Corbyn’s childlike and simplistic argument? .....

[hans kraay fan club]

Yes, put like that, it is weird. Presumably you need to flatten loads of Moscows in any one country! Perhaps someone can enlighten us?

Indeed. Why would you need to do that. If we are merely seeking a deterrent, then surely in the mind of Putin, having 'just' his capital city, his government, millions of people, including many of his freinds and family, and hundreds of years of history, is ENOUGH, no?

 

[Hastings gull]

Indeed. Why would you need to do that. If we are merely seeking a deterrent, then surely in the mind of Putin, having 'just' his capital city, his government, millions of people, including many of his freinds and family, and hundreds of years of history, is ENOUGH, no?

Yes, the stockpiling over the years was undoubtedly not necessary, as only a few are needed for the deterrent. As to how many, who knows? I certainly don't know the figures. Are we announcing how many we have? And would that be a good idea? I suppose it all boils down to trust - if Putin said that he would unilaterally reduce his number to "just" 10, say, would we believe him and follow suit? A greater brain than mine is needed here!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Yes, the stockpiling over the years was undoubtedly not necessary, as only a few are needed for the deterrent. As to how many, who knows? I certainly don't know the figures. Are we announcing how many we have? And would that be a good idea? I suppose it all boils down to trust - if Putin said that he would unilaterally reduce his number to "just" 10, say, would we believe him and follow suit? A greater brain than mine is needed here!

I don't think so.

If say, 10 warheads are enough to flatten / poison / elimate from history, the major cities of any country on earth, what are you going to do with any more?

If Vlad says he'll reduce to 10, and you follow suit, then subsequently he says, "Sorry, I had my fingers crossed behind my back. I've actually got 3,000 still" - what does it matter? What can he do with the extra 2,990 that he couldn't do with the 10?

And meanwhile, all the money he's wasting on entirely superflous extra nukes, we're protecting / reinforcing our ground forces, navy and air force - the stuff we actually CAN use to fight global threats.

 

[cunning fergus]

I don't think so.

If say, 10 warheads are enough to flatten / poison / elimate from history, the major cities of any country on earth, what are you going to do with any more?

If Vlad says he'll reduce to 10, and you follow suit, then subsequently he says, "Sorry, I had my fingers crossed behind my back. I've actually got 3,000 still" - what does it matter? What can he do with the extra 2,990 that he couldn't do with the 10?

And meanwhile, all the money he's wasting on entirely superflous extra nukes, we're protecting / reinforcing our ground forces, navy and air force - the stuff we actually CAN use to fight global threats.

You are ignoring the importance of delivery systems, and the need to have more than one option, not least in case it is neutralised or fails.

The U.K. has 4 subs, therefore we have 4x chances of delivery which would mean on your logic we need at least 40 warheads.

The US and Russia have other means other than subs and therefore they need a maximum coverage for their respective delivery systems.

Makes sense now?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

You are ignoring the importance of delivery systems, and the need to have more than one option, not least in case it is neutralised or fails.

The U.K. has 4 subs, therefore we have 4x chances of delivery which would mean on your logic we need at least 40 warheads.

The US and Russia have other means other than subs and therefore they need a maximum coverage for their respective delivery systems.

Makes sense now?

My figure of 10 wasn't based on any expert analysis, of the actual required number. Perhaps I should have come clean and admitted up front that I'm actually NOT a nuclear armaments specialist?

Point still stands, 100%. There is a figure needed to stand as a viable threat / deterrant, and any above that are entirlely superfluous.

 

[glasfryn]

You are ignoring the importance of delivery systems, and the need to have more than one option, not least in case it is neutralised or fails.

The U.K. has 4 subs, therefore we have 4x chances of delivery which would mean on your logic we need at least 40 warheads.

The US and Russia have other means other than subs and therefore they need a maximum coverage for their respective delivery systems.

Makes sense now?

I think we only ever have one out at any time, so we have 10 unless you count on throwing at the enemy.
some guy talking on the TV the other day was saying that the orders of the PM are in a sealed communication and that he thought (did not actually know) that there were 4 choices
use what missiles you can to attack the enemy
give yourself over to a friendly state ie:- Australia, USA
do nothing and look out for yourself
and I cannot remember the 4th one, but he thought that of late most PM's had left orders that did not include using the missiles to attack the enemy all a big guess but nevertheless interesting
so all in all a wasted arguement if the government has gone (which probably means we were attacked first) the RED BUTTON is on a sub god knows where and if its the last British sub then the commander can do what the **** he likes and nobody would know

 

[cunning fergus]

My figure of 10 wasn't based on any expert analysis, of the actual required number. Perhaps I should have come clean and admitted up front that I'm actually NOT a nuclear armaments specialist?

Point still stands, 100%. There is a figure needed to stand as a viable threat / deterrant, and any above that are entirlely superfluous.

I'm not an expert easier, but if 10 is the number needed to represent apocalypse you would need more than that number subject to your respective delivery systems.

Similarly warheads would be stockpiled in key strategic places, spreading these around your country increases the likelihood of being able to retaliate if you were subject to a surprise attack.

Whilst 10 may be all you need to ensure destruction, having 3000 means your enemy better make sure he destroys them all should he want to attack you.

If we applied your logic to football it's like you are saying you only need a squad of 11 players, everyone else is superfluous..............

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If we applied your logic to football it's like you are saying you only need a squad of 11 players, everyone else is superfluous..............

