Unilateral nuclear disarmament

[English assassin]

Now, I like war toys as much as the next person. (Assuming the next person isn't Donald Rumsvelt I should add) But, as Trident comes to the end of its life, I have to ask myself whether the UK should think about nuclear disarmament.

(NB, I am talking about the UK only)

The reasons for this might include:

Nuclear weapons are very expensive.

We are never going to use them anyway.

We could get a lot of international goodwill through disarming, if we play it right. We could certainly have a long hard chat with the Iranians about how they don't need nukes, for instance.

And if it all goes pear shaped we could no doubt whip a few up fairly quickly, its not as if we are going to forget how to do it

Reasons not to disarm seem to be:

Possible loss of "status" (not too sure about this but I suppose not having nukes while the French still do would be a little bit annoying)

Possibly, nukes act as a deterent, though I am not sure. I can't see Pakistan attacking us anyway, and AQ couldn't care less.

What do UK posters think? We could spend the cost of two of the bomb boats on some fighters or tanks or something, spend the cost of another on a hospital or two, and just save the money spent on the last one for a rainy day. Everyone would be a winner.

And what do overseas posters think? Would a non-nuclear UK suddenly be pimp-slapped by Iceland?

[Snowhobbit]

Nuclear disarment sounds like a good descision, and you can always slap Iceland without nukes :charge:

[InsaneApache]

Seems a bit pointless to have them in our arsenel now that the Warsaw Pact has collapsed....but then again what would Bliar do with the money saved?

I agree that we will never use them...as for the French, we could put it too them if they disarmed they could keep the CAP.

Now if I were entrepreneurial, I'd sell ours to the Iranians. Thus making loads of money and saving them all that time and effort to acquire them. Then at least we would know what they had. ~D

Where's Bruce Kent when you need him?

[Franconicus]

We have none. Cannot say that I am missing them. ~:cool:

[Voigtkampf]

We are never going to use them anyway.



I agree that we will never use them...

And how can you tell that? :stare: Even Yoda cannot see that far in the future.

And while you are at it, dismantle UK’s military and navy as well. Who’s gonna attack you anyway? The French? The Germans? And Pakistan is too far away as well… ~:handball:

Nuclear weapons serve a purpose; that purpose is the threat of nuclear retaliation in case of a nuclear attack from anyone else. The nukes will save no one in case of the war, but their presence has so far successfully deterred the world major powers from engaging each other in a direct confrontation that was seemingly inevitable. Mind you, Third world war hasn’t happen (yet?) not because people didn’t have nuclear weapons, but because they did have them. Everyone was aware that, even if they forced the enemy to knees, the winning party could not be sure that the losing one won’t use nukes; in the end, what do they have to lose? It was a Mexican stand-off, gentlemen. Read some Dawkins and some things on the strategy of conflict and you will understand not only the false nature of your position, but also the dangers of it.

[Kagemusha]

I agree to what Voigtkamp is saying.I think that the main reason that WWIII have not occurred are Nukes.And im very concerned about US missile shield program.If US develops the technique to block a nuclear strike.Sooner or later others will have the technique too,and then once again:Panzers march! :knight:

[A.Saturnus]

Voigtkampf is correct, it`s the purpose of nukes not to be used. The only wat to win a war with nukes is not to start it. Because of that, nukes prevent wars. Besides, imagine we disarm all nukes and then have to blow apart a comet on collision course ~:eek:

[Franconicus]

Nukes make a war less likely. However - if there is a nuklear war the result will be desastrous. So in my opinion we should stop having them. Some idiots might want to use them.

P.S.: You know that in the past there were situations were a nuke war was very close.

[Grey_Fox]

Hmm...

The problem is that since the demise of the USSR, the people most likely to use nuclear weapons are terrorists when they get their hands on them. What good would a nuclear arsenal be in such a case?

[English assassin]

Read some Dawkins and some things on the strategy of conflict and you will understand not only the false nature of your position, but also the dangers of it.

