What is the idea behind the UKs Trident submarines?
If only one sub is at sea at any one time surely that is not enough to deter an attacker? Russia or China could absorb the payload from one sub right?
They only have like 220 nukes total too.
Each sub currently carries 8 missiles with a maximum of 40 warheads. Each warhead is approx 5x as powerful as the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. So maybe they could take the payload but would have to be willing to say goodbye to quite a few of their cities.
>If only one sub is at sea at any one time surely that is not enough to deter an attacker? Russia or China could absorb the payload from one sub right?
You're talking millions dead, massive national crisis, loss of central government. Nothing ever justifying a first strike.
>AA systems supposed to intercept a projectile, traveling at about mach 7 to 9
even more hilarious
>AA missile intercepts MIRV warhead
>EMP because of high altitude explosion
>wipes out rest of russian air-defence network
They might get one or two.
It's much the same line of thinking the Chinese have. It's enough to deter most actions and impact potential adversaries policies, but it also, and perhaps more importantly, plays a role in overall NATO nuclear strategy.
>>when AA interception of a nuclear weapon doesn't necessarily mean a nuclear explosion follows
Yeah, I know. But since you (I assume >>28703504 is you) were shitposting anyway, why shouldn't I?
>What is the idea behind the UKs Trident submarines?
So when the extremist Jihadists take over the English government with peaceful democratic process, Islamic countries will have unlimited access to nuclear weapons. Taking over a legally retarded government that is totally detached from reality sure beats going around international laws. I am almost completely certain this is why Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are flooding England with Immigrants. From that point forward they can easily take over the rest of Europe with two fronts on both sides. Also, The United States can't actually use England as a landing pad like they did with Germany in World War 2 if it's hostile. This is all obvious planning ahead of time in much the same way the Soviets also took over key parts of English agencies before the Cold War started. For example, a KGB agent was actually running MI5 for a good while. Countries like England are often giving benefits to immigrants to the degree that immigrants are crossing countries in Europe just to get to England. A notable example of a terrorist who came out of England was Jihadi John, the guy who beheaded those hostages for ISIS in a black suit. I also sometimes wonder if some of the policy makers in England are actually terrorist supporters themselves.
Only a blind person can't see the problem and future for what it is, which could be what England almost entire consists of in the present, politically blind people.
For those that are is interested, I'll do a dump of extracts about the UK's nuclear policy.
>shit Sergei what happened!
>Tovairish the whole systema is down
>Glorious s400 working as intended
They're working on that. Currently they have A135 defence system which CAN stop few warheads. Not full scale attack.
>>wipes out rest of russian air-defence network
No, it's not. Jesus Christ, US had same fucking misslies with same fucking nuclear warhead. Even better. And "magic" EMP wasn't reason to remove it from service.
> They're working on that. Currently they have A135 defence system which CAN stop few warheads. Not full scale attack.
The A135 can probably stop less than 10 warheads before being completely overwhelmed and blinded by EMP. There's just nothing in Russia or USA's inventory that can prevent nuclear annihilation.
On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner
The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan
Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérèse Delpech
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser
Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang
Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford
>35-40 warhead actually
Those are IRBM warheads.
1 or 2 "Complex ballistic targets" meaning RV's with decoys and penetration aids.
So one or two ICBM/SLBMs.
In practice they generally aren't planning on nuking Russia.
If that was on the table, operationally they would be carrying more.
You don't go from all is good to DEFCON 1 in less time than it takes to resupply a sub.
Because it will be 30-60% percent of their retaliation strike arsenal (actually much more if the want to hit Moscow reliably and destroy it completely). These 40-80 warheads could do much more hurt in other places having zero protection.
They should have been replaced some time ago. They are currently adequate but I do not know if there is enough time to get a replacement in service before the reliability issues begin to compromise the ability of the missiles to continue executing their mission.
The president has authorised funding for an expansion at LANL that will be capable of producing about 80 new pits per year.
This will go a long way to replacing production capability that was lost when Rocky Flats was shut down by the FBI (a little Fed on Fed fratricide. Would have been interesting if the DoE security forces had opened fire on the FBI like they had been told to)
Current production is limited to 20 pits per year since 1996.
