- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by RedmikeThe missiles and warheads degrade over time. The explosives used to initiate the explosion degrade chemically over time and the fissile material slowly decays by nuclear fission, (the resulting radiation also further degrading the materials around it, this being probably the second largest issue surrounding nuclear fusion for power production at the moment (the first being to achieve ignition but that’s a different subject)). Leave a nuclear warhead sitting there long enough and it will probably go off (maybe not a full blown detonation which you would get if you detonated it properly but that’s not very comforting if you are on top of one or down wind of the explosion (or in the submarine carrying it). similar principles apply to the missiles and launching systems on the subs. no I very much doubt they will reuse the plutonium in the old warheads to make the new ones, it would be very expensive and slow. we do however have enough plutonium to make a good 10000 warheads so 200 wont be any problem. oh and I would expect pretty much all nuclear warheads to explode properly on detonation, the physics required is very well understood, and very easy to do (the original maths was almost literally done on the back of an envelope), and to my knowledge there has never been a failed nuclear test.
[b]I'm not sure what actually makes Trident obsolete. Are we re-using the warhead material for the new ones?
[b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by shavixmirWhile not necessarily supporting the replacement of trident, the European independent nuclear deterrent (held by Britain and France) is designed to stop other countries nuking or invading us. Our nuclear subs are kept almost permanently at sea and are able theoretically to stay under and hidden for years although they don't in reality stay away that long. We do not posses enough warheads to consider (ignoring for the moment ethical issues) launching a first strike attack on anyone with nukes (and conventional weapons are far more convenient and safer and cheaper against anyone else) so they can only be used defensively, by either striking an invading army with tactical nukes, or in the event of a nuclear strike on this country (or another country in Europe) they give the ability to counter strike and destroy (up to) 200 of their cities with strategic nukes. In other words it makes attacking us directly unpalatable to any sane person, as the casualties would be horrific. This is not the same as mutually assured destruction where the objective is to be able to 'win' a general nuclear war and both sides have enough nukes to wipe the 'country' let alone the people off the map.
Nuclear weapons are morally corrupt.
Not only do they only serve to destroy infra-structure and kill civilians, they do not target the enemy in the least (the enemy being in nuclear bunkers).
They are expensive and totally pointless for dealing with current issues and supposed threats.
So no, the UK shouldn't bother replacing them. Maybe donating ...[text shortened]... t money to Palestine would go a long way to creating a better world and a more secure homeland.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI think we do need a nuclear deterrent.
The nuclear submarine missile system, Trident, is reaching obsolesence.
We are told we need a replacement, and it looks like this will happen without much in the way of a debate.
This is despite:
- it will cost £25-£40 billion, which could pay for 120,000 new qualified nurses each year for the next 10 years or 60,000 new teachers every year for 20 y ...[text shortened]... protecting us' (from whom, exactly?), they just make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks
In these strange times that our counrty (ours being the UK, Scotland included) helped create, we have left ourselves open to attack from the countless number of other countries we have vented our military might on.
Right or wrong, we now should make sure we have a viable defence system/ deterrent . You can argue the morality of passed actions until the cows come home, but what is done is done.
We now, at this moment, need a serious defence system.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm not entirely sure I understand how they can be "used" defensively. If tactical nukes are to be used against an invading army then in effect we are saying we will drop nuclear bombs on various parts of the UK. Not sure that's going to go down much better than being invaded. If Britain is attacked by another country with Nukes in a first strike, I'm not entirely sure what would be the point of firing some back (assuming we were still able to). All we would achieve is two countries full of rubble instead of one.
While not necessarily supporting the replacement of trident, the European independent nuclear deterrent (held by Britain and France) is designed to stop other countries nuking or invading us. Our nuclear subs are kept almost permanently at sea and are able theoretically to stay under and hidden for years although they don't in reality stay away that long ...[text shortened]... ar and both sides have enough nukes to wipe the 'country' let alone the people off the map.
10 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat is a most interesting and well-informed explanation of the problem. The only point I would question is on the 'easy' maths behind the practical, as distinct from the theoretical, development of the first 'atomic bomb'.
The missiles and warheads degrade over time. The explosives used to initiate the explosion degrade chemically over time and the fissile material slowly decays by nuclear fission, (the resulting radiation also further degrading the materials around it, this being probably the second largest issue surrounding nuclear fusion for power production at the mome ...[text shortened]... one on the back of an envelope), and to my knowledge there has never been a failed nuclear test.
According to Stan Ulam who was one of the mathematicians working on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos the problems foxed even the best mathematical brains ( e.g. von Neumann) for quite a long time before they made a breakthrough.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by Nargagunaah, well the maths is easyer for the second person doing it, and physics has come a long way since then, and I was talking about designing the bomb, the finished product, which is easy (relatively speaking). Building it is an entirely different matter.
