Why should we pay £12bn plus escalation for a USA bomber that we cant even refuel? Modern warfare seems about drones. That is £12bn out of our economy. Why is Starmer sucking up to Trump! He will be gone in 4 years. (Thats Trump, Starmer is on his last legs.)
I am a firm believer that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons works as it is logical to avoid using them. But sadly you have to have them. What I have always had a problem with is very religeous orientated states, in the most part, where you can't be sure logic always applies or is the main driver. I believe, for example, that Putin is not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons and if he wanted to, I read that there were safeguards in the Russian system that would prevent him.
We have seen in history that the atomic bomb was used on more than one occasion but it was a one sided thing then in that Japan didn't have such a weapon. So we do know that they can be used but if you know you are going to get it back, probably with interest, it is a different matter. Am I sure a state like Iran would apply logic to the issue, no I am not.
I am a firm believer that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons works as it is logical to avoid using them. But sadly you have to have them. What I have always had a problem with is very religeous orientated states, in the most part, where you can't be sure logic always applies or is the main driver. I believe, for example, that Putin is not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons and if he wanted to, I read that there were safeguards in the Russian system that would prevent him.
We have seen in history that the atomic bomb was used on more than one occasion but it was a one sided thing then in that Japan didn't have such a weapon. So we do know that they can be used but if you know you are going to get it back, probably with interest, it is a different matter. Am I sure a state like Iran would apply logic to the issue, no I am not.
Completely agree with this. I'm no fan of Israel, they're fascistic, and I feel fairly sure Netanyahu has timed his most recent campaign for nothing more than political reasons, but Iran must not have a nuclear bomb.
North Korea is another one that I think potentially applies to your "not applying logic" examples as well, that could all kick off one day...
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.
But the problem is you would have to retaliate as the deterent is no longer a deterent otherwise. I think North Korea would be destroyed if they used one so that isn't likely as it is not religious doctrine which drives them. The regime would lose its power/country. And the last time China was involved in any sort of war, other than an economic one or in relation the the rights of its own people was over 40 years ago.
I am a firm believer that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons works as it is logical to avoid using them. But sadly you have to have them. What I have always had a problem with is very religeous orientated states, in the most part, where you can't be sure logic always applies or is the main driver. I believe, for example, that Putin is not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons and if he wanted to, I read that there were safeguards in the Russian system that would prevent him.
We have seen in history that the atomic bomb was used on more than one occasion but it was a one sided thing then in that Japan didn't have such a weapon. So we do know that they can be used but if you know you are going to get it back, probably with interest, it is a different matter. Am I sure a state like Iran would apply logic to the issue, no I am not.
What's the point in having nuclear weapons as a deterrent if no one is stupid enough to actually use them?
Putin for example has been at war with Ukraine for well over 3 years and hasn't used one. So when would he use one?
I am a firm believer that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons works as it is logical to avoid using them. But sadly you have to have them. What I have always had a problem with is very religeous orientated states, in the most part, where you can't be sure logic always applies or is the main driver. I believe, for example, that Putin is not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons and if he wanted to, I read that there were safeguards in the Russian system that would prevent him.
We have seen in history that the atomic bomb was used on more than one occasion but it was a one sided thing then in that Japan didn't have such a weapon. So we do know that they can be used but if you know you are going to get it back, probably with interest, it is a different matter. Am I sure a state like Iran would apply logic to the issue, no I am not.
What's the point in having nuclear weapons as a deterrent if no one is stupid enough to actually use them?
Putin for example has been at war with Ukraine for well over 3 years and hasn't used one. So when would he use one?
When he is backed into a corner with no options then Im sure he would use them, he is mad enough to launch the end of the world than see his mission fail
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.
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.
So the experts were saying if Russia nuked us, they would win the war because no one would retaliate? Am I reading that right?
Only if someone like Corbyn was prime minister. Under anybody else it's inconceivable that we wouldn't retaliate.
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.
So the experts were saying if Russia nuked us, they would win the war because no one would retaliate? Am I reading that right?
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 ?
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.
I remember watching that and they chose the decision I would of gone for. We were fucked anyway and I couldn't see the point of causing more deaths. But as you said others would do differently.
But the problem is you would have to retaliate as the deterrent is no longer a deterrent otherwise. I think North Korea would be destroyed if they used one so that isn't likely as it is not religious doctrine which drives them. The regime would lose its power/country. And the last time China was involved in any sort of war, other than an economic one or in relation the the rights of its own people was over 40 years ago.
NK might technically be secular but the manner in which the fat lunatic leader positions himself and the punishment meted out for dissent in any form (however spurious) is not so different to his subjects as the oppression maintained by the crazed theocracies. The paranoid delusions experienced by the incumbent leaders manifest themselves very similarly domestically and in their foreign policies.
On a (superficially) much less sinister level there was an enormous amount of bollox speculated about Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz blah blah paranoid bullshit waffle wibble... Because the orange man baby had joined the Tel Aviv regime in bombing Iran. Obviously, Yes, Tehran could have tried that, they are strategically very well placed so to do. However: what is Iran's most important revenue maker? Oil. Who buys that from the massively sanctioned despotic state? Russia and China. How would it get to those destinations. Oil tankers on the sea. Oh, yeah all those departure points are on the Straits of Hormuz. Even with Putin's and Xi's unwavering support, Iran's already broke. Messing with the global oil business would see Iran financially collapsed in a matter of weeks - autonomously assured ruination you might say. There will probably be isolated incidents and they'll be blamed on Tehran's proxies in Yemen etc
Khamenei and Kim have just enough lieutenants around them with some semblance of self preservation to arrest their wildest international excesses so don't be losing too much sleep over their likely impact on your life expectancy. The view from the west is just as troubling since January 2025.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWs1-2foKoo&list=RDuWs1-2foKoo&start_radio=1
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.