>What about warheads? Was cancelling RRW a mistake?
Yes. We should be way ahead.
Any new warhead design will use the components in storage at PANTEX. These are components from previous weapons that are kept for reuse. Pic related.
>Would have been interesting if the DoE security forces had opened fire on the FBI like they had been told to
Is this not a massive breach in secruity?
I mean, they should have not let the FBI in, right?
The true tragedy was that I never got to return this.
The idea is to strike an effective balance between cost and a minimal credible deterrent.
Nukes are expensive, and not that many people in the UK, regardless of what /k/ thinks, are willing to shelve out tens of billions more that the councils/NHS aren't getting so we can improve a weapons system that we'll hopefully never have to use.
That being said, the UK government has long recognized that shit happens. The idea of Britain having to face down Russia or China alone is not realistic, but the possibility of, let's say, some terrorist faction putting a suitcase nuke in Waterloo with the tacit approval of some despot in the Middle East is still real enough to keep them around. It's basically a reminder that we're still here, and don't fuck with us.
Honestly though the whole thing is more about power than nukes. UK knows it had its time in the sun more than a century ago but it still enjoys the idea of "punching above its weight" on the world stage, which it does (at least until relatively recently) pretty effectively on all fronts - cultural, economic, social, political. Trident's the ace in the hole that permits Whitehall to say "Pay attention when we do something involving the military".
Plus, can you imagine the Bongs permitting to FRENCH to have the biggest military penis in Europe? No fucking way.
>This will go a long way to replacing production capability that was lost when Rocky Flats was shut down by the FBI (a little Fed on Fed fratricide. Would have been interesting if the DoE security forces had opened fire on the FBI like they had been told to)
wait what the fuck happened
Rocky Flats was spewing plutonium all over Colorado, and some employees called the EPA.
EPA called the FBI, FBI called the DoE and asked if they could come in and look.
DoE said "Absolutely not."
FBI said "Well we will get a warrant"
DoE said "Sorry,National Security. Come any closer and this will look like a Michael Mann film."
So the FBI comes back and says "Oh actually, we wanted to talk about a totally real terrorist threat."
And the DoE says "In that case, come on in."
And then its badges and "everyone on the ground".
And thats why we don't have many W88s.
>The DOE announced that 61 pounds (28 kg) of plutonium lined the exhaust ductwork in six buildings on the site.
Sounds like it was a jolly fun place to work at.
Also is DOE security private contractors or military?
Hey Opp, if you're still around, have you read or have an opinion on the book:
Critical Assembly: A Technical History of Los Alamos during the Oppenheimer Years
Seems like a pretty dense read but might be interesting.
>Plus, can you imagine the Bongs permitting to FRENCH to have the biggest military penis in Europe? No fucking way.
How are a people that don't actually exist anymore going to keep up their rivalry with the French?
Thanks for the response. I'll give it a read then.
I have a physics/engineering background and have read a few books on the Manhattan Project and nuclear weapons development, would you say this is the most technical one out there. If not, do you have any other recommendations?
If for some reason the US go to war with China
Will the US initiate nuclear strikes if China launches their new fangled anti ship ballistic missiles on the premise of "It might" be a nuke
Also do you think China will actually follow its no first strike doctrine in the event of the mainland being pushed back by foreign invaders?
>Will the US initiate nuclear strikes if China launches their new fangled anti ship ballistic missiles on the premise of "It might" be a nuke
It is unlikely that the reaction time would allow for a US nuclear strike launch prior to the true purpose of the missiles being realized.
>Also do you think China will actually follow its no first strike doctrine in the event of the mainland being pushed back by foreign invaders?
You can assume that any nuclear armed nation will use any weapon at its disposal to defend its territory, regardless of otherwise stated policy, if their 'mainland' is being occupied or invaded.
>Will the US initiate nuclear strikes if China launches their new fangled anti ship ballistic missiles on the premise of "It might" be a nuke
It is a possible response, yes.
