Who's Aiming Nukes at Whom?

[Wolfala]

Gentlemen...calm down...have some dip.


I taught a class on Nuclear Weapons, War and Arms Control during college so lets clarify a few things.

1.  There is very little distinction between TACTICAL and STRATEGIC weapons except when examining the ranges of the launch platform. For example...

         * A B-61 thermonuclear freefall bomb that can be mated to any nato aircraft with a 2,000 lug is a tactical weapon by defination of its range. It makes no mention of the yield which can be anywhere from 0.1 KT to 600 KT.
          *The Trident D5 currently on Ohio SLBM's and British Vanguard submarines (Though the Vanguard might have the earlier Trident varient) carry the W-88 physics package (the actual fissile material), and each warhead having an approximate yield between 90 and 300KT each.
          * If you remember, the SALT treaty's which limited the types of weapons systems and launch platforms that could be deployed on either side of the fence. Which in essence eliminated the GLCM (Ground based Tomohawk missile), Pershing & Honest John IRBMs that were based in Europe during the Cold War.
                  - Keep in mind the dark joke running around during the Cold War - Europe would be the battlefield - make no mistake. But the problem is, the towns are only a few kilotons apart (speaking to the fact that tactical weapons would cause more trouble then they are worth, leading to the demise of IRBM's pointing at the Soviet Union)


Now - some of you guys mentioned START I, II, and III treaties. START I is in effect, START II was ratified a few years ago and START III - hasn't seen the light of day yet. The Russians want to go below the proposed START II and III weapons limits simply because they cannot afford the $$ and upkeep of the weapons.

While the # of 20,000 of active weapons might seem staggering for a few - keep in mind, there were 2 or 3 times that amount of inactive weapons (and their fissile material - specifically PU-238 pits for the fission triggers) held in RESERVE should they be needed.

So, the problem with disarmament is 1 of $$, and time. IT takes a lot of money, and hellova lot of time to disassemble 50 years worth of nuclear weapons and their associated infrastructure.

As far as France is concerned, sure they have 200 weapons - same as the UK - but no set doctrine on how they employ them. The SIOP pretty much got thrown out the window after the USSR collapse and they have been trying to figure it out ever since.

Best,

Wolf

[lasersailor184]

The world was not about to get blown up during the Cold war.  It was never close to getting blown up.  EVER.

All these countries that have them have something to lose from Mutually assured destruction.  So there is no reason to initiate a launching.


Now, we consider North Korea and Iran.  A bunch of fanatics.  They really don't have anything to lose.  They can initiate the launching.  And that's why we need two large parking lots.


Now.

[Dune]

What was the BBC sitcom, "Yes Minister"?

"Sir, we don't have nuclear weapons because the Soviets do.  We have them because the French do."

[mora]

Originally posted by Zulu7
Ok I know it means Nuclear power but thats a bit daft too.

What exactly is the problem with nuclear power? Shouldn't we be reducing CO2 emissions?

[mora]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Now, we consider North Korea and Iran.  A bunch of fanatics.  They really don't have anything to lose.  They can initiate the launching.  And that's why we need two large parking lots.

I think it's a bit silly to compare Iran to NK.

[Zulu7]

Yep I'm all for reducing Co2 emmisions. But half of Europes bloody radiactive waste comes here to Sellafield re processing plant. I don't want Britain to become a dumping ground. Nuclear waste is a real problem and no one has realy come up with a foolproof solution to it.

Oh and theres the small issue of accidents. If a Chernobyl happened to one of our Nuclear power plants we've had it as a nation!:eek:


Nuke the deterance factor was a sham. There were more than one occasion where we went to the brink.  At least one incuident during the eighties that I heard about nearly resulted in a launch by the soviets due to technical failures.

I think its pure luck we are still here at all. So lets get rid of the bloody things full stop. ASAP

[Furball]

Originally posted by Zulu7
So lets get rid of the bloody things full stop. ASAP

That is possibly the most stupid thing that we could do.  We need nukes as a deterrent.  If all nukes were destroyed, what would stop a rogue nation developing it and using it without any possibility of retribution?

I think you need to put a little more thought into your argument before calling to get rid of ALL nuclear weapons, a small, well kept deterrent such as the Royal Navy's is all that is needed.  Reduction of nuclear capability is fine, getting rid of it full stop is just plain idiotic.

How many large scale war's between major nations have we seen since the introduction of the nuke?

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Furball
As it already says.. only nukes british have are in their subs, RAF is a non nuclear force now.

The Royal Navy are the only service able to actually launch a nuke but the RAF hold/can hold nukes and deploy them for the Royal Navy.  The ASU used to be at RAF Wittering but I think it moved to RAF Marham.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Halo
The United States is the only country to station land-based nuclear weapons outside its borders.
(UNQUOTE)

Where do the US hold nukes outside their borders?

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Dune
What was the BBC sitcom, "Yes Minister"?

"Sir, we don't have nuclear weapons because the Soviets do.  We have them because the French do."

Between WW1 and WW2 the majority of RAF bases were built in the south of England because the only recognised threat was France.  It wasn't until the mid-30s that the RAF started to have bases built in the east side of the country.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Replicant
Where do the US hold nukes outside their borders?

As of January 2003, there are 800 operational B61 non-strategic nuclear bombs, earmarked for delivery by various US and NATO aircraft. Another 500 are in reserve. About 150 of the B61 bombs are deployed at nine airbases in six European NATO member states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK), the only US nuclear weapons that are still forward-deployed (other than submarine launched).

[FiLtH]

I dont know whats happened over the past 20 yrs or less. Growing up I was proud to know that France and her tri-color was there beside us, and other countires allied to us.  Its just sad that there is so much negative crap going on.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As of January 2003, there are 800 operational B61 non-strategic nuclear bombs, earmarked for delivery by various US and NATO aircraft. Another 500 are in reserve. About 150 of the B61 bombs are deployed at nine airbases in six European NATO member states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK), the only US nuclear weapons that are still forward-deployed (other than submarine launched).

B61 for use by B52, B1, B2?

[Holden McGroin]

Non-strategic...  I assume they could be delivered by F-111s, F-15s and like aircraft as well.

[Zulu7]

Nukes ? the whole strategy is MAD;)

We don't need em. Its no deterance anymore. These other countries you talk about furball, couldn't give a hoot anyhow, whether we have em or not.  They know that we are never going to realy use them.

We have precision weapons and vastly superior conventional capability. There are other solutions.

To me this is like listening to WW1 general;s rattling on about how we must have cavalry, when what we realy need are more machine guns.


Nukes are a redundant concept. A very blunt weapon. Move on mr stategist please and we can all feel a bit safer and be less likely oto develop some hideous radiation related disease.