Metropol

I still fail to see the reasoning why we need them as a "deterrant." The whole point of the cold war deterrant excuse was because if Russia fired at us, we'd fire back. It was mutually assured destruction, a preposterous concept if there ever was one.

So now, we're stuck with a few countries holding nuclear weapons, lording it over other countries who try to get them. And I'm sorry, who the hell are we to have the utter gall to tell Iran / North Korea they can't have them when we're wanting to replace ours.

Apparently the first question you get asked as PM is "would you fire back?" I find it a facinating question because it shows that what you're advocating by firing back is a revenge against (mostly) innocent civilians for your own losses. Because that's what the things do, they don't target the leaders or the troops, they just ruin everything, and that's why they should be disposed of.

And exactly what is your point of "what happens when someone invents the megabomb"? Erm, we lose? What good are sticks and stones against nuclear weapons, what good are nuclear weapons against your fabled death star?

Would you fire back Chie? Say if, erm, India had a military coup, against the wishes of its population, and randomly blew up Sheffield. What would you do?

Chie wrote:I'm talking more in terms of people in previous decades falsely believing the world had self-actualised and that the future was going to be great.

Has it been as great as you thought it would be? Did you expect all the bad things that have happened since then, to happen?

Aside from technological advances and society's greater tolerance, I'd not say there were that many difference between then and now.

I can remember environmental concerns being very hot in the 80s.

Chie wrote:Did you expect all the bad things that have happened since then, to happen?

I doubt anyone could stand at any point in time and have an expectation of bad things that would come in the future.

"Ooooh. 1065. Happy New Year. Better enjoy things while they lasts before those bloody Normans arrive."

"I can't believe its 1330 already. We're so advanced with our medicine skills. What a shame the Black Death will be along in a few years to wipe loads of us out."

"Happy 1900. Here's to no more war! Oh wait. I have a horrible feeling Germany may be a bit of a bugger in the next few years."

Hymagumba wrote:I still fail to see the reasoning why we need them as a "deterrant." The whole point of the cold war deterrant excuse was because if Russia fired at us, we'd fire back. It was mutually assured destruction, a preposterous concept if there ever was one.

The crux of the Cold War was about the Soviets encroaching on western Europe in the aftermath of WWII like a flock of vultures. Our nuclear deterrent did its job by deterring them from attempting to annex western Europe with the Soviet Union to expand their communist empire, because if they had tried, we, the Americans and the French would have flattened them without mercy. We just didn't have the money or the manpower to fight yet another conventional war at the time. So it's a good thing we did have nuclear weapons, otherwise that bunch of opportunists would have had us all speaking Russian a long time ago.

Hymagumba wrote:So now, we're stuck with a few countries holding nuclear weapons, lording it over other countries who try to get them. And I'm sorry, who the hell are we to have the utter gall to tell Iran / North Korea they can't have them when we're wanting to replace ours.

I can't abide the CND hypocrisy of wishing for global nuclear disarmament in one breath, followed by endorsing an increase in the number of nuclear weapons that exist by using the old 'but if we're allowed to have nuclear weapons then they should too' argument in the next.

Hymagumba wrote:Apparently the first question you get asked as PM is "would you fire back?" I find it a facinating question because it shows that what you're advocating by firing back is a revenge against (mostly) innocent civilians for your own losses. Because that's what the things do, they don't target the leaders or the troops, they just ruin everything, and that's why they should be disposed of.

Nuclear delivery systems are much more precise now than during the Cold War, so the days of wiping out entire cities being the only option available are long gone. We now have the surveillance technology to find out exactly where government bunkers are and the nuclear bunker busting missiles to decimate them with, so the civilian death toll would hopefully not be as dramatic as in the past.

In any case, you have to remember that during times of war (and I'm being pragmatic here so please don't think I'm heartless or anything) we don't kill innocent civilians, as such, because those civilians are helping the war effort in their country by manufacturing aircraft, bombs, ammunition, clothes, food, every other supply you can name and generally keeping the effort going. So you bomb factories, financial centres, infrastructure and so on until the country is in such a state that it can no longer carry on fighting the war. And yeah, people do die in that process unfortunately. But it's them or you, isn't it?

Hymagumba wrote:And exactly what is your point of "what happens when someone invents the megabomb"? Erm, we lose? What good are sticks and stones against nuclear weapons, what good are nuclear weapons against your fabled death star?

Nuclear weapons are better than nothing against our hypothetical Death Star. That's a bit like saying 'oh what's the use - they've got bigger sticks and stones than us, so let's give up and die'. No. You put up a fight - using lots of little sticks and stones together with your wits against their handful of bigger ones.

Hymagumba wrote:Would you fire back Chie? Say if, erm, India had a military coup, against the wishes of its population, and randomly blew up Sheffield. What would you do?

If India fired at us and we knew for sure they were going to present a continuous threat then I'm afraid we'd have to keep bombing them until either they surrendered or there was nothing left to bomb. :(

I think the more relevant question is where you expect a nuclear attack to come from? The Americans and the Russians are looking at cutting back their stockpiles of nukes, and the fewer that there are sitting around, the less likely it is that something can go wrong with them. Having said that my opinion on these things might be a bit coloured given that we are still dealing with the after effects of the UK's nuclear weapons program.

I'm sure for a country like the UK, there are more practical uses for the money than maintaining a nuclear force of somewhat questionable value - especially when you're a part of NATO already. It's not like you haven't got the collective might of the US there, at least in theory, to keep things in order.

The choice of yield for Trident apparently bottoms out at 10kT. At a distance of 1.5 miles from the centre of the blast this would cause second degree burns up to 1.5 miles away and there'd be casualties out to 2 miles.

I mean, in galactic terms that's INCREDIBLY precise. With all this talk of death stars I'm wondering if you have designs on the job title Galactic Overlord, chie.

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/nucle ... impact.htm

Admittedly I just googled for the first numbers I could find, so they might not be right. Either way I didn't think we had any tactical nuclear weapons in Trident. I'm pretty sure that's what the americans have been developing recently.

Chie wrote:it's them or you, isn't it?

Crikey!

*digs out state of nature theory textbooks*

Can we vote Chie out?

Alexia wrote:Can we vote Chie out?

Only with 55% of the vote, according to Mr Cameron.

Gavin Scott wrote:

Alexia wrote:Can we vote Chie out?

Only with 55% of the vote, according to Mr Cameron.

I'm not anticipating much of a problem exceeding that quota.

Sadly he means 55% of everyone signed up to metro, which makes it more than 370