That is a terrible, terrible analogy!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

You are ignoring the importance of delivery systems, and the need to have more than one option, not least in case it is neutralised or fails.

The U.K. has 4 subs, therefore we have 4x chances of delivery which would mean on your logic we need at least 40 warheads.

The US and Russia have other means other than subs and therefore they need a maximum coverage for their respective delivery systems.

Makes sense now?

Perfect sense and quite a straightforward point to take on board and understand unless of course it doesn't suit your argument !

 

[cunning fergus]

I think we only ever have one out at any time, so we have 10 unless you count on throwing at the enemy.
some guy talking on the TV the other day was saying that the orders of the PM are in a sealed communication and that he thought (did not actually know) that there were 4 choices
use what missiles you can to attack the enemy
give yourself over to a friendly state ie:- Australia, USA
do nothing and look out for yourself
and I cannot remember the 4th one, but he thought that of late most PM's had left orders that did not include using the missiles to attack the enemy all a big guess but nevertheless interesting
so all in all a wasted arguement if the government has gone (which probably means we were attacked first) the RED BUTTON is on a sub god knows where and if its the last British sub then the commander can do what the **** he likes and nobody would know

In the ordinary course I think you are right, however, if a political situation escalated we could field more, it's not like we only have one crew for 4 subs.

On that basis we would need than more than 10 warheads.

The US and Russia have more than subs to deliver warheads, and for strategic contingency reasons they would need more warheads than necessary to equip all delivery systems and ensure contingencies existed in the event of attack.

What's that saying about eggs and baskets?

 

[cunning fergus]

That is a terrible, terrible analogy!

OK I will try another one.............most cars have 5 wheels, but technically they only need 4...........why do you think there is a superfluous one?

 

[BigGully]

OK I will try another one.............most cars have 5 wheels, but technically they only need 4...........why do you think there is a superfluous one?

I am on your side, but thats worse than the first one !!!

Stick to your logical argument and stay off those analogies

 

[cunning fergus]

I am on your side, but thats worse than the first one !!!

Stick to your logical argument and stay off those analogies

Well, analogies for the maintenance of strategic reserves of nuclear warheads are not likely to be easy to come by, however the simple truth is that you need as many as you can deliver, plus spares for contingency and wider strategic reasons.

Everyone has a spare front door key right.............oh shit here I go again!

 

[BrickTamland]

I'm not an expert easier, but if 10 is the number needed to represent apocalypse you would need more than that number subject to your respective delivery systems.

Similarly warheads would be stockpiled in key strategic places, spreading these around your country increases the likelihood of being able to retaliate if you were subject to a surprise attack.

Whilst 10 may be all you need to ensure destruction, having 3000 means your enemy better make sure he destroys them all should he want to attack you.

If we applied your logic to football it's like you are saying you only need a squad of 11 players, everyone else is superfluous..............

Are you Eamonn Holmes in disguise?

 

[Bold Seagull]

 

[CaptainDaveUK]

I've not read all 20 odd pages but presumeably paying for trident over 20 years can be offset to some degree against a much smaller army because no-one will invade a country with a nuclear deterrent. How much does 50K troops over 20 years cost? Say it is 500K per soldier per year, then 50K troops for 20 years = 1/2 Trident. Put it another way, would you rather have 50K troops plus trident or 150K troops and no trident? Sorry if these figures are way out, just trying to say that trident allows us to have a much smaller army.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I've not read all 20 odd pages but presumeably paying for trident over 20 years can be offset to some degree against a much smaller army because no-one will invade a country with a nuclear deterrent. How much does 50K troops over 20 years cost? Say it is 500K per soldier per year, then 50K troops for 20 years = 1/2 Trident. Put it another way, would you rather have 50K troops plus trident or 150K troops and no trident? Sorry if these figures are way out, just trying to say that trident allows us to have a much smaller army.

Or a few F35s at 100 million pounds per plane ( + running costs )

 

[beorhthelm]

Well, analogies for the maintenance of strategic reserves of nuclear warheads are not likely to be easy to come by, however the simple truth is that you need as many as you can deliver, plus spares for contingency and wider strategic reasons.

Everyone has a spare front door key right.............oh shit here I go again!

i thought the squad analogy was spot on. you have a number of submarines that carry a number of missiles, each with multiple warheads (a dozen per missle?). so of that 200 only a quarter tops are on the pitch so to speak, while the rest are on rotation (incidently the army is big on rotation, only a 1/3 available for combat operations iirc)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes, the stockpiling over the years was undoubtedly not necessary, as only a few are needed for the deterrent. As to how many, who knows? I certainly don't know the figures. Are we announcing how many we have? And would that be a good idea? I suppose it all boils down to trust - if Putin said that he would unilaterally reduce his number to "just" 10, say, would we believe him and follow suit? A greater brain than mine is needed here!

If you only had 10, surely it would be easier for your enemy to find out where they were and plan and execute a raid to eliminate these sites through commando type raids, thus being able to strike you with nukes and flatten your major cities without losing their own.

It also adds to the chance of success of an attack because if some are duds, or intercepted, there are others that can ensure the target is reached and destroyed

 

[Igzilla]

If you only had 10, surely it would be easier for your enemy to find out where they were and plan and execute a raid to eliminate these sites through commando type raids, thus being able to strike you with nukes and flatten your major cities without losing their own.

It also adds to the chance of success of an attack because if some are duds, or intercepted, there are others that can ensure the target is reached and destroyed

Remember this...?



This was what frightened me as a boy.