Richard Dawkins? I must have read at least half a dozen of his books but I don't remember a view on nuclear weapons?

Hmm, and yet no one has nuked Spain, or Germany, or South Africa, or Brasil, or any other non-nuclear country. Clearly, to be not "false", a strategy of conflict would have to be able to account for this. If there was such a strategy that explained why the UK would be vulnerable without nukes when Italy is not then I would certainly reconsider. Can you suggest one, please?

Getting rid of one weapon does not mean we have to get rid of all of them, so the comment on the army and navy was a non-sequitur. I'm not talking about pacifism I'm talking about nuclear weapons only. We DO use the army and the navy, so it is if anything sensible to stop spending money on weapons systems we don't use to have more to spend on those we do.

Grey fox is right, the sort of people who might use WMD now don't have a country whose destruction might be a deterent.


Voigtkampf is correct, it`s the purpose of nukes not to be used. The only wat to win a war with nukes is not to start it. Because of that, nukes prevent wars.

Didn't the warsaw pact war plans in fact contain a terrifying readiness to use tactical nukes in large numbers and as a first strike? Clearly they thought the only way to win a war with nukes was to use them. And the war planning in US strategic air command in the late 50s/early 60s was, frankly, psychotic. So there's plenty of people who had had access to nukes who do not agree with the premise that they are not to be used.

[Spetulhu]

Didn't the warsaw pact war plans in fact contain a terrifying readiness to use tactical nukes in large numbers and as a first strike? Clearly they thought the only way to win a war with nukes was to use them. And the war planning in US strategic air command in the late 50s/early 60s was, frankly, psychotic. So there's plenty of people who had had access to nukes who do not agree with the premise that they are not to be used.

Not to be used, unless there's no other choice . Destroying your enemy while losing 60% of your own cities isn't really a sane strategy, unless you can see no other way to continue your existence.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Voigtkampf is correct, it`s the purpose of nukes not to be used.

You guys make it sound like this is something new and only pertains to nukes. In fact thats the purpose of all militaries since the end of imperialism. Not to fight wars but to prevent them from happening. You dont get attacked if you have the best army or can at least make a war with you to costly to the opposition.The armed forces are one of the few jobs where you spend your whole career training and honing your skills that you hope you will never have to use.

[Duke Malcolm]

We can get rid of the nukes once the rest of the British Commonwealth of Nations has (on the principle that if the mother country doesn't have them, no-one can) and after the French have got rid of theirs (on the principle that, well, the French are evil, and will attack us, and that we have to forever be better than them)

[ah_dut]

We can get rid of the nukes once the rest of the British Commonwealth of Nations has (on the principle that if the mother country doesn't have them, no-one can) and after the French have got rid of theirs (on the principle that, well, the French are evil, and will attack us, and that we have to forever be better than them)
Nah, the Frogs aren't evil ~;) We'll take their wine and their women thanks ~D

Just joking...but Nukes aren't really needed for the UK, I mean who is going to invade us? The USA? France? Err I know, the nuclear armed state of luxembourg ~D joking on both counts. Nukes are obsolete to an extent. I mean I don't foresee the USA letting any country nuke the UK to high heaven do I?

[Tribesman]

and you can always slap Iceland without nukes
Britain didn't do very well when they tried to slap Iceland without using Nukes last time , What was the final result of the third cod war ?
Oh yeah , Britain got slapped ~D

[PanzerJaeger]

You dont need them. America will protect you as long as you are a democracy. Spend it on hostpitals or something - just none of that human cloning nonesense please!

[Papewaio]

Actually playing RTW has a few choice quotes on that.

Like Prepare for War in Peace.

If you have a weapon you have to be prepared to use it. If it looks like you are bluffing then the bluff is probably going to be called quicker then if you had no threat (weapon) at all.