>Also do you think China will actually follow its no first strike doctrine in the event of the mainland being pushed back by foreign invaders?
The idea is that it lets Britain remain in the nuclear club.
Cold-war: UK (hopefully) isn't worth having Moscow nuked over (though there were periods where the UK doubted their capability to do this anyway.), so it serves to deter Soviet nuclear strikes on the UK.
Post-cold-war: Refusal to accept a decline in status, even if there are almost no use cases for the system.
Also, (buggery, I can't find a video) the French: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yes,_Minister#Episode_Two:_The_Challenge
there are a lot of assertions without citations here and it bothers me. i understand it would be politically imprudent to state which countries the UK hates, but i still don't like it.
nb: i'm not anti-nuclear, but i do question why the UK needs the capabilities of trident when it has the US on side for serious matters and could make-do with a less credible (cheaper) system +larger conventional forces otherwise.
>there is a risk that states might use their nuclear capability to threaten us
please give example states and justifications. Russia is improbable, DPRK lack the range and would prefer to go for South Korea or the USA, Pakistan and India would prefer to go for India and Pakistan...
>recent changes in the international security context remind us that we cannot relax our guard
which changes? the vast majority of them have been threats which nuclear weapons are (practically speaking) useless against, in particular in light of the fact the UK will 'not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapons state party to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT)'
>we are committed to maintaining the minimum amount of destructive power needed to deter any aggressor
right, and Trident could deter the US? (either 'any aggressor' can be blunted to mean 'any realistic potential aggressor', in which case none exists, or it's so broad as to mean any other state - in which case I ask, does the UK feel lucky against the USA?)
>and the actions of potential adversaries
It needs credible independent nuclear weapons as it needs to be able to defend itself without us help. It's one of the only countries in Europe that takes defence seriously and it still gets a fair amount of influence from having decent armed forces. Degrading it's own nuclear arsenal in favour of conventional forces I'd pointless. The Army is only used for foreign intervention with allies. The navy, airforce and nukes defend the homeland.
>No, it's not. Jesus Christ, US had same fucking misslies with same fucking nuclear warhead. Even better. And "magic" EMP wasn't reason to remove it from service.
Well, Nike and Sprint DID actually cause an EM pulse to go off...so I'm not sure what your point is.
>The Army is only used for foreign intervention with allies
Something which is the UK actually does and can expect to have to do in future?
>The navy, airforce and nukes defend the homeland.
>Any potential threat!
Cop-out response. Yes, you tend to defend against any threat - but what threat are you expecting since the collapse of the USSR? The strategic importance of the GIUK gap allows Iceland to have no meaningful military capability and rely entirely on NATO, yet the UK must stand alone? (This is purely an illustrative example, obviously I'm not suggesting the UK does not require any armed forces, though the case could probably be made for a potential independent Scotland if it wasn't politically unpalatable...)
Comparing the UK with Iceland....
How can you predict what will happen in 2050 and beyond? No one can predict what potential enemies Britian will have. You can't wait until you have a 'potential enemy' (as you keep repeating "against who") and then develop a nuclear capable submarine force with warheads and missiles. These things have to be kept and maintained, you can't build a nuke force on an as needed basis.
I'm rather disappointed that you didn't bother to go reading through the papers and rather seeming to attack the extracts.
You also totally misunderstand what the SDSR is, it is *not* an academic. It is just only a stratgy guide and kit list. Not the hard proof document you want it to be.
All these assertions are back with mountains of intelligence but for clear reasons, will not be published.
However, there are a couple of white papers that exist for what you want, I'll see if I can find them.
There's an answer, a whole flipping white paper actually, for your point about a "cheaper" alternative system, if you bother to read the second pdf posted.
