Increasing our nuclear warhead numbers

Low_Key

Well-known member
mad when you think that if anyone drops just 3 or 4 of these things it won't matter anyway as we will all be burnt to death in a nuclear winter
 

Steer

Well-known member
Surely nuclear weapons are an out-dated response to the 1980s cold war type situation.

Todays wars are messy civil wars in unstable countries. Afghanistan, Syria etc. What use is a nuke then?
 

Randy

Well-known member
I'd read recently that due to the age of our military equipment, low personnel numbers and the amount of military equipment we have, if Russia did invade this country we wouldn't be able to stop them without assistance from another country.

That is a disgrace.
 

Youngie

Well-known member
Read on another site that it’s something to do with a reduction in actual missiles on the subs but increasing the warheads on the missiles that remain so that they still have the same coverage.... or at least that’s how I read it but I’m no expert.

The pacific adventure for the QE is a freedom of navigation exercise to make it clear to China not to corner off the South China Sea. I think it has something to do with showing our allies in the area that we are committed to it still.... thus in turn means they lend there support to the carrier group by letting their destroyers and frigates sail with us and release our assets back to other tasks
 

Centralscrutinizer

Well-known member
I'd read recently that due to the age of our military equipment, low personnel numbers and the amount of military equipment we have, if Russia did invade this country we wouldn't be able to stop them without assistance from another country.

That is a disgrace.
That's always been the case I reckon. The other country needs to be the USA of course. We do have the nukes as a deterrent and the Russians would need to get here first.
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
I'd read recently that due to the age of our military equipment, low personnel numbers and the amount of military equipment we have, if Russia did invade this country we wouldn't be able to stop them without assistance from another country.

That is a disgrace.
Good job we aren't alienating ourselves from our neighbours then!

To be honest there aren't many countries in the world that could repel an attack from Russia. Probably none in Europe so its not that bad.
 

bear66

Well-known member
Read on another site that it’s something to do with a reduction in actual missiles on the subs but increasing the warheads on the missiles that remain so that they still have the same coverage.... or at least that’s how I read it but I’m no expert.

The pacific adventure for the QE is a freedom of navigation exercise to make it clear to China not to corner off the South China Sea. I think it has something to do with showing our allies in the area that we are committed to it still.... thus in turn means they lend there support to the carrier group by letting their destroyers and frigates sail with us and release our assets back to other tasks
Discussion on the Asia Pacific tilt here

The accusation of a return to colonialism has already been made and it could backfire as they suggest.

The Communist party-owned China Daily newspaper said that in posing as a defender of free waterways the UK may be hoping to provoke neutral countries in the region to side with the west against China, when in reality these countries do not want to be forced to pick sides in a great power struggle.
 

masquesmog

Active member
... Sir Humphrey explains ....

for some reason the clip omits the punchline, which goes something like ...

Humphrey. "It's because of the French. They have nuclear weapons, so we need them."
Prime Minster. "The French? We are not a war with the French!"
Humphrey. "Not at the moment. But we were at war with them for almost 400 years. It could flare up at any time."
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
I'd read recently that due to the age of our military equipment, low personnel numbers and the amount of military equipment we have, if Russia did invade this country we wouldn't be able to stop them without assistance from another country.

That is a disgrace.
Not really a disgrace, Russia is absolutely massive and has a much greater population than us, they could outmuscle most. We had our time near the top of the military tree a long time ago, and we've been on our way down since.

There are bigger countries in the world, with more manpower, more natural resources, bigger budgets and they will catch us up economically and military wise faster than we can outrun them, eventually, everything finds it's level. A small country like us can't keep up with others as they increase their economies and military.

Best thing for us to do would be to cut the military budget, closer to what other NATO nations provide and ally closer with NATO in a lower-level role. There's no need for us to try and police the world. We spend about 2.5% of GDP on defence, but defence from who? If anyone attacks NATO, then NATO would retaliate, and being part of NATO is also being part of a wider force, safety in numbers.

We should cut that 2.5% to 2%, and be nearer to the guideline.

1615883602125.png
 

jam69

Well-known member
I'd read recently that due to the age of our military equipment, low personnel numbers and the amount of military equipment we have, if Russia did invade this country we wouldn't be able to stop them without assistance from another country.

That is a disgrace.
Or a invasion from Mars, neither of which are going to happen, though Mars is the more likely of the two.
 

Billyzin

Well-known member
"I'd read recently that due to the age of our military equipment, low personnel numbers and the amount of military equipment we have, if Russia did invade this country we wouldn't be able to stop them without assistance from another country.

That is a disgrace."

They have already invaded the country via social media and by greasing the right palms.

All without any deterrent whatsoever.
 

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret

Well-known member
We should get rid of all of our nuclear missiles and just tell the world we've developed a new disease. Why bother with nuclear missiles when a virus leaves infrastructure intact and has an unclear point of origin. Mutally assured destruction does not work if you can't be assured where the destruction is coming from. You don't even need to develop a virus. Just tell them you have. We live in a world of soup now, and we're still spending our money on forks.
 

Lemmy_kilmister

Well-known member
We're going to the far East to continue our links with and carry out exercises with our FPDA allies.
It's nothing new, it used to happen every year. I did one on HMS Illustrious in 1997. We did a two week exercise off Tioman Island then into Singapore for a two week maintenance period (most expensive fortnight of my life, but had a fantastic time).
I'm privy to info on what's happening, but not going to say when, where and with who,just to say that there will be a lot of opportunities for interoperability with other nations.
 

Randy

Well-known member
Good job we aren't alienating ourselves from our neighbours then!

To be honest there aren't many countries in the world that could repel an attack from Russia. Probably none in Europe so its not that bad.

Russia is still using equipment from the cold war era but a bigger country yes.

Every country in the world should get rid of nuclear weapons. Pipe dream I know.
 

WoodallServices

Well-known member
"I'd read recently that due to the age of our military equipment, low personnel numbers and the amount of military equipment we have, if Russia did invade this country we wouldn't be able to stop them without assistance from another country.

That is a disgrace."

They have already invaded the country via social media and by greasing the right palms.

All without any deterrent whatsoever.
Having read about a Russian....yes Russian company fitting out Boris’s fancy new media room they’ll know what our response well be before the message reaches our armed forces anyway.
 
Last edited:
Top