Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Varche on 13 October 2010, 10:35:48
-
Just seen on TV how much Britain spends every year on the development of nuclear warheads. Not the missiles just the warheads.
Answer [size=14]£2 billion[/size]
What is wrong with the ones we have got that we are never going to use?!
Apparently Britain is hard up ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Obviously not :y
Totally obscene.
Edit link added. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11529367
-
if its true that is ridiculous! We have enough surplus to destroy world several times over
-
Rightly or wrongly, many many people are emplyed either directly or indirectly in weapons creation/manufacture.
I believe the cost to stop this production would be far higher than keeping it going. :-X :-/
-
Rightly or wrongly, many many people are emplyed either directly or indirectly in weapons creation/manufacture.
I believe the cost to stop this production would be far higher than keeping it going. :-X :-/
Aldermaston & Burghfield
-
Rightly or wrongly, many many people are emplyed either directly or indirectly in weapons creation/manufacture.
I believe the cost to stop this production would be far higher than keeping it going. :-X :-/
And if it was all closed down, people would be complaining that government cutbacks were making people redundant ... ;)
-
warheads have a shelf-life, after which you must recondition them. £2Bn sounds a bit much, although I can see maybe half that being reasonable.
and there is no doubt that if we hadn't done that over the last sixty years, we wouldn't now have a country to spend money on it.
-
warheads have a shelf-life, after which you must recondition them. £2Bn sounds a bit much, although I can see maybe half that being reasonable.
and there is no doubt that if we hadn't done that over the last sixty years, we wouldn't now have a country to spend money on it.
and there is no doubt that if we hadn't done that over the last sixty years, we wouldn't now have a country to spend money on it
I would certainly agree with the essence of that statement.
-
In terms of weapons of mass destruction and evil devices with a limited shelf life am I right in thinking this thread is linked with Tunnie's cooking?
-
Stranegly, I dont mind that so much as its cash spent in the UK.
Its spending large amounts of public money outside of the UK I dont like
-
what makes me sad that all these nuclear weapons are made from the taxes paid by the working class and they believe that its necessary :-?
imo which they should have spend thir money in their childrens education and for their homes and for a better future..
keep in mind that a country bombed by nuclear weapons will be close to human entry for long years..
and weapon industries are still getting richer and richer from the weapons they sell and many people die from those..
who started that and open the doors of hell is very obvious so no need to talk about it.. but I can say easly that even in II world war despite the sayings and media bombardment , japan was at the end of its power and using nuclear was not necessary..
continue to believe it.. :(
-
The point is Cem - if we were all to unilaterally disarm the nuclear weapons then we would have nothing to deter the bad guys (Iran being one example which springs to mind) from using them against us.
Can you imagine what would happen to Isreal for example if it or its allies didnt have nuclear weapons.Its enemies in the middle east would be arguing about who was first in the queue to fire a nuclear weapon at it. ;)
-
Security through mutually assured destruction, as they used to say..
-
Yup. :y.......if bloke comes at you with a baseball bat and then realises that you have an even bigger baseball bat, he might just stop and think. ;)
-
Yep, unfortunately then he goes off and buys a bat bigger than yours, so you have to go and get a bigger bat, and so on, until you both have bats big enough to end all (human) life on the planet.
At which point it's all getting a bit silly, but what can you do? The other bloke won't give up his bat while you have yours, and while neither of you were looking the bloke around the corner jury rigged some power stations into bats of his own..
-
actually, if you study game-theory, MAD is inevitable as eventually an event will be triggered that causes a state to initiate nuclear warfare - it is absolutely certain, tho it may be weeks, months, decades or centuries - either man's arrogance, stupidity, vanity, religious fundamentalism or greed makes this scenario utterly unavoidable. :(
the only escape is actually for us to scrap all nuclear deterrents leaving others to realise the futility of this zero-sum game, but I suspect we are completely incapable of summoning the necessary courage and will instead continue to plough billions into a pointless weapon- what do you think would happen if Iran were left as the only state with nuclear weapons? or france? or india? or the UK? or the US? nothing would happen. and nothing would continue to happen.
if you're playing poker and everyone else takes their chips and leaves......theres no game to play-hence no game to win. ::)
true story. 8-)
-
You may not be able to win a poker game if everyone else leaves, but you certainly could win a war if everyone else had no weapons - all you have to do is push the button and they're suddenly vaporised.. and if you're only goal is to rid the world of people who don't meet your ideals and/or follow your laws, you've won.