Also the idea of having another country defend you when you are perfectly capable of doing it yourself is cowardly and about as low as you can get. Asking others to invest in defending yourselves while choosing not to invest in defence is fairly craven. You are essentially putting your economy above their peoples welfare.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I thought unilateralism was a bad thing...

[Ice]

I'm all for disarming our world's nuclear weapons, and besides, if we went to war, the US's conventional forces would still prevail (I hope ~:confused: ).

[Voigtkampf]

The problem is that since the demise of the USSR, the people most likely to use nuclear weapons are terrorists when they get their hands on them. What good would a nuclear arsenal be in such a case?

That’s entire different ball you talk about. Unilateral disarmament will definitely not prevent terrorists to use nuclear devices.

But then again, seeing the US response in Iraq, I believe that even the most radical terrorists have understood that if, in some case, a nuclear device would be to detonate in a major US city (God forbid it from detonating anywhere on this world anymore!), the US response would be nuclear in nature.

The US would blast each and every country that could have done this to Kingdom come. Something that is hard for us to understand, but would happen for sure. I believe that even terrorists understand that.


Richard Dawkins? I must have read at least half a dozen of his books but I don't remember a view on nuclear weapons?

But you do remember his teaching on the strategy of conflict? He is one of the rare writers that write as simplistic enough to be understood by majority of readers, without losing on quality. That is why I mentioned him.


Hmm, and yet no one has nuked Spain, or Germany, or South Africa, or Brasil, or any other non-nuclear country. Clearly, to be not "false", a strategy of conflict would have to be able to account for this. If there was such a strategy that explained why the UK would be vulnerable without nukes when Italy is not then I would certainly reconsider. Can you suggest one, please?

Italy is now shielded by his allies in Europe. Imagine no nukes in Europe; how reserved the Russians would have been if they knew they needn’t had to worry about ballistic missiles being launched at them form European soil? Perhaps they would have thought their chances of survival in that position would be better, and decided on more aggressive policy of conquest instead of merely cold war.

Also, unimportant countries that can be overrun with conventional forces and which have no nuclear weaponry are not a valid target for a nuclear assault. Only example would be a total retaliation for a terrorist attack or something similar.


Getting rid of one weapon does not mean we have to get rid of all of them, so the comment on the army and navy was a non-sequitur. I'm not talking about pacifism I'm talking about nuclear weapons only. We DO use the army and the navy, so it is if anything sensible to stop spending money on weapons systems we don't use to have more to spend on those we do.

Non-sequitur? Au contraire. Giving up nuclear weapons when faced with potential opponents who have nuclear weapons would amount to same. What use could the army/navy have faced with a threat of nuclear destruction? Remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


You guys make it sound like this is something new and only pertains to nukes. In fact thats the purpose of all militaries since the end of imperialism. Not to fight wars but to prevent them from happening. You dont get attacked if you have the best army or can at least make a war with you to costly to the opposition.The armed forces are one of the few jobs where you spend your whole career training and honing your skills that you hope you will never have to use.

But unless bullets are flying around your ears, people tend to forget the validity of this claim.

Or in this case, ballistic missiles instead of bullets.

[English assassin]

No part of my reasoning was based on the thought that the US could always nuke someone for us anyway. No disrespect but I doubt they would. (I certainly wouldn't if I were them). Basically unless we think we are going to get into a war with a nuclear power then it simply seems to be a waste of money. I'm not going all tree-hugging on this, if Denmark suddenly got nukes and started looking enviously at East Anglia I'd be all in favour of re-arming. I just think in the meantime there are better ways to spend our money...


Spend it on hostpitals or something - just none of that human cloning nonesense please

...like cloning Ian Botham eleven times amd winning the Ashes every time.

