Nuclear Deterrent

[Ex-Bay]

From what I can gather Uranium is actually quite stable and safe to handle.
Plutonium on the other hand is, "a bit dodgy".

DT_Xtremez_14:

From what I read, Plutonium (Pu239) is not excessively dodgy. The quantity in a bomb may amount to, well, think in terms of the peel of an orange or maybe grapefruit.

Uranium ? depends upon the type. "normal" U238 ain't that bad, but U235 (weapons grade, bucket of sunshine stuff) is very dodgy.

(info from public sources).

 

[he_who_dares_rodney]

Good radio programe here on the BBC about a Broken Arrow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00l55xm/Broken_Arrow/

 

[herrflik]

Do you think we will need them in a few years though? £1bn a year for the next 25 yrs, it's high but acceptable to my mind.

Almost certainly. Nukes are something of an international relations badge - if you ain't got them you can't be internationally related to the countries that do.

The nuclear deterrent may or may not be the best idea ever but seeing as we've p****d off every western country at one time or another we really do need all the reasons we can get for them to still cooperate with us.

The real question is: how many do we need and what's the smallest nuclear arsenal we can get away with?


Off Topic: This is bound to come up at OASC. Can Storm Shadow be armed with a nuclear warhead? RAF website lists it as a cruise missile so is it safe to assume that it can be?

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Almost certainly. Nukes are something of an international relations badge - if you ain't got them you can't be internationally related to the countries that do.

The nuclear deterrent may or may not be the best idea ever but seeing as we've p****d off every western country at one time or another we really do need all the reasons we can get for them to still cooperate with us.

The real question is: how many do we need and what's the smallest nuclear arsenal we can get away with?


Off Topic: This is bound to come up at OASC. Can Storm Shadow be armed with a nuclear warhead? RAF website lists it as a cruise missile so is it safe to assume that it can be?

It's not the weapon, its the suspension and release equipment that is important, hence the SWEDRU fitted to Tonkas. This to ensure that Flt Lt Loonybin doesn't decide to drop the instant sunshine all by himself.

 

[Ex-Bay]

It's not the weapon, its the suspension and release equipment that is important, hence the SWEDRU fitted to Tonkas. This to ensure that Flt Lt Loonybin doesn't decide to drop the instant sunshine all by himself.

SWEDRU ? WTF ?

If we ain't got no WE-177 thingies, what does/can a Tonka carry ?
Some USA thing like the B-61 ?

 

[Stevienics]

Curiously, those who were trained on the Wessex and Whirlwind will not be alien to Dep Uranium, as it provides the balance weight fitted to the blade tips (before composite blades were boringly introduced).

So, whenever a trade test came up as to why Dep Uranium weights were fitted in the blade tips of selected choppers, the stock reply was always:

"it's dangeroues stuff; it should be located as far away from the cockpit as possible"

 

[NigeC]

Nukes - A case of dammed if you keep them, dammed if you get rid rid of them.

Option 1 - We get rid of them, saves loads of money, everyone happy for a few years. Another "regime" far from our shores, decides to build them with the associated delivery system and then "drops hints" on what they want us to do. Hmmm, we then moan saying we should not have got rid of them.

Option 2 - We keep them but have cheaper mini nukes and can't be "asked" to do things

In my time i.e. Cold War vintage, the phrase MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction ) was used and it worked i.e. nuke us, we nuke you, no one wins.

By all means get rid of the nukes and save a fortune but please do not moan in the future when a foreign power becomes a big bully with their nukes and force us to do what we know is wrong but can not do anything about it.

The nuke genie is out of the bottle and it can't be put back in. Even certain foreign nations who hate the West are not that dumb to lob a few nukes around, hmmm well possibly not.

Think back to GW1 - America rushed the Patriot out to Israel to shoot down skuds as Israel would have converted Baghdad to a large parking lot if one of those skuds had contained chemicals etc when it hit Tel Aviv.

No easy solution, dammed if you keep them, dammed if you get rid of them.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

SWEDRU ? WTF ?

If we ain't got no WE-177 thingies, what does/can a Tonka carry ?
Some USA thing ?

Yeah, course we haven't got any.......DT_Xtremez_23:, they were "dismantled" prior to 1998 apparently.....

 

[Shugster]

Nukes - A case of dammed if you keep them, dammed if you get rid rid of them.

