Nuclar weapons Debate

Japan and Germany aren't allowed nuclear weapons for obvious reasons.

Although, the Luftwaffe were/are capable of delivering US tactical warheads.

Japan and Germany aren't allowed nuclear weapons for obvious reasons.

America and all other NATO countries do not have a choice, they are obilged to help any NATO country that is being attacked. If they don't, the whole alliance falls apart and every country will rush to make their own nuclear weapons.

NATO is the only reason why Germany don't have it own nuclear weapons, they certainly have the materials and know how to build their own nukes and delivery systems.

Likewise, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all rely on America for their ultimate defence against China and Russia. America's guarantee keeps them nuclear free even though they all have the materials and technical resources to make nukes.

And America is becoming increasingly annoyed that all of its allies neglect their own defense because they think "America will save us if we are attacked". Unless the UK starts contributing to USA defenses, when push comes to shove the citizens of the USA may choose not to retaliate in the event of a nuclear strike on your country, despite NATO. The USA is above NATO.

Who is going to stop them if they wanted nukes?

You are talking nonesense. Britain has enough nuclear weapons to completely destory any country that attacks it with nuclear weapons incluing China and Russia.

While America would like other NATO countries to spend more on defence, it does not want them to spend too much and become more independent. If they did, America would loose influence and beocme less relevant. If Britain, France and Germany spent more and had more capable forces, America would become less significant.

Likewise in the far east, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan don't need America but America still wants to have influence in the area to counter China and Russia so America spend billions on military bases in these countries. Japan in particular and becoming more hostile to having so many American military personnel on its soil but America don't want to leave and the country and area.

If there was any hint that America would not use all its weapons including nuclear ones to defend NATO countries and those countries America has guaranteed, there will be a scramble by all nuclear capable countries to acquire their own nukes and delivery systems. Germany, Japan, S Korea and Taiwan could get its own nukes in a decade or less but they don't because America has to be a creditable defence.

Russia and China knows America is serious about defending countries it guarantees so they keep their distance.

You are talking nonesense. Britain has enough nuclear weapons to completely destory any country that attacks it with nuclear weapons incluing China and Russia.

While America would like other NATO countries to spend more on defence, it does not want them to spend too much and become more independent. If they did, America would loose influence and beocme less relevant. If Britain, France and Germany spent more and had more capable forces, America would become less significant.

Likewise in the far east, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan don't need America but America still wants to have influence in the area to counter China and Russia so America spend billions on military bases in these countries. Japan in particular and becoming more hostile to having so many American military personnel on its soil but America don't want to leave and the country and area.

If there was any hint that America would not use all its weapons including nuclear ones to defend NATO countries and those countries America has guaranteed, there will be a scramble by all nuclear capable countries to acquire their own nukes and delivery systems. Germany, Japan, S Korea and Taiwan could get its own nukes in a decade or less but they don't because America has to be a creditable defence.

Russia and China knows America is serious about defending countries it guarantees so they keep their distance.

I voted in the referendum and yes I would love to see trident removed.

I see. Well could you perhaps explain your reasoning a little more? I'd be interested to hear if someone actually has a cogent argument here.

As I saw it, and still do given the continued insistence by the SNP on the subject, what difference would it make? If you're against nuclear weapons then you're against them being anywhere. The UK government had no intention of abandoning the whole idea if independence had occurred.

Just getting them out of Scotland seemed on a par with Pilate saying he'd washed his hands of the matter. It might be a comforting salve to your conscience but it doesn't solve the problem itself.

The UK doesn't actually have enough nuclear war heads to destroy potential enemies. We have a token deterrent to ensure that we hurt any would be aggressor. We only have one v boat on station at any one time, they're not fully armed and if we look at Russia for example, it has a rather affective anti ICBM system in place. So looking at number of warheads on station, a given percentage will fail to launch, a given percentage will be intercepted or decoyed off target and a given percentage will fail to detonate, we have a token presence.

America, or any other country isn't going to open itself up to a nuclear exchange to protect another country unless it has to. The Cold War demonstrated that the soviets would've been able to liberally use tactical nukes in Germany, holland, Belgium etc. NATO would've responded in kind with tactical nukes in the Warsaw Pact countries, but it was made quite clear by the big boys in the club, UK, USA, France and Russia that if those countries were hit then nuclear doctrine would've authorised strategic nuclear release. To make it simpler to understand, had the Cold War turned hot, the army and the RAF would've used their nukes in Central Europe whilst the navy's Polaris was sat in reserve to ensure the UK wasn't hit.

The countries you've named there most certainly have the capability to build nuclear warheads, but as signatories of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, they are bound by international law not to develop them, and in the case of Germany and Japan, following WW2, not even their allies would tolerate them becoming nuclear

There was a nuclear sharing agreement in NATO whereby countries in NATO could deliver American made, NATO held nuckear weaponry, but the safeguards in place ways meant that the Americans always looked after, armed and generally controlled the warheads. All the NATO nation had to do was deliver it by airplane, but that was from a tactical level and not strategic.

