is a sop to a deranged Trump who will be gone on four years.
This is with the background of continued austerity, attacks on finances of the disabled and pensioners (most of whom now pay tax twice on money previously deducted from their gross salary) and leading to increased poverty per independent bodies.
This is not Statesmanship, it is appeasement. Trump's policies are negatively impacting World Trade and reducing our GDP. Tell him to do one.0 -
Both are to blame.SporadicAddick said:
So our need to increase defence spending is due to Trump and not Putin?Gisappointed said:Am I the only person appalled by Starmer's decision to spend billions on 12 US built nuclear bombers. Curiously, multiple searches don't reveal the cost to the British taxpayer. We can't even refuel them in the air.
This warmongering and proposed defence spending up to 5% GDP is a sop to a deranged Trump who will be gone on four years.
This is with the background of continued austerity, attacks on finances of the disabled and pensioners (most of whom now pay tax twice on money previously deducted from their gross salary) and leading to increased poverty per independent bodies.
This is not Statesmanship, it is appeasement. Trump's policies are negatively impacting World Trade and reducing our GDP. Tell him to do one.
Trump is in Putin's pocket and has made Ukraine's position worse since he came to power. Trump is a very unreliable 'ally', he changes stance on a whim .
2 -
Sorry. Why on earth are you only planning for another three years. I’ve no idea what the chances of the worst happening but I would expect it to be no more than one or two percent at worst.charltonkeston said:
I doubt we will need to refuel them in midair, they would probably be dispersed to aircraft carriers and nato airbase. 1 tank of fuel would probably be their last tank of fuel. I feel like it or not we are heading back to the 60’s with defence and the spending % of gdp but without nice all British made aircraft. Air shows were so much better back then. Us in Europe really don’t want another war but as usual we are not the ones that get to decide, that privilege goes to the one elected or placed there, old men sending young men to die. We’ve had a relatively peaceful time in western Europe for 80 years and prospered because of it. Shame other don’t share our views and values.Gisappointed said:Am I the only person appalled by Starmer's decision to spend billions on 12 US built nuclear bombers. Curiously, multiple searches don't reveal the cost to the British taxpayer. We can't even refuel them in the air.
This warmongering and proposed defence spending up to 5% GDP is a sop to a deranged Trump who will be gone on four years.
This is with the background of continued austerity, attacks on finances of the disabled and pensioners (most of whom now pay tax twice on money previously deducted from their gross salary) and leading to increased poverty per independent bodies.
This is not Statesmanship, it is appeasement. Trump's policies are negatively impacting World Trade and reducing our GDP. Tell him to do one.Bloody depressing, my wife takes early retirement this week and I only plan for another 3 years max. We both have worked since we were teenagers, paid into pensions mortgages and housing costs for the best part of 40 years. We should have spent it as we earned it and had a few more holidays.0 -
I doubt a bomber could fly to Ukraine or similar where they would have key accuracy, without refuelling. They certainly couldn't take off from a ship. NATO airbases a possibility but I expect them to be bombed shortly, by Russia or more likely their sycophants Iran.0
-
Sorry, my poor wording. I only plan to work for another 3 years.ShootersHillGuru said:
Sorry. Why on earth are you only planning for another three years. I’ve no idea what the chances of the worst happening but I would expect it to be no more than two or three percentage at worse.charltonkeston said:
I doubt we will need to refuel them in midair, they would probably be dispersed to aircraft carriers and nato airbase. 1 tank of fuel would probably be their last tank of fuel. I feel like it or not we are heading back to the 60’s with defence and the spending % of gdp but without nice all British made aircraft. Air shows were so much better back then. Us in Europe really don’t want another war but as usual we are not the ones that get to decide, that privilege goes to the one elected or placed there, old men sending young men to die. We’ve had a relatively peaceful time in western Europe for 80 years and prospered because of it. Shame other don’t share our views and values.Gisappointed said:Am I the only person appalled by Starmer's decision to spend billions on 12 US built nuclear bombers. Curiously, multiple searches don't reveal the cost to the British taxpayer. We can't even refuel them in the air.
This warmongering and proposed defence spending up to 5% GDP is a sop to a deranged Trump who will be gone on four years.
This is with the background of continued austerity, attacks on finances of the disabled and pensioners (most of whom now pay tax twice on money previously deducted from their gross salary) and leading to increased poverty per independent bodies.
This is not Statesmanship, it is appeasement. Trump's policies are negatively impacting World Trade and reducing our GDP. Tell him to do one.Bloody depressing, my wife takes early retirement this week and I only plan for another 3 years max. We both have worked since we were teenagers, paid into pensions mortgages and housing costs for the best part of 40 years. We should have spent it as we earned it and had a few more holidays.Everything is a bonus after that.0 -
Am I missing some news?0
-
A bit like you then.ME14addick said:
Both are to blame.SporadicAddick said:
So our need to increase defence spending is due to Trump and not Putin?Gisappointed said:Am I the only person appalled by Starmer's decision to spend billions on 12 US built nuclear bombers. Curiously, multiple searches don't reveal the cost to the British taxpayer. We can't even refuel them in the air.
This warmongering and proposed defence spending up to 5% GDP is a sop to a deranged Trump who will be gone on four years.
This is with the background of continued austerity, attacks on finances of the disabled and pensioners (most of whom now pay tax twice on money previously deducted from their gross salary) and leading to increased poverty per independent bodies.