[Voigtkampf]

Believe it or not, I understand you fully, and I don't think you are one of those misguided liberal tree-molesters, English Assassin. :laugh4:

The fact is, nukes must stay, even if they are seemingly useless and pointless now. I bet you feel something like a man living in a decent neighborhood and banging his head against the wall because he spent a lot of money on high-end security system and is still paying for his house surveillance. But when you wake up in the middle of the night and hear burglars in the ground floor, you might regret that you haven’t scrapped that system (a situation that virtually happened recently to the editor of the paper I work from time to time). Just an example, but I’m sure you can notice the resemblance. Especially since there is also a fact that a nuclear re-armament in case of an emergency probably would not be completed anywhere near the time it should be, and the potential opponents would not allow UK to complete that process.

And as a side remark, all people believing that there will be no more conflicts in Europe… Well, history of Europe is history of wars of its first neighbors, and believing this will certainly not happen ever again is somewhat…naïve, shell I say?

[English assassin]

Maybe, maybe not, but we certainly don't need hugely expensive cold war subs with ICBMs. A few dozen warheads that could be carried under bombers or fitted onto tomahawks would do the job just as well and save a bit of money anyway.

I've always suspected that the sealed orders carried on the UK bomb boats (to be opedned in the event of the UK being totally destroyed) probably read :

(1) launch one at Paris.

(2) ask the Canadians what to do next.

[The Black Ship]

The French government totally disagrees with you on this one EA. Their spending on "strategic weaponry", their investment on updating their inventory, their determination to maintain a nuclear triad are all gobbling up a greater percentage of the defense budget. As budgets have fallen, that particular item has not. They obviously feel a nuclear option is an essential part of a country's defense.

What do they know?

P.S. the Iranians have reported that they're developing a solid-fueled version of their Shahab MRBM, with increased range, durability, payload, accuracy, and sustainability. The Israelis estimated a max 3000km range, and that some-other-than-North-Korea is helping them (read Russia). That puts the EU under the umbrella.

[Voigtkampf]

Good to see you are still alive and kicking, Black Ship. :bow:

Again, EA, I must disagree; nukes carried by airplanes are a practical nonsense. Operating range of airplanes is relatively limited, and nuclear warhead fitted onto a Tomahawk… Tomahawk, depending on a version, has a range of approximately 1000 km and speed of 800 km/h. That is ridiculous; it definitely lacks necessary range and speed… Guess you could bomb Paris, though.

Now, nuclear sub with ICBM's, that’s a different story. With practically unlimited operating range, almost undetectable, it is a mobile launch base of extreme lethal capabilities. See, one of the points that deterred everyone from starting a nuclear war is the uncertainty that the attacking party will be able to destroy all launch sites of the enemy and thus elude the retaliation strike. With nuclear subs with ICBM’s, the probability that the attacker will manage to eliminate all the nuclear capabilities of its target is practically non-existant. Once again, nuclear weapons insure peace, and nuclear subs are a significant factor in deterring people from even considering the option of nuclear conflict. Paradoxal, it may seem, yet completely valid.

As a side remark, it is a shame that British fleet, with its historical importance, has lost so much in funding lately. The UK is what it is thanks to its fleet, and it is rather shocking to read that British ships travel with only one third of speed because they suffer extreme fuel shortage. :no:

[Ja'chyra]

Nukes are on subs and not planes for a reason and the decision was made by the military.

We had the option to spend the strategic budget on the RAF but chose to go with the Navy because of the greater range of options available if the nukes are mounted on subs. I believe the reasons included the difficulty in finding a sub, the ability for it to pop up within range of just about any city and the fact that it can operate independantly, they can pretty much circumnavigate the globe without coming to the surface.

I believe that nukes are still needed, but hopefully not for ever.

Anyway, when are they due out, I didn't think it was that soon.

[Duke Malcolm]

Really? I wouldn't have been surprised, especially considering that Her Majesty's Armed Forces are shot of armour, tanks, guns, bullets, boots, camo, helmets, ships, bombs, missiles, and most importantly of all, men...