>There's an answer, a whole flipping white paper actually, for your point about a "cheaper" alternative system, if you bother to read the second pdf posted.
i've read it. if memory serves, the key point is that other systems (like the lib-dem abandoning of continuous-at-sea, or a move to an aircraft based system) aren't credible. i would retort that trident as it stands isn't credible and remains infinitely more political than military.
either you accept that the uk must be able to deter unreasonably more powerful foes (if we want 'against any threat!' you could even make the case that it must be able to defend against the entire world deciding to rid itself of perfidious albion), or you accept that the UK can't afford to do something so unreasonable and should stick to deterring reasonable threats - at which point you have to start saying 'right, so if not the whole world - then who?' and once you start doing that the requirement for anything more than a few WE-177s becomes very dubious.
>i would retort that trident as it stands isn't credible
What are you basing this on?
Your second paragraph isn't very clear, you do realise the whole purpose of having submarines is to guarantee second strike capability? A few WE-177s can be destroyed on the ground. Not sure why "who! who! who!" is your key argument either. You could use that argument for getting rid of the entire armed forces, reeks of the Guardian desu.
>What are you basing this on?
'who' (there are other angles i could approach from, but this one is fun)
it's a ridiculously simple question. we used to have an answer - CCCP - and now that they're gone apparently it's unreasonable to ask.
>Your second paragraph isn't very clear, you do realise the whole purpose of having submarines is to guarantee second strike capability?
you only need second strike capability if you're expecting a first-strike - and now i'll ask again:
world health organization?
>A few WE-177s can be destroyed on the ground.
yes, yes they can. assuming anyone's going to destroy them, which is dubious.
>Not sure why "who! who! who!" is your key argument either
because if you aren't going to say who (or bluff with 'it could be anyone!') then you very rapidly get into the problem that trident can't deter the entire world at once.
>You could use that argument for getting rid of the entire armed forces
'we need armed forces to kill our enemies'
'ISIS (or a citation of any of the various conventional conflicts the UK has been involved in even over the last few decades as evidence that such forces are necessary.)'
because it's not in reply to me.
i precisely understand the concept of a deterrent. i've never used the foolish 'we'll never use nukes!' argument, or god forbid 'nukes hurt people!'
it's just that i also understand a deterrent is only a deterrent if it's deterring someone, and nobody'll say just who is being deterred.
it fail to see where strawmanning is occurring.
Enemies present and future are being deterred, you can't predict the future. You have Russia (a nuclear armed state) throwing their weight around in Ukraine and Crimea, you have China growing in military power and influence (also a nuclear armed state).
As for your point of Trident not deterring the whole world at once, have you any idea what one Trident sub could do to a nation? We are part of NATO in any case, we don't need to deter the whole world.
>You have Russia (a nuclear armed state) throwing their weight around in Ukraine and Crimea
see? now this is more like it - you've answered the primary question: WHO
now, i would disagree that russia attacking shitty little ex-soviet states and china (inextricable economic ties) have any reasonable chance of attacking the UK, but that's far less important than the fact one at least argues that they're the potential enemy.
>As for your point of Trident not deterring the whole world at once, have you any idea what one Trident sub could do to a nation?
one nation, sure, all nations? dubious. (i say this to defend the example - you've already given two example nations, so even if i don't think Russia pose a genuine threat to the UK I'll accept that Trident can pose a threat in turn to them.)
>We are part of NATO in any case, we don't need to deter the whole world.
'we are a part of NATO in any case' is a unilateralist case summary.
which isn't what i asserted at all.
my assertion was as follows:
either you say WHO you don't like the look of (as the poster above did)
you should plan for every unrealistic situation, including the whole world uniting against you.
why it's taken so long for 'russia' (the obvious answer, given historical precedent) to come up in reply to 'who?' i do not know. i had expected to spend more time saying russia aren't a problem if you're not a forgettable satellite state than simply trying to get someone to say russia.
But that's never stated?
And alright, I'll play ball Mr Dunning–Kruger.
>it's a ridiculously simple question. we used to have an answer - CCCP - and now that they're gone apparently it's unreasonable to ask.
Give a citation for this.
You are also only naming one aspect of this.
And why do you think just because the USSR is gone, that we don't think we need it? Russia still has their stockpile, so does the US, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel. Hell, others still strive to gain this capability such as Iran or North Korea.
>you only need second strike capability if you're expecting a first-strike - and now i'll ask again:
But we are? And so is every other nuclear nation?