And yes, I can see Ahmadinecrazy doing that!
-
The point is Cem - if we were all to unilaterally disarm the nuclear weapons then we would have nothing to deter the bad guys
nothing :-?
what about all those aircraft carriers, warships,warplanes, helicopters, rockets, tanks , artillery , soldiers .. is that not enough, or is it necessary to spread radioactivity everywhere ?
and at that point, it may be interesting to remember the history..first of all, a power who claim to be the supporter of democracy in the world, supporting shah ;D for long years then after the iran revolution giving arms to Saddam :o and after invading iraq again for democracy then says iran is the devil..would you believe that ? although I hate those mullahs and their dictatorship who mess up with middle east and create the conditions that those mullahs became now the management.. also who helped those religious powers and give arms in afghanistan and now try to destroy..and finally who now help the religious group leader and arrest people in my country >:( >:(
in the simplest form of word thats hypocrisy..
(Iran being one example which springs to mind) from using them against us.
Can you imagine what would happen to Isreal for example if it or its allies didnt have nuclear weapons.
Israel can beat middle east countries with hands down.. and even without shooting a bullet.. thanks to big brother ;D
Its enemies in the middle east would be arguing about who was first in the queue to fire a nuclear weapon at it. ;)
now may be good question to ask , whose idea was to found a country for jews in the middle of many enemies.. :-?
and if we think realistically, no middle east country would have the courage of using nuclear against israel even israel dont have even 1 nuclear head.. conventional weapons may be.. and after the II. world war who have the courage to use it ?
any country with an average level of knowledge can guess that those radioactivity clouds will spread everywhere (except Russia :D ;D )
-
and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..
nope.. not that easy..
-
and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..
Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age? :-?
-
and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..
Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age? :-?
so those weapons pretty useless ;D :y
-
and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..
Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age? :-?
so those weapons pretty useless ;D :y
No - because some countries and some rulers would have no problem at all nuking an entire country.. so therefore the only thing stopping them from doing that is our ability to retaliate with equal or greater force..
-
and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..
Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age? :-?
so those weapons pretty useless ;D :y
No - because some countries and some rulers would have no problem at all nuking an entire country.. so therefore the only thing stopping them from doing that is our ability to retaliate with equal or greater force..
first this theory is lacking the reason/result relationship..dont give a reason them to use nukes then you wont have problem.. simples..
and also if you have enough power to damage the country (without nukes) that threats you there will
be no reason to have them.. and in our case which is UK , imo have enough power and technology to give the answer..
imo no need for ghost enemies.. who do you think will use nuke against UK ? Russia .. for what ?
-
and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..
Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age? :-?
so those weapons pretty useless ;D :y
No - because some countries and some rulers would have no problem at all nuking an entire country.. so therefore the only thing stopping them from doing that is our ability to retaliate with equal or greater force..
first this theory is lacking the reason/result relationship..dont give a reason them to use nukes then you wont have problem.. simples..
and also if you have enough power to damage the country (without nukes) that threats you there will
be no reason to have them.. and in our case which is UK , imo have enough power and technology to give the answer..
imo no need for ghost enemies.. who do you think will use nuke against UK ? Russia .. for what ?
What do you do, then, when their reason for wanting to wipe you out is the simple fact of the way you live? Should we all live by Iranian (to use an example) law? Stone our women? Have them all wear veils etc? That would keep them happy.. maybe.
And no, not Russia - like I say, the states you have to worry about are the 'rogue' states like Iran etc.
As for wiping them out with conventional weapons - the problem is that once they've nuked the UK off the face of the ocean, who is left to command the remaining conventional weapons (the ones at sea, stationed in other countries etc)?
[edit] I'm not arguing that unilateral disarmament and/or world peace & harmony wouldn't be nice things, of course.. that would be great.
Unfortunately if you take away all weapons (including guns.. from America.. ;D ) then it still only takes one bloke with a big stick with a nail in the end of it and then you need one too to defend yourself and .. it all escalates back up.
I don't think an end to the arms race will happen until we transcend beyond physical bodies ;)
-
and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..
Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age? :-?
so those weapons pretty useless ;D :y
No - because some countries and some rulers would have no problem at all nuking an entire country.. so therefore the only thing stopping them from doing that is our ability to retaliate with equal or greater force..
first this theory is lacking the reason/result relationship..dont give a reason them to use nukes then you wont have problem.. simples..
and also if you have enough power to damage the country (without nukes) that threats you there will
be no reason to have them.. and in our case which is UK , imo have enough power and technology to give the answer..
imo no need for ghost enemies.. who do you think will use nuke against UK ? Russia .. for what ?
What do you do, then, when their reason for wanting to wipe you out is the simple fact of the way you live? Should we all live by Iranian (to use an example) law?
of course not..
Stone our women? Have them all wear veils etc?
thats violence and a big a shame..
That would keep them happy.. maybe.
And no, not Russia - like I say, the states you have to worry about are the 'rogue' states like Iran etc.
Aaronjb, at that point I must remind that iran is not a whole united country.. there are many opposing forces/people in that country waiting for the day..
the problem is they cant break the mullahs power..
but threating iran makes them come together..
As for wiping them out with conventional weapons - the problem is that once they've nuked the UK off the face of the ocean, who is left to command the remaining conventional weapons (the ones at sea, stationed in other countries etc)?
thats just an assumption.. :) before something like that happens your intelligence services will have loads of info.. and iran dont have that long range missiles..
let the worry problem for my country as they mess
here more than anywhere else.. >:(
[edit] I'm not arguing that unilateral disarmament and/or world peace & harmony wouldn't be nice things, of course.. that would be great.
Unfortunately if you take away all weapons (including guns.. from America.. ;D )
I'm afraid thats not possible.. the cowboys will always need some toys to play and places to invade..
why .. because their system needs that..
and will always find new enemies ;D ;D
then it still only takes one bloke with a big stick with a nail in the end of it and then you need one too to defend yourself and .. it all escalates back up.
I don't think an end to the arms race will happen until we transcend beyond physical bodies ;)
-
All good points - and I was trying to avoid using Iran as an example all the time, but it was the only one I could come up with ;) I could have said North Korea etc actually, thinking about it and I probably should have kept away from the state/religion angle (because I don't want to end up arguing the relative merits and morals of different religions - personally I don't think any religion is blemish free where it comes to that kind of thing - and as soon as I say Iran it does bring religion into it to an extent)
Anyway, sooner or later they'll all develop long range ICBMs capable of carrying nuclear payloads whether we like it or not :(
And you're right of course, none of those countries are united - it's just a sad fact that right now they're ruled by tyrannical despots ;)
If we could remove all of the reasons for war - greed, famine, etc then we could do away with all weapons .. except there's always the chance of the nutter next door who'll start a fight for no reason (the random serial killers of the despot ruler world, if you will) :(
I think, sadly, the human race is inherently a violent and confrontational race - if we ever evolve past that, then we can get rid of all the weapons ;)
Anyway.. I trust you know I'm not trying to argue with you, just different points of view :)
-
All good points - and I was trying to avoid using Iran as an example all the time, but it was the only one I could come up with ;) I could have said North Korea etc actually, thinking about it and I probably should have kept away from the state/religion angle (because I don't want to end up arguing the relative merits and morals of different religions - personally I don't think any religion is blemish free where it comes to that kind of thing - and as soon as I say Iran it does bring religion into it to an extent)
Anyway, sooner or later they'll all develop long range ICBMs capable of carrying nuclear payloads whether we like it or not :(
And you're right of course, none of those countries are united - it's just a sad fact that right now they're ruled by tyrannical despots ;)
If we could remove all of the reasons for war - greed, famine, etc then we could do away with all weapons .. except there's always the chance of the nutter next door who'll start a fight for no reason (the random serial killers of the despot ruler world, if you will) :(
I think, sadly, the human race is inherently a violent and confrontational race - if we ever evolve past that, then we can get rid of all the weapons ;)
Anyway.. I trust you know I'm not trying to argue with you, just different points of view :)
:y :y
here comes the united nations organization into mind..
what does united nations do.. briefly nothing..
(other than some limited helps and paying salaries)
what does united nations say ? ~= what USA says (mostly)
if the most powerful countries of the world dont have nuke, they would have right to say "you cant"
but if you take precautions that will cut their breath and squeeze their economy and threat them everyday they will try evil things.. :-/
-
It is time we had a world government (UN if you like). Too much money is wasted on war.
