Manifest Stupidity IV: The SNP Launch A Thousand Manfesti

Generali

Interesting aside:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/

I'll put up the SNP Manifesto once it's finished. The election might happen first.

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

If I were the captain of the nuclear sub I would certainly push the button :

It might be a very lonely planet when you finally come to the surface.

Just you, the captains of a few Russian, Chinese and US subs and the crews.

cells

purch wrote: »

We only ever have one Sub on patrol with 16 missiles.

I'm sure 16 Trident missiles can do a huge amount of damage, but compared to what the US have available at any one time (their subs can fire 20+) plus all their landbased and other missiles, and what the Russians and Chinese could fire you have to wonder how much of a deterrant on it's own our Nucleur capability is.

When nuke bombs were invented there was little to no precision in bombing. I think in WW2 the RAFs hit rate was typically 5 miles from target as a result the RAF knowing that they had no precision resorted to carpet bombing often dense built up areas

nukes were very valuable in that instead of flying thousands of planes carrying millions of tons of bombs to carpet bomb an area you could send just one plane with one bomb. More economic more effective and less risk for your side.

The Russians built far more powerful bombs than the Americans as their precision tech was crap so they figured build em so big that even if its 50 miles off target it will do its job.


but anyway fast foward to now and the advanced armies have high precision weapons that get nore and more accurate.

you no longer need to fly hundreds of planes and drop thousands of bombs to try and take out a bridge one lazer guided bomb will do it.


Anyway with weapons so accurate there is no need to use nukes anymore.

In the insane circumstances where two modern armies go to war they can both take out each others infrastructure in a few days and cause trillions in damage and send back economies 50 years without the need for a single nuke



precision missiles make nukes near worthless unless you want them as an extermination weapon which is just sick


even the only time they were used in war was a mistake and something the Americans should to this day be ashamed off. They coild quite easily have detonated them offshore nearby to show their power or onshire in very remote areas to convince Japan the game was up

Generali

purch wrote: »

It might be a very lonely planet when you finally come to the surface.

Just you, the captains of a few Russian, Chinese and US subs and the crews.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fadedpage.com%2Flink.php%3Ffile%3D20131214-a5.pdf&ei=DV0uVdfjO8ak8AWinoGwAg&usg=AFQjCNGjHJH5P9-LJHyMWw2dp7wX7hJM_g&sig2=hrIDsIADXSljVX2GWZNong&bvm=bv.90790515,d.dGc

cells

Generali wrote: »

£100bn lifetime cost I believe.

I don't think as a captain you get a choice. You sail around the ocean and then the pollies deploy your nukes for you having asked the Americans very nicely first.

Bombers can be shot down and ICBMs destroyed on the ground. Subs are great because they can be anywhere and deployed even after the mother country is destroyed.

Have subs

fit them with conventional precision missiles

if say china attacks

retaliate by destroying 100 of their dams and 100 of their nuke power stations

$2 trillion in direct damage
More in lost economic output

What can china or russia or anyone else gain from destroying England thats worth multi trillion damage to themselves?

CLAPTON

purch wrote: »

It might be a very lonely planet when you finally come to the surface.

Just you, the captains of a few Russian, Chinese and US subs and the crews.

why would that be the case

are you assuming the Russia wiped out the entire world before I retaliated?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

whatever does that mean?

deterrence is based on the theory that you will not do something to me if the pain you will feel from me is not worth it:

if the Ukraine had a large and effective army, russia wouldn't have invaded

globalisation has nothing to do with it

If I were the captain of the nuclear sub I would certainly push the button :

You don't need nuclear weapons to be an effective army
Hence why they were only ever used once in war

As for Ukraine being safe if they had nukes I doubt it. What do you think they would have done? Nuke Moscow? And then get the same back? Seriously?

All nukes do is stop other nukes being used on you but that can be achieved by ither means

also why didn't the UK nuke the argies if they are so useful and great?
If they can't even stop an invasion by a 2nd world non nuclear power how effective a deterant

kabayiri

If China wanted to attack little ole UK they could send us millions of damaging Xboxes and Wiis and PS4s to screw up our kids.

Much more stealthy, but honestly, can you see it happening?

kabayiri

Arguing about Nuclear Sub scenarios is as futile and pointless as taking a Floating Point Calculator into a SNP budget meeting.

You may mean well, but it won't change the outcome.

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you assuming the Russia wiped out the entire world before I retaliated?

Who said anything about Russia ?