Option 1 - We get rid of them, saves loads of money, everyone happy for a few years. Another "regime" far from our shores, decides to build them with the associated delivery system and then "drops hints" on what they want us to do. Hmmm, we then moan saying we should not have got rid of them.

Option 2 - We keep them but have cheaper mini nukes and can't be "asked" to do things

In my time i.e. Cold War vintage, the phrase MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction ) was used and it worked i.e. nuke us, we nuke you, no one wins.

By all means get rid of the nukes and save a fortune but please do not moan in the future when a foreign power becomes a big bully with their nukes and force us to do what we know is wrong but can not do anything about it.

The nuke genie is out of the bottle and it can't be put back in. Even certain foreign nations who hate the West are not that dumb to lob a few nukes around, hmmm well possibly not.

Think back to GW1 - America rushed the Patriot out to Israel to shoot down skuds as Israel would have converted Baghdad to a large parking lot if one of those skuds had contained chemicals etc when it hit Tel Aviv.

No easy solution, dammed if you keep them, dammed if you get rid of them.

Have to agree with the Genie point. We can't un-invent them so we need to have some. How many is another debate.

But we do need them, we can justify no Warships and no Armed forces in an ideal World....

But we don't live in an ideal World. We live in a constantly changing World.

 

[mrb]

SWEDRU ? WTF ?

If we ain't got no WE-177 thingies, what does/can a Tonka carry ?
Some USA thing like the B-61 ?

SWHDERU's are practically the same as the HDERU's used to carry fuel tanks, paveway 3 and raptor. Only difference are some electric gubbins. Really simple to convert one to the other, as many of the SWHDERU's were. No SWHDERUs are fitted unless converted to HDERUS.

 

[firestorm]

We can't afford to fund our pensions yet we want nukes?
No brainer.

 

[duffman]

Peanuts, Trident will cost between £25bn and £50. Government pension liabilities £1 trillion.

 

[MAINJAFAD]

Peanuts, Trident will cost between £25bn and £50. Government pension liabilities £1 trillion.

Correct, Nuke systems are quite cheap as regards Bang for your Buck. The problem is that no sane country will ever use them, unless an insane country does first. Even then it is more likely that every sane country would go hammer and tongs with every conventional weapon system they had at the insane regime, and not their population. However Nukes are here to stay, as they cannot be uninvented and they do give us some status with the septics, as well as the loonies.

 

[firestorm]

Peanuts, Trident will cost between £25bn and £50. Government pension liabilities £1 trillion.

Thats a start though.

Thats your pension and mine.

 

[Bren]

I was also a cold war warrior. Memories of Buccaneers at Laarbruck (15 & 16 sqns) within the QRA being armed with nukes and ready to go. Next posting was Honnington where Tornados (9 sqn) later replaced the Buccaneers and were armed with practice nukes on exercise. Big bangs were held in the SSA.

Various scenarios were exercised, attacks on convoys carrying loads from SSA to HAS. Pilot refusing to fly and being forcible removed from aircraft. Also another exercise involved a defector aircraft being cleared to land. This always confused me as the end result could have been that the airfield was denied to us.

Exercises always ended the same, NBC black for a whole day while we all waited to die from the effects of radiation.

Happy days..

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Nukes

Nukes

Me,

I suppose we need to use them as a big stick, but I'd hate for them to be chucked around!

What a bout bringing back a few silo's?

The RAF used to have it's own ICBM's... THOR!

Would it cut the cost by having most of your nukes in silos with only one submarine skulking around ready for 2nd strike and crashing into french subs?

HTB

 

[morse1001]

Correct, Nuke systems are quite cheap as regards Bang for your Buck. The problem is that no sane country will ever use them, unless an insane country does first. Even then it is more likely that every sane country would go hammer and tongs with every conventional weapon system they had at the insane regime, and not their population. However Nukes are here to stay, as they cannot be uninvented and they do give us some status with the septics, as well as the loonies.

During the Cold War, there was a truism which said that the USA would launch its nukes, when it had proof positive that the Soviets had launched theirs. The Soviets would not launch their Nukes until they had proof positive that the USA had launched their Nukes.

Any rouge state would have to have the technology to produce the device, the means to deliver it and the political will to carry it out.

However, it would have to take the risk of a Nuclear response to any weapon, to any weapon that they would deploy. The old mutual assured deterrent!