>yes, yes they can. assuming anyone's going to destroy them, which is dubious.
>because if you aren't going to say who (or bluff with 'it could be anyone!') then you very rapidly get into the problem that trident can't deter the entire world at once.
The thinking is that, we don't know what threats will emerge in the future, so it is best to be prepared by having a wide spectrum of capability.
Citation also needed.
>can't deter the entire world at once.
Nobody said this.
>'we need armed forces to kill our enemies'
You can actually.
And I've seen others use it. But if you think ISIS is the reason we need our armed forces, I won't stop laughing.
>one nation, sure, all nations? dubious. (i say this to defend the example - you've already given two example nations, so even if i don't think Russia pose a genuine threat to the UK I'll accept that Trident can pose a threat in turn to them.)
>my assertion was as follows:
it's more of a joke than an accurate reflection of my thinking other than in the broadest strokes.
for example, i've already stated i believe Polaris and (implicitly) Trident were good decisions due to the existence of a clear threat. (The USSR) while the entire sketch was based on cancelling trident. he's somewhat closer with 'keep polaris just in case', but manages to veer away in the end. the political situation is too different to use it for accurate comparison.
also - and this is the most important distinction - i don't really have an austrian accent.
Since 2000 the army has intervened in Sierra Leone, iraq and Afghanistan. It's also sent military advisors too ukraine, the kurds and many places in africa. So yes it's something the army does a lot off. Probably second after the US this centuary. I wouldnt expect it will never do these missions again.
The navy and airforce act as a deterrent. Against who? Perhaps somewhat russia though really they need to be kept as it's much better to maintain forces rather than try and build them back up in the future. As an island nation the UK has a big interest in having safe sealants so navy needs to be there for that too.
The comparison with Iceland makes no sense. Iceland can depend on NATO partly becouse countries like the UK retain capable militaries. If the alliance was just the US it wouldn't work
Just because the USSR does not exist, does not mean that the threat of a nuclear exchange isn't a thing.
We're all fully aware about how threats have diversified and are no longer this one, massive monotheistic block. This is pretty well written about.
Trident does not deter one threat now, but many, including ones that we can't current foresee.
Our spending is actually quite high internationally. Training,wage and equipment costs mean we don't get much quantity from it. Qualitivly brit forces are very good. The MOD seems to think being able to concentrate force isn't important.
Brit forces are really designed to provide niche specialisms and very high quality auxiliaries to US forces or too act as core of any future EU missions. Nukes prevent there from being anyone who would seriously consider invading
again, i want examples.
>including ones that we can't current foresee.
if you want to use the excuse of 'it could be anyone!' then a range of ridiculous situations can be invoked (from space aliens who only destroy nuclear states to the entire world attacking.)
which partly overlooks the much more reasonable issue that it could be anyone, including a madman who doesn't care how hard you hit back.
don't get me wrong - i don't deny the possibility of a nuclear exchange outright, i can see a semi-realistic military-use case (as opposed to a purely political or fantastical one) for most nuclear armed states to justify their weapons systems with. the UK and france are the primary outliers.
i feel i should also restate that i understand the principle that you 'use' a deterrent by deterring just as much as you use it by actually firing, but you still have to have someone to deter. (and i'd like a credible case to be made that any nuclear armed state or state likely to obtain nuclear capability in the near future would have any interest or possible interest in striking the UK, or indeed that any state would have any interest in invading the mainland UK.)
Russia? The UK is one of the nation's that is most anti russia in europe and also one of the blocs biggest military nations. Along with france it's one of the biggest blocks to russian hegemony in europe which could make it a military target. With nukes the Russians don't think it's worth the risk.
Who else? Well apparently the Iranians (with reason) are quite anti brit and if thet where to magic up some nukes could prove a threat.
Realistically I think it's more about posturing, influence and making sure any potential threats never need to become real.
I guess the UK has strong links with places like Australia. With the chinese flexing there muscle around in the region they may feel it keeps them relevant allies to have.
China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, Iran, North Korea and possibly others if other countries have regime change.
