Cantr II Discussion Forum

For those who dont know (Its on uk news but im not sure about other places) Trident in a system of submarines with nuclear missles which are owned by the UK.

It's going to cost the UK goverment 3 billion to renew the trident missles. I am opposed to Tridant as if anybody ever uses nuclear weapons everybody else will as well and it will probably change life as we know it.

So my question is what are peoples views on Trident and nuclear weapons in genreal? UK's economy is in a state and 3 billion pounds is alot of money for something some might argue we dont need or want.

It seems pointless, but you have to do something with the missiles. You can't just leave them lying around.

Well no, I think by renew it means if they are going to pay all the costs for it again and im actually not sure if they actually need to replace the missiles. I think they just need to decide if to pay for the upkeep or not.

I didn't know we are in 3th world war..

Woah! I knew there was alot of nuclear weapons around but I didnt realise just how many

More than a decade and a half after the Cold War ended, the world's combined stockpile of nuclear warheads remain at a very high level: more than 23,300.

Source: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/n ... tatus.html

That's pretty shocking to me

theguy wrote:Woah! I knew there was alot of nuclear weapons around but I didnt realise just how many

More than a decade and a half after the Cold War ended, the world's combined stockpile of nuclear warheads remain at a very high level: more than 23,300.

Source: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/n ... tatus.html

That's pretty shocking to me

Those numbers aren't correct.

There's over 50,000. At least that's what I remember.

USA got most, then Russia, followed by EU combined, and then several others.

Caeser's right. The Northern Hemisphere alone has all the world's nukes, around 50,000 or so, while the Southern has zero. The U.S. has most at the moment, but there are quite a few just sitting around in Russia and central Asia.

yes, everyone knows that using 1 nuke results in total annhiliation.

which is why we have them, it goes under the MAD policy. MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. If you nuke me, i'll nuke you back, and we both die, so dont use a nuke.

As such, we need to keep our delivery systems up to date. If it gets to a point that one country can deploy nukes across the world and defend against them, then MAD no longer works. Its just one guy with the upper hand.

I think its probably an idea to keep some just for deterrent purposes...given the choice between attacking an enemy country which owns several thousand nukes or attacking one without, I'd attack the one without every time (eg: why Iraq was invaded over suspicion of having nukes, whereas North Korea was left alone despite actually having nukes)

It's a bit late to go back on it now, that the system has been instated. That would just be inefficient.

MAD is the beginnings of what seems to be the most lasting peace for humanity since we've gotten the capacity to make wars span the globe . Don't try to ruin it now. Sure, there have been proxy wars and petty military campaigns, but since we've gotten that capacity we've had 2 HUGE wars and since we've gotten the capacity to kill our entire species we've had 1 large war that was a series of proxy wars between two nations. Wee. That's the only real world-wide conflict since WWII.

He's right. The thought that we could all cease to exist tomorrow has ushered in the most peaceful period in the history of the human species. Less people have died from war since WWII than any other period in human history.

As for missiles - it's cheaper to keep them maintained. If you don't, what do you do with them? You can't just throw them in the landfill.

Only three more days until the clowns in North Korea lob their toys at Hawaii! I can't wait! This amuses the heck out of me. If one defies all odds and hits something, there's a pretty good chance N. Korea could cease to exist come July 5th (from a purely conventional kind of armageddon).

For those arguing the pros of MAD strategy: The 80s called and left a message, it has a framework where your policies are not laughable and thinks you might find it useful.


MAD was always nonsense. The only glimmer of sense it may have had was between a US / USSR system, where one could bank to some extent on a rough notion of common sense.

MAD does not work in a system when one party, by whatever means they may have got hold of nuclear ordinance, does not subscribe to such notions of common sense.

Pop quizz:
Who do you nuke if an international organisation of freedom fighters (or terrorists, if you so wish) smuggle nuclear ordinance and detonate it under a major US city?


Re: Doug and keeping missiles maintained.
False. The cheapest option, by far, is to decommission nuclear missiles and warheads and their silos. And deal with the warheads via whatever means you would normally deal with that grade of nuclear waste. Whether you want to sweep it underground somewhere like the current work in Yucca Mountain and pretend it's not there or vitrify it or some other system of disposal. Moreover, decomissioning makes the chances of someone you-don't-want-to-lay-their-hands-on-weapons-grade-plutonium laying their hands on it nil. As there is none to find.

Re: Various: Nukes and lasting peace.
A number of immediate responses come to mind. "Bollocks" seems to me to be the most succinct.
On a more polite note, I'd be interested where that 'less people have died from war since WWII' factoid comes from. I'm certain that is not the case.