In response to the first bold comment, yes UK has enough to defend itself, but aren't we talking about if the UK decides to remove their nuclear weapons?

How can the UK remove their nuclear weapons and yet still have enough nuclear weapons to defend themselves?

In response to the rest I ask you this: If you support the UK removing their nuclear weapons, would you also be in support of the US removing all of their nuclear weapons too, or if the US did so would you again support the UK reintroducing nuclear weapons? Would you be in support of a total nuclear disarmament of NATO, or do you still support NATO holding nuclear weapons? Is it that you want the UK to reap the benefit of a nuclear deterrent without having to contribute its own weapons?

You are incorrect. Britain has at least one Vangard sub carrying 16 Trident missiles with up to 12 MIRVs per missile at sea at any one time. That is 182 warheads. If tensions rise with Russia for example, all 4 Vangard subs could be sent to sea, That would be around 500 nuclear warheads available. Britain could also build more air dropped nuclear bombs, its got a huge stockpile of plutonium.

You know any ABM system can be overwhelmed if you fire enough missiles at it and the cost of making ABM more effective is much more than building additional balastic missiles so ABM systems are only intended to protect from a very limited attack, not one from potentially dozens of missiles.

Any international treaty is only as good as the country that follows it. There is no guarantee countries will not change their mind or develop weapons ln secret like Israel for example.

The vanguard class subamrines have the ability to carry 16 trident missiles with 12 MIRS. My car has the capability to carry 5 people. But I often drive it by myself. See what I'm getting there. The boats aren't fully bombed up with buckets of instant sunshine.

To put it another way. Trident has the ability to carry 12 x 16 warheads which is 192.

It's estimated that the UK only has 170 warheads. When you factor those being unloaded from a boat just come off patrol and going off for maintenance and those being prepared to be loaded for the next boat on a cycle, then as a result, the boat on deployment can't carry maximum load out because the numbers aren't there. We don't have 500 warheads.

I never said that the Russian ABM shield is fully 100% effective. But it would impact on the number of warheads landing on target.

The old A35 system was nuclear tipped to overcome accuracy problems.

You are right that any treaty is as good as the one that follows it, but when you consider that both gaddafi and Hussein broke that treaty in the past, and Iran is under huge sanctions at the moment you'll see that huge amounts of global pressure can, and does get applied.

No one has applied any sanctions on Israel who is strongly rumoured to have nuclear weapons and delivery system. While it is easy to sanction a realtively minor country like Iran, it would be all but impossible to apply meaningful sanctions on G7 countries like Japan and Germany without serious economic and political consequences for the US and Europe.

Britain is not at war and has no enemies that are likely to use nuclear weapons against it. I expect neither Russia and China have all their nuclear weapons on a war footing ready to be fired at a moments notice. If tensions increase, no doubt each nuclear armed country will increase their state of readiness to use nuclear weapons and will be seen as provocative to other nuclear armed countries who will in turn increase their nuclear weapons readiness.

Fortunately, what you describe is Britain and other nuclear armed countries in a relatively low state of readiness reflecting the low level of threat.

Israel has never signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and has never publicly stated that it has them.

As I've explained before. Germany and Japan have pretty much been forbidden from developing nuclear weapons due to their actions in WW2 and although you're right about their economy, it has helped them because their defence has been guaranteed by the allied occupying armies left over from WW2 defending them during the Cold War and post Cold War period.

Since the late 90s, Russia has been rearming its military. To overcome the short term capability ago the Russians have effectively been modifying their ICBM systems with the introduction of the land based SS27 and sub launched SS NX 32.

So although Russia and other couriers are unlikely to use them, this is oy because of the threat of a return nuear strike.

The Russians/soviets actually thought they'd be able to survive and win in a nuclear exchange in Europe. In fact, declassified soviet papers after the Cold War showed that one if their plans was a preemptive strike on western Germany followed by the soviet third shock army marching through the aftermath in order to secure the channel ports and western French ports.

For those with a desire to actually research this rather than spout out unreliable opinion might I recommend this book.

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Cold_War.html?id=dY3mAAAACAAJ

It pretty much explains how during the Cold War, the soviets outnumbered the NATO troops in men and material by about a ratio of three to one and nuclear weapons we're the only viable defence against a soviet attack.

I don't think Iran, N Korea or Iraq under Saddam's rule signed nuclear none proliferation treaties but that did not stop sanctions being imposed on them.

Russia updating its arms is no msurprise, all countries do that but the problem is not the weapons, its the targets. You can't move Moscow or St Petersburg or have an ABM system that will protect any target against a full ICBM attack. MAD still applies.

Russia annexed a part of another country just this year.

You are right that countries invading one another to take their land is less common now than in previous times, as might be world wars. This trend seems to have begun around August 6 1945. Coincidence?

They voted to be a part of russia.

Posted from TSR Mobile

In a rather sham poll that hasn't been recognised internationally.