That is a most interesting and well-informed explanation of the problem. The only point I would question is on the 'easy' maths behind the practical, as distinct from the theoretical, development of the first 'atomic bomb'.
According to Stan Ulam who was one of the mathematicians working on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos the problems foxed even the b ...[text shortened]... hematical brains ( e.g. von Neumann) for quite a long time before they made a breakthrough.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by Wheelywhich is why you attempt to drop them on the invading navy.
I'm not entirely sure I understand how they can be "used" defensively. If tactical nukes are to be used against an invading army then in effect we are saying we will drop nuclear bombs on various parts of the UK. Not sure that's going to go down much better than being invaded. If Britain is attacked by another country with Nukes in a first strike, I'm not ...[text shortened]... were still able to). All we would achieve is two countries full of rubble instead of one.
The idea is that it is a deterrent. you nuke us and well nuke you, so don't nuke us. much like a bee sting, only fatal. it is like MAD only in mini. and the idea of the trident missile boats is that they are hidden out at sea. you attack the uk and they are still out there somewhere in the 75% of the earths surface covered by ocean, slowly rising from the depths to launching depth so they can rain destruction down on you. trying to find one sub is difficult. finding 3 is even more so, sinking then even more so again. thats the idea anyway.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by endersgameOne thing about the Trident subs, they can launch men and equipment through the torpedo tubes to carry out covert operations almost impossible to stop, so those subs will never be obsolete. The work of determining the effectiveness of aging nuclear arsenals now is done on supercomputers where you crunch numbers on a computer capable of 100 trillion operations per second so they can determine how well a bomb will work without testing it.
i think u forget this 2006 its british forces not english. Anyway nukes are used as a deterrent so that other nations see that britian means business and that we are not a nation that hides behind the US.u
10 Jul 06
Trident, and all nuclear weapons are pointless if you have allies with nukes. No civilized nation will use them, and they cost a ton of money. If a large nuclear nation is attacked by a smaller nation, then they will be able to defeat the smaller nation without nukes. If they are attacked by another large nation (non-nuclear), then its allies will help it defend itself. If it attacked by a larger or nuclear nation, then it would be foolish to retaliate with nukes, since the retaliation will be devastating. If the a quarter of the money spent on nukes were spent on other forms of military research (which I am against), then the nation may not be able to destroy the world, but would be able to defend its borders quite well (better than with nukes), and do whatever else it wanted to. The other three quarters of the money could be invested in infrastructure, schools and universities, and other things that actually benefit the nation. So, by buying nukes, a civilized nation appears barbaric, and a nation that is anxious only for its defense seems overly aggressive.
10 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by VapataLook at the hoo ha that Iran caused by making a coke can sized tin of electric soup, or the stink North Korea started by shooting dead missiles into the sea.
Trident, and all nuclear weapons are pointless if you have allies with nukes. No civilized nation will use them, and they cost a ton of money. If a large nuclear nation is attacked by a smaller nation, then they will be able to defeat the smaller nation without nukes. If they are attacked by another large nation (non-nuclear), then its allies will help it def ...[text shortened]... ion appears barbaric, and a nation that is anxious only for its defense seems overly aggressive.
The Detterant factor is very real, and on an international scale, attack is a very real possibility (who's to blame for that, is a point off the topic).
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThe deterrant factor is often misunderstood. Many nations see Iran and North Korea as violent, and for that reason, they are paranoid about them getting nukes. However, international invasion could not be prevented by nukes, a war with a bigger nation with nukes could not be won by nukes, and a war with a nation whose allies have nukes could not be won with nukes. No one needs very many of these nukes, and England has enough. One or two missiles would be enough to deter an attack by another nation, and to get hundreds or thousands is not only an expensive overkill, but is also a sign of something resembling barbarism.
Look at the hoo ha that Iran caused by making a coke can sized tin of electric soup, or the stink North Korea started by shooting dead missiles into the sea.
The Detterant factor is very real, and on an international scale, attack is a very real possibility (who's to blame for that, is a point off the topic).
10 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by VapataAre you suggesting i do not understand what a detterant is?
The deterrant factor is often misunderstood. Many nations see Iran and North Korea as violent, and for that reason, they are paranoid about them getting nukes. However, international invasion could not be prevented by nukes, a war with a bigger nation with nukes could not be won by nukes, and a war with a nation whose allies have nukes could not be won with n ...[text shortened]... ousands is not only an expensive overkill, but is also a sign of something resembling barbarism.
Bieng someone, as a lot of us were, i grew up in the nuclear age, so i know quite well what a detterant is.
Don't try to patronise me mate.
10 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargTrue, but you need money for many, many things - you only use a nuclear weapon for one thing. It's a cost / benefit thing at the end of the day.
Yes, but having a wallet makes you a target for a pick-pocket - hardly reason not to have one.
Personally, I don't think the expense and the added terrorist threat is worth it.