Stutopia Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 It's there in case some despot loon fires first, in which case we are all toast anyway. No, it's not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction So you think we'd go MAD as a first strike option, rather than retaliatory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 A question for the wise, would i be right in assuming that if a strike was launched either from us or anyone else, the missiles themselves could at any time be detonated mid flight or have their intended destination altered? Or once the button is pushed there is no comeback? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 We live on a fairly small planet, a modern nuclear yield would affect everyone on it to some degree even in a different hemisphere. The atomic weapons used by the USA against Japan were tiny compared to the destructive force of just one modern warhead held by us now. The fallout can't be controlled or contained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 3, 2017 Author Share Posted June 3, 2017 A question for the wise, would i be right in assuming that if a strike was launched either from us or anyone else, the missiles themselves could at any time be detonated mid flight or have their intended destination altered? Or once the button is pushed there is no comeback? I'd be amazed if there was no failsafe built in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) Missile defence systems exist but are intertwined into the MAD equilibrium. Any side who has such a system is deemed to have am advantage thus tipping the balance unfairly regarding the pre emptive strike option. Edited June 3, 2017 by Zeezeebaba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 It's there in case some despot loon fires first, in which case we are all toast anyway. No, it's not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction During the cold war no, with North Korea and Iran for example then yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 I don't think Corbyn says he wouldn't use them just that he wouldn't fire first. Let's not forget the defence industry is a huge business and war pays. I live close to AWE and it's a huge local employer, even the conventional weapons industry makes a mint from humanities weakness. Like I've said before someone is always gaining from the suffering of others. Derby is similar, we have Rolls Royce, and although they do the obvious commercial aviation bit, they are also major contributors to the Nuclear Sub division, and I assume military aircraft. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Defense systems promote smarter weapon systems production. It's a vicious circle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 It's there in case some despot loon fires first, in which case we are all toast anyway. No, it's not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction So you think we'd go MAD as a first strike option, rather than retaliatory? It should always be retaliatory, but the idea is that the threat of retaliation is enough to prevent any launches. If any nukes did get launched, we're probably all toast anyway. It's there in case some despot loon fires first, in which case we are all toast anyway. No, it's not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction During the cold war no, with North Korea and Iran for example then yes. I'll concede that they're less of a known quantity so it might apply less, but I'd be surprised if they genuinely didn't care about getting nuked in retaliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Dianne Abbot strikes again, well sort of..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/30/jeremy-corbyn-car-crash-interview-childcare-pledge/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
350 Russ Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 I think I'm more nervous about this election that ever before. I really am dreading Corbyn becoming a PM. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share Posted June 4, 2017 I'd be more worried about Abbott being Home Secretary and McDonnell being Chancellor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
350 Russ Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 I'd be more worried about Abbott being Home Secretary and McDonnell being Chancellor. I should edit my statement as Corbyn and his team. Shocking really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 I'd be more worried about Abbott being Home Secretary and McDonnell being Chancellor. Politics jumped the shark once Donald became the leader of the free world 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveBoy Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 If, for arguments sake, Pakistan launched a nuke at "us", and "we" could shoot it down somewhere over Europe. Would that be "us" or Pakistan who nuked Germany? Or do you have to lube up, take it like a man and then fire back everything available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 The nuclear part of the bomb wouldn't go off. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willsy1980 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 If, for arguments sake, Pakistan launched a nuke at "us", and "we" could shoot it down somewhere over Europe. Would that be "us" or Pakistan who nuked Germany? Or do you have to lube up, take it like a man and then fire back everything available? If you shoot one down, it wouldn't detonate and therefor pose no risk to anyone. However ICBM's can only be intercepted/shot down in their final stage, usually a few hundred miles from their target as most of the flight time is in low orbit. This is why the Starwars program was so high on the agenda to develop, an integrated satellite detection and interception system to pop them while in the upper atmosphere/low orbit range. Im pretty confident that the US and Russia have the capability to do this, however it may only be the US who have a functioning system. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Its a bit of a bizarre question, as no country would launch one nuke (as the response would likely be to have your whole country nuked almost immediately whilst your one nuke wipes out a city). In terms of the shooting down, I am sure I read that the event happens in upper atmosphere and the warhead would not be detonated as interceptor missiles use kinetic energy ie they explode in front of the nuke and the fragments smash into the nuke breaking it up. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveBoy Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Nice, thanks all, nuclear missiles aren't my strong suit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 Probably for the best 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveBoy Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Probably for the best Why? Because I'd accidentally set one off in my living room? What's wrong with that, everyone makes mistakes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Christ alive did anyone see the Dianne Abbot interview on sky last night. She set it up to talk specifically about the recent terror events and didnt read the report into anti-terror recommendations prior to the interview, then clearly tried to bluff her way through it until she got blatantly called out on it. The woman is a car crash, people were worried about Corbyn being unelectable, but I think he has done a really good job so far, its dear Dianne who seems to be doing her utmost to dent any Labour challenge. Apparently she pulled out of an interview on TV this morning citing 'ill health' I wonder if Labour spin has finally said enough is enough... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 She needs shooting. She is the biggest reason NOT to vote Labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I have never seen such an attack on a politician though, Murnaghan literally said 'have you actually read the report' and started to call out specifics which she just kept saying 'yes thats important' she didnt understand what physical resilience was in the context of the report. Then he just said right up 'is it true that Corbyn is attempting to remove you from the media spotlight after a series of high profile errors' along with 'you do not book your media appearances with your Labour team you do it yourself' - in the end she defended herself by stating 'I am the shadow home secretary' as if its meant something! Shocking interview, worse than the police cost one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 Shadow home secretary is a nothing role anyway, she only exists to whinge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.