This is not Statesmanship, it is appeasement. Trump's policies are negatively impacting World Trade and reducing our GDP. Tell him to do one.
Trump is in Putin's pocket and has made Ukraine's position worse since he came to power. Trump is a very unreliable 'ally', he changes stance on a whim .
Pro Brexit one minute
Hate Brexit the next0 - Sponsored links:
-
Trouble is people in this country don't know what we have got and not got and i Include surveillance in that. You won't get it in wiki or any other publication.0
-
A personal attack that's liable to get the thread closed down if I respond. The difference between Trump and me is that I will admit it when I get something wrong. Trump's ego would never allow him to do that.blackpool72 said:
A bit like you then.ME14addick said:
Both are to blame.SporadicAddick said:
So our need to increase defence spending is due to Trump and not Putin?Gisappointed said:Am I the only person appalled by Starmer's decision to spend billions on 12 US built nuclear bombers. Curiously, multiple searches don't reveal the cost to the British taxpayer. We can't even refuel them in the air.
This warmongering and proposed defence spending up to 5% GDP is a sop to a deranged Trump who will be gone on four years.
This is with the background of continued austerity, attacks on finances of the disabled and pensioners (most of whom now pay tax twice on money previously deducted from their gross salary) and leading to increased poverty per independent bodies.
This is not Statesmanship, it is appeasement. Trump's policies are negatively impacting World Trade and reducing our GDP. Tell him to do one.
Trump is in Putin's pocket and has made Ukraine's position worse since he came to power. Trump is a very unreliable 'ally', he changes stance on a whim .
Pro Brexit one minute
Hate Brexit the next2 -
Strategic bombers have an unbelievable range. Tactical less so.Gisappointed said:I doubt a bomber could fly to Ukraine or similar where they would have key accuracy, without refuelling. They certainly couldn't take off from a ship. NATO airbases a possibility but I expect them to be bombed shortly, by Russia or more likely their sycophants Iran.0 -
Crime Agents podcast touches on this. The two guys on there are well positioned to comment on this subject. Basically the threats are there and very real. And most of the population are oblivious to it.Chippycafc said:Trouble is people in this country don't know what we have got and not got and i Include surveillance in that. You won't get it in wiki or any other publication.0 -
They may think they do and convince people that. But there will be lots of knowledge gaps they won't have.charltonkeston said:
Crime Agents podcast touches on this. The two guys on there are well positioned to comment on this subject. Basically the threats are there and very real. And most of the population are oblivious to it.Chippycafc said:Trouble is people in this country don't know what we have got and not got and i Include surveillance in that. You won't get it in wiki or any other publication.0 -
When's your podcast coming out Chips? I'll subscribe!Chippycafc said:
They may think they do and convince people that. But there will be lots of knowledge gaps they won't have.charltonkeston said:
Crime Agents podcast touches on this. The two guys on there are well positioned to comment on this subject. Basically the threats are there and very real. And most of the population are oblivious to it.Chippycafc said:Trouble is people in this country don't know what we have got and not got and i Include surveillance in that. You won't get it in wiki or any other publication.2 -
Lol OSA prevents me.Huskaris said:
When's your podcast coming out Chips? I'll subscribe!Chippycafc said:
They may think they do and convince people that. But there will be lots of knowledge gaps they won't have.charltonkeston said:
Crime Agents podcast touches on this. The two guys on there are well positioned to comment on this subject. Basically the threats are there and very real. And most of the population are oblivious to it.Chippycafc said:Trouble is people in this country don't know what we have got and not got and i Include surveillance in that. You won't get it in wiki or any other publication.1 -
F-35As can get to Ukraine but not home again. Expensive (we dont know how much) to ditch.0
-
To the best of my knowledge I have never had a thread shut down.ME14addick said:
A personal attack that's liable to get the thread closed down if I respond. The difference between Trump and me is that I will admit it when I get something wrong. Trump's ego would never allow him to do that.blackpool72 said:
A bit like you then.ME14addick said:
Both are to blame.SporadicAddick said:
So our need to increase defence spending is due to Trump and not Putin?Gisappointed said:Am I the only person appalled by Starmer's decision to spend billions on 12 US built nuclear bombers. Curiously, multiple searches don't reveal the cost to the British taxpayer. We can't even refuel them in the air.
This warmongering and proposed defence spending up to 5% GDP is a sop to a deranged Trump who will be gone on four years.
This is with the background of continued austerity, attacks on finances of the disabled and pensioners (most of whom now pay tax twice on money previously deducted from their gross salary) and leading to increased poverty per independent bodies.
This is not Statesmanship, it is appeasement. Trump's policies are negatively impacting World Trade and reducing our GDP. Tell him to do one.
Trump is in Putin's pocket and has made Ukraine's position worse since he came to power. Trump is a very unreliable 'ally', he changes stance on a whim .
Pro Brexit one minute
Hate Brexit the next
This is not a personal attack on you.
But you have been a Tory voter much of your life and then switched to Labour.
You voted leave but now support remain.
This is fine we are all allowed to change our mind.
If I have offended you I sincerely apologise.3 -
Found some of the stories above about asbestos and other "exposures" to terrible things by unknowing recipients fascinating and tragic.
Made me wonder what the modern day equivalents will be 50 years from now.
1
This discussion has been closed.