Wars are still waged. Wars are increasingly violent and result in harm and loss of life as weapons from earlier periods in the history of the developed nations filter down to places in South and East Asia and especially Africa.

The expanse of the conflict does not necessarily equate to the scale of loss. The war in Iraq is but a drop in an ocean of suffering compared to what goes on in Africa. Just because you may have a myopic world view, does not mean that wars in Africa are not world wars. Their causes, if not their effects, are international. To claim nukes have heralded peace is frankly sickening. What it has meant is that nuclear owning nations have become experts at getting other people to do their fighting for them.



The cheapest solution, the most peaceful solution, the safest solution, to the 'fact' of nuclear weapons is to internationally ban them. For all those stockpiles to be decomissioned and made unusable. For proliferation (whether new or as 'replacement) to halt, and for non-nuclear nations to agree or be policed if needs be into not developing their own.

MAD is not laughable in the least bit. The idea of international 'terrorists' getting their hands on nuclear ordinance and the detonation at ground level doing much more damage than a couple of traditional explosives is laughable.

I'd like to make some points here:

Most 'terrorists' have a legitimate beef with the west whether or not their attacks on citizens are warranted is a whole other spectrum of things. I'd LOVE to see how you suggest someone get nuclear ordinance into a populace center than set it off without someone saying "What the frick are you doing good sir?" it's not like setting down a conventional eplosive with a wire and a couple fuses. A nuclear weapon is a high-maintenance complicated ordeal.

Nuclear bombs don't do much more than normal ordinance at ground level. The only way for this to happen is for an international terrorist organization to get their hands on a few billion dollars of illegal weapons only manufactured and closely monitored by the superpowers if you can call them that at this point. IE silos/submarines that are capable of launching a nuclear war head. So since you can't smuggle a silo...

Saying the world is worse than ever is ridiculous and being ungrateful to everyone and everything that's pushed so hard to get our race this far. Our race is by far in a much better position than it's EVER been.

EDIT:
Since I know I'm going to get "They won't set it off at ground level." they would have NO choice. Tell me a place that's higher than a skycraper the average guy could smuggle nuclear ordinance. Planes would be impossible etc.

formerly known as hf wrote:For those arguing the pros of MAD strategy: The 80s called and left a message, it has a framework where your policies are not laughable and thinks you might find it useful.


MAD was always nonsense. The only glimmer of sense it may have had was between a US / USSR system, where one could bank to some extent on a rough notion of common sense.

MAD does not work in a system when one party, by whatever means they may have got hold of nuclear ordinance, does not subscribe to such notions of common sense.

Pop quizz:
Who do you nuke if an international organisation of freedom fighters (or terrorists, if you so wish) smuggle nuclear ordinance and detonate it under a major US city?


Re: Doug and keeping missiles maintained.
False. The cheapest option, by far, is to decommission nuclear missiles and warheads and their silos. And deal with the warheads via whatever means you would normally deal with that grade of nuclear waste. Whether you want to sweep it underground somewhere like the current work in Yucca Mountain and pretend it's not there or vitrify it or some other system of disposal. Moreover, decomissioning makes the chances of someone you-don't-want-to-lay-their-hands-on-weapons-grade-plutonium laying their hands on it nil. As there is none to find.

Re: Various: Nukes and lasting peace.
A number of immediate responses come to mind. "Bollocks" seems to me to be the most succinct.
On a more polite note, I'd be interested where that 'less people have died from war since WWII' factoid comes from. I'm certain that is not the case.

Wars are still waged. Wars are increasingly violent and result in harm and loss of life as weapons from earlier periods in the history of the developed nations filter down to places in South and East Asia and especially Africa.

The expanse of the conflict does not necessarily equate to the scale of loss. The war in Iraq is but a drop in an ocean of suffering compared to what goes on in Africa. Just because you may have a myopic world view, does not mean that wars in Africa are not world wars. Their causes, if not their effects, are international. To claim nukes have heralded peace is frankly sickening. What it has meant is that nuclear owning nations have become experts at getting other people to do their fighting for them.



The cheapest solution, the most peaceful solution, the safest solution, to the 'fact' of nuclear weapons is to internationally ban them. For all those stockpiles to be decomissioned and made unusable. For proliferation (whether new or as 'replacement) to halt, and for non-nuclear nations to agree or be policed if needs be into not developing their own.

Fucking thank you for saying that. You worded it better than I could of, and it bloody well needed to be said (not that it seems the people you're contesting will listen). But at least those points are out there for people to see and realise....