>if you want to use the excuse of 'it could be anyone!' then a range of ridiculous situations can be invoked (from space aliens who only destroy nuclear states to the entire world attacking.)
No, not really.
New and different threats will emerge. Some can be foresee, some can't.
Unless you have a crystal ball that tells the future, we can't be 100% sure what 2020+ will looks like. Some things are likely to happen, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily happen.
It is reasonable to have the widest capability you can have, so that you are able to respond with a wide range of options.
Here's a good read for you:
my understanding is that it gives Britain vital second strike capability, and the ability to attack other nations on the other side of the world
nuclear war strategy 101: material factors
first strike= who launches first
speedy detection of enemy launch
second strike=launching after you have been hit yourself
there are only so many scenarios that can play out, to explain briefly (though OPenh might do a better job, doubtless he is in the thread)
if one side is nuclear and the other is not, the nuclear nation is strongly incentivized to fire first to avoid casualties in conventional warfare, this is how NATO, the US and, Russia dominate the world
if both sides are armed, and neither have second strike or comprehensive defense nuclear war is inevitable, a side can only protect themselves by launching first (the only reason the world exists right now is because in the cold war both sides were pussies in the early days)
if both sides have second strike, it become a trade off; the aggressor will win, but only at a great cost
this brings a logical stalemate
if both sides have second strike and comprehensive defense the balance shifts to the aggressor again, the attacker would wipe their enemy out, and hope their defense would protect them from a limited second strike
for this reason britain needs submarines, in real terms to deter anyone nuking them, and to force the developing world to submit
You really should consider writing for the Guardian, this sort of left wing pseudo-intellectualism would fit in great.
I don't think you even have a basic understanding of how a nuclear deterrent works, what nukes even are and how they would be used. Luckily the decision to keep and replace trident has been made by people smarter than you.
The UK needs a nuclear deterrent because it cannot rely on the US for defence, the future cannot be foretold, Russia and Chinese expansionism and aggression is a possible threat to Britain and allies and we need to be able to prevent a nuclear state from threatening or attacking us without us having the ability to strike back. It is also cheaper to keep and maintain a nuclear arsenal than it is to develop submarines, missiles, warheads and a trained crew on an as needed basis.
The UKs independent nuclear forces also serve to deter conventional action against UK interests around the world.
The fact that the UK is a nuclear armed nation means that other nuclear armed nations that might have conflicting interests are constrained in their actions.
When dealing with a nuclear armed nation, the prospect of uncontroled escalation cycles become a major factor in decision making.
This gives the UK leadership more options to deal with friction areas than they would have otherwise.
Dealing with the UK requires that you consider the risk of escalation. If an action might lead to an escalation, you will think twice if that escalation is with a nuclear power.
Escalation is a difficult thing to manage. If the UK has no nuclear weapons, then the risk/reward calculation is different because of the low risk that a purely conventional response would pose.
Compared to the risk of even a limited nuclear response, its not even the same ballpark.
And before you counter that no one would intentional escalate into a nuclear war, you are 100% correct.
History is full of people who did not intentionally escalate into a conflict with someone else.
Thanks for weighing in Oppen.
On a slightly meta note.
Do you think that you've noticed a positive difference on how this board talks about nuclear weapons and policy, since you first started posting?
How would you go about unfucking the US nuclear forces? Also, I'm not sure if this is your area of expertise, but why did the Ohio have so many missile tubes, and why is it's projected replacement halving that number?
That actually reinforces the point.
Argentina believed the UK wouldn't escalate, there was no deterrent because the UK was thought of as not willing to escalate at all.
The UK proved them very wrong.
The Junta vastly underrated what worth the UK placed in the Falkland Islands (so did the British government -- who had plans to pass it on the argies.)
Kinda like Iraq and Kuwait with the Gulf War. Everyone didn't expect the reaction from their general population.
The UK actually strong armed France into handing over the codes for Exocets missiles on the grounds that if the task force was put into a dire situation, they'd nuke the Argentine mainland. Being that it was Margaret "The Iron Lady" Thatcher that was saying this, France