-
It is time we had a world government (UN if you like). Too much money is wasted on war.
It can never work V because it's in our nature to fight, to be suspicious, to distrust, to hate, to be indolent, to be breakless, to be self-consumed, to be superficial, to be care less, to display avarice and be consumed with jealously.
To name but a few failings of the race.
Why we would want to be governed by a corrupt, inefficient and generally useless organ like the UN is anyone’s guess.
-
It is time we had a world government (UN if you like). Too much money is wasted on war.
It can never work V because it's in our nature to fight, to be suspicious, to distrust, to hate, to be indolent, to be breakless, to be self-consumed, to be superficial, to be care less, to display avarice and be consumed with jealously.
To name but a few failings of the race.
Why we would want to be governed by a corrupt, inefficient and generally useless organ like the UN is anyone’s guess.
Zulu, imo if political visions and expectations of leading countries (at least) intersect UN will be different.. (I also dont believe this sentence ;D ) its something like we build it we break it ;D
-
On the point of nuclear weapons being held under the NnPT by the 5 'Nuclear States' and used as a deterrent, this has proved successful to date.
Nuclear weapons, in reality, will never be eradicated so they must be maintained at a cost. The deterrent value is worth that alone.
Irrespective of what anyone thinks about the United States and her foreign policy she has - through NATO's nuclear weapons sharing arrangements - been an effective guarantor of peace in Europe and a bulwark against Russian (as it now is) designs in the region.
In the coming world order things may well change for the worse, but whatever happens, the deployment of nuclear weapons will always be a possibility irrespective of whether we want it or not.
-
It is time we had a world government (UN if you like). Too much money is wasted on war.
It can never work V because it's in our nature to fight, to be suspicious, to distrust, to hate, to be indolent, to be breakless, to be self-consumed, to be superficial, to be care less, to display avarice and be consumed with jealously.
To name but a few failings of the race.
Why we would want to be governed by a corrupt, inefficient and generally useless organ like the UN is anyone’s guess.
Zulu, imo if political visions and expectations of leading countries (at least) intersect UN will be different.. (I also dont believe this sentence ;D ) its something like we build it we break it ;D
its something like we build it we break it
We (as a race) are very good at that cem.
political visions and expectations of leading countries (at least) intersect
Desirable as that is cem I don't see it happening in the near to middle future. There's another international conflict to fight yet.
-
the Human race as a whole has one main downfall, which if not eradicated, makes all other arguments ineffective. GREED.
There will ALWAYS be one person that wants what another has got, and will be prepared to take it away from them by superior force, be it a possession, or a country. FACT.
Until this "fatal flaw" is gone, we will always need something to protect us with, be it a weapon, ( or the threat of using it.) or the assimilation of a superior force to take it away from them with. (WAR).
Nuclear is just the latest in a long line of more and more fatal weapons that are capable now of wiping out the human race many times. (overkill)
This posturing and backing off will continue until eventually there will be a complete war to end all wars, when very little will exist afterwards, and very few will survive. Then the cycle will start all over again.................. :-X :-X
-
the Human race as a whole has one main downfall, which if not eradicated, makes all other arguments ineffective. GREED.
There will ALWAYS be one person that wants what another has got, and will be prepared to take it away from them by superior force, be it a possession, or a country. FACT.
Until this "fatal flaw" is gone, we will always need something to protect us with, be it a weapon, ( or the threat of using it.) or the assimilation of a superior force to take it away from them with. (WAR).
Nuclear is just the latest in a long line of more and more fatal weapons that are capable now of wiping out the human race many times. (overkill)
This posturing and backing off will continue until eventually there will be a complete war to end all wars, when very little will exist afterwards, and very few will survive. Then the cycle will start all over again.................. :-X :-X
how do you know we haven't been here and done this several times and we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over :o
actually.....get Professor Hawking on the batphone - I think I know what happened before the Big Bang ;D 8-)
-
I see Hilary Clinton is now moaning about Britain's possible military cuts. Good on Cameron for saying we will do our bit via NATO. He must have taken note of what I have been saying to him.
The special relationship flourishes!! Do as we say
Maybe the best thing would be to pretend to continue spending but just create inflatable pretend nuclear weapons for a fraction of the price. I know the Russians already do this with tanks and so on. That would keep everyone happy. The warmongers and scaredy cats would have their "security" and the rest of us would have less cuts to actually affect us.