So the experts were saying if Russia nuked us, they would win the war because no one would retaliate? Am I reading that right?
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.
If we didn't retaliate then what's to stop Russia doing the same thing to say France then Germany. They would need to know that they couldn't get away with nuking someone without retaliation.
For what it's worth that's why I don't think Russia would ever fire nukes at a Nato member. The cost of having an update nuclear deterrent is disgusting when you think what better use could be done with the money but unfortunately we live in a dangerous world.
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.
So the experts were saying if Russia nuked us, they would win the war because no one would retaliate? Am I reading that right?
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 ?
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.
Unless I'm wrong and maybe I am depending on the size of the nuke but I thought even one could basically over a period of time destroy most human life on earth.
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.
So the experts were saying if Russia nuked us, they would win the war because no one would retaliate? Am I reading that right?
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 ?
Isn’t that the point? It’s mutually assured, so the Russians would know that we would retaliate, which we would…
Unless I'm wrong and maybe I am depending on the size of the nuke but I thought even one could basically over a period of time destroy most human life on earth.
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.
So the experts were saying if Russia nuked us, they would win the war because no one would retaliate? Am I reading that right?
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 ?
But surely that's the deterrent. Millions of Russians would die just to wipe us out.
Unless I'm wrong and maybe I am depending on the size of the nuke but I thought even one could basically over a period of time destroy most human life on earth.
I doubt that very much
Yeah just looked it up. If there was a full on nuclear war then a possibility but even then there would probably be some survivors.
I think there's ICBMs that are designed to detect a nuke launch, intercept it and destroy it before it reaches its target. Firing a nuke off isn't a guarantee that it'll actually hit.
Should we get attacked by nukes, I would personally launch every thing we had so they did not escape Scott free. Sorry, can't see the issue of millions of innocent people die when some despot would be prepared to slaughter us. Cuts both ways ....
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.
In summary, while the UK can detect an incoming missile and has a deterrent in place, it has no robust defense to physically stop a Russian nuclear missile.
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.
In summary, while the UK can detect an incoming missile and has a deterrent in place, it has no robust defense to physically stop a Russian nuclear missile.
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.
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.
In summary, while the UK can detect an incoming missile and has a deterrent in place, it has no robust defense to physically stop a Russian nuclear missile.
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.
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.
In summary, while the UK can detect an incoming missile and has a deterrent in place, it has no robust defense to physically stop a Russian nuclear missile.
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.
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.
So the experts were saying if Russia nuked us, they would win the war because no one would retaliate? Am I reading that right?
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
So the experts were saying if Russia nuked us, they would win the war because no one would retaliate? Am I reading that right?
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 ?
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.
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.
Then the programme was bollox. The notion that Russia could destroy all NATO countries which incidentally includes America is ridiculous.
Comments
We have seen in history that the atomic bomb was used on more than one occasion but it was a one sided thing then in that Japan didn't have such a weapon. So we do know that they can be used but if you know you are going to get it back, probably with interest, it is a different matter. Am I sure a state like Iran would apply logic to the issue, no I am not.
North Korea is another one that I think potentially applies to your "not applying logic" examples as well, that could all kick off one day...
Putin for example has been at war with Ukraine for well over 3 years and hasn't used one. So when would he use one?
Under anybody else it's inconceivable that we wouldn't retaliate.
The paranoid delusions experienced by the incumbent leaders manifest themselves very similarly domestically and in their foreign policies.
On a (superficially) much less sinister level there was an enormous amount of bollox speculated about Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz blah blah paranoid bullshit waffle wibble...
Because the orange man baby had joined the Tel Aviv regime in bombing Iran. Obviously, Yes, Tehran could have tried that, they are strategically very well placed so to do. However: what is Iran's most important revenue maker? Oil. Who buys that from the massively sanctioned despotic state? Russia and China. How would it get to those destinations. Oil tankers on the sea. Oh, yeah all those departure points are on the Straits of Hormuz.
Even with Putin's and Xi's unwavering support, Iran's already broke. Messing with the global oil business would see Iran financially collapsed in a matter of weeks - autonomously assured ruination you might say. There will probably be isolated incidents and they'll be blamed on Tehran's proxies in Yemen etc
Khamenei and Kim have just enough lieutenants around them with some semblance of self preservation to arrest their wildest international excesses so don't be losing too much sleep over their likely impact on your life expectancy.
The view from the west is just as troubling since January 2025.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWs1-2foKoo&list=RDuWs1-2foKoo&start_radio=1
They would need to know that they couldn't get away with nuking someone without retaliation.
For what it's worth that's why I don't think Russia would ever fire nukes at a Nato member.
The cost of having an update nuclear deterrent is disgusting when you think what better use could be done with the money but unfortunately we live in a dangerous world.
- 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.
In summary, while the UK can detect an incoming missile and has a deterrent in place, it has no robust defense to physically stop a Russian nuclear missile.The notion that Russia could destroy all NATO countries which incidentally includes America is ridiculous.