[BDC]

Disarm, spend all the money on engineering super-intelligent cockroaches, so that something at least can survive a nuclear holocaust.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Disarm, use the money to build a new poison that kills only frenchmen ~D

[Samurai Waki]

Disarm... Build a Spaceship to Transport the Frenchmen to Mars... and then poison them. ~D

Although, seriously, I think it is still in many countries best interest to have a Nuclear Option. Dangerous Religious Fundamentalist Countries I think would use a Nuclear War, and come up with the excuse that Armageddon is supposed to be man made.

[KukriKhan]

30 posts. 5 bashing France or Frenchmen. Some with 'grin smileys'. Our French members are quite mature and thick-skinned, and can take a joke or 4...but, with respect, that is enough, gentlemen.

To the topic: has anyone estimated the amount of money saved by leaving the Nuke Club?

[Duke Malcolm]

it is costing an entire year's defense budget to replace them, that is all I know...

Edit: Only 4 French-bashing posts?! That is not nearly enough...

[Don Corleone]

EA, why would the UK be in the position of nuking somebody in the first place? Because somebody used them on you. I guarantee you that if somebody nuked a British city, either with a missile or a terrorist with a briefcase, the US would find out who did it and retaliate. 1) You're our strongest ally 2) We would need to send a message what response that sort of behavior breeds.

You're taking a rather rosy, but shortsighted view of the future. If the Iran has an ICBM that goes 3000km, don't you think the Chinese have a global cruiser? I'm not saying we're going to be getting into an aggressive posture with them anytime soon, but better safe then sorry, eh?

[Don Corleone]

I always thought jokes about the French/English rivalry were okay, as they're not 'bashing' per se. For a long time, they did hate each other. I wouldn't be 'offended' if somebody made some crack about us not getting along with the Russians. I don't have anything against the Russians, and actually think they're a decent bunch, but our history certainly would support a comment like that...

[Voigtkampf]

There is one old, but valid military credo; every military must direct itself by the possibilities of their potential rivals, not their current status of relationships.

In other words, if your neighbor has tanks, start making tanks yourself. Don’t even ask the question how good you are with your neighbor; you may be even allies, but the possibility exists that in a year or a decade you will be the greatest enemies. History is full of such examples.

Of course, threat assessment made by military experts cannot always be fully completed in practice for reasons of economic and sometimes even diplomatic nature, but to equal your enemies armament and potentials is always a goal that cannot be ignored for the sake of survival.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[Ser Clegane]

I always thought jokes about the French/English rivalry were okay,

However, IMO there is quite a difference between some friendly banter and this


use the money to build a new poison that kills only frenchmen


This is definitely crossing the line and will not be accepted

[English assassin]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance

heh, I was waiting for that.

OK, V, but here is another well known military saying, that generals always prepare to fight the last war, not the next one. Submarine launched ICBMs are a cold war weapon, for all of the reasons you give in your description of them. There are only three nations in the world, at present, whose military capabilities are such that we would need such a weapon, namely the USA, Russia and China (I'm not even that sure about china but if not now then soon.) I'll wait and see about Iran, at least until someone other than Mossad tried to sell them as a threat. Hopefully by then my in laws will have sold up in Tehran anyway.

I have to say I think it is very unlikely indeed we will be in conflict with any of those states. (Russia, I grant you, we can't be completely sure about). On the other hand I DO think it is very likely we will need more transport helicopters, air portable armoured vehicles, lovely new ships for the royal navy like the rather sexy tri-hulled design Qinetiq are trialing, and so on. A few more squaddies would be no bad thing either. So it must make sense to spend money on those things.

The tomahawk option is not to be sniffed at. Remember we can launch them from a submarine anyway, and from an versatile SSN that can be used for many other missions besides, rather than an SSBN. I don't know how much of the world is within 1000 km of the sea but I imagine its quite a bit of it. Given that the current threat, rather than the cold war threat, is one or two weapons used by terrorists, not a huge nuclear assault by another state, I would say that and an air launched option would be plenty of deterent.

[A.Saturnus]

Wouldn`t the best option be to build one giant bomb that can blast the whole world? As Dr. Strangelove said, when it comes to digging up bombs, there`s no limit to size and it certainly would be cheaper.

[discovery1]

Wouldn`t the best option be to build one giant bomb that can blast the whole world? As Dr. Strangelove said, when it comes to digging up bombs, there`s no limit to size and it certainly would be cheaper.

While would be cheaper, where would you get the psycopath to detonate the thing? And an automatic trigger? What about the possiblity of an accidental launch? The russian rockets aren't in very good shape methinks. And will it stop terrorists who think they will get into heaven by killing themselves?

[Voigtkampf]

heh, I was waiting for that.

Oh, mine, then I must have walked into a trap! ~:handball:


OK, V, but here is another well known military saying, that generals always prepare to fight the last war, not the next one.

That is a saying; what I mentioned before was a firm established rule in military threat assessment procedure.


Submarine launched ICBMs are a cold war weapon, for all of the reasons you give in your description of them.

Cold war weapons designed to wage a rather hot war.

Or is your reasoning that they should be scrapped because the cold war is over? You don’t perceive any rivals for the UK in foreseeable future? I do. China is one. Russia is not to be trusted, their democracy reaches as far as I can throw a piano.


I have to say I think it is very unlikely indeed we will be in conflict with any of those states.

And how can you tell that? You can’t, it’s as simple as that. No one can make estimation on how the world will develop itself in the next five, ten or hundred years. Allies today, enemies tomorrow. Disarming in a world where more and more countries approach ability to go nuclear? Ill-advised.


The tomahawk option is not to be sniffed at.

Of course it is.


I don't know how much of the world is within 1000 km of the sea but I imagine its quite a bit of it.

Not nearly enough. How would you reach nuclear sites in, say, Russia or China that are deep within the country? Thousands and thousands kilometers inside the land? Primary target for nuclear assault are the enemy’s nuclear capacities, not cities. Both China and Russia were not as stupid as to line them up all on the coast. Not to mention that you first need to get in range, what the enemy’s conventional military forces will surly not allow.


Given that the current threat, rather than the cold war threat, is one or two weapons used by terrorists, not a huge nuclear assault by another state, I would say that and an air launched option would be plenty of deterent.

Hah! "The current threat"! You are not listening, are you?

You do not direct you actions by current threat or the intentions of your potential rivals (which is about the same).

You direct yourself by the military possibilities of your potential rivals.

Also, terrorist threat was highly ignored until the 11.9. Once the twins went down, I must take off my shoes at the airport. Who would have thought that would happen? Just as incredible it seemed back then, so may a nuclear war seem incredible now, but it is a shadow looming over all of us, for a long, long time to come.

[A.Saturnus]

While would be cheaper, where would you get the psycopath to detonate the thing? And an automatic trigger? What about the possiblity of an accidental launch? The russian rockets aren't in very good shape methinks. And will it stop terrorists who think they will get into heaven by killing themselves?


It wouldn`t be a rocket of course. If you plan to blow the world apart, you can do it wherever you are. It wouldn`t be a deterrence to terrorists of course, but to all sane people. The psycopath to blow it would be the same as for all our other thermonuclear bombs.

[Ironside]

It wouldn`t be a rocket of course. If you plan to blow the world apart, you can do it wherever you are. It wouldn`t be a deterrence to terrorists of course, but to all sane people. The psycopath to blow it would be the same as for all our other thermonuclear bombs.

The size of this bomb would be atleast the size of UK. :dizzy2: ~:eek:

To give a comparation, an earthquake with 13 on the richterscale is estimated enough to destroy earth.
That is about a million times stronger than the earthquake in the Indian Ocean that caused the tsunami (about 9 on the richterscale). In turn it released about the same energy as 100 gigatons of TNT (from wiki). The strongest nuke tested was on 62 megaton of TNT.

So to destroy earth you'll need about 1.600.000.000 of the biggest nuke ever, or about 6.7*10^12 Hiroshima bombs. ~D
Good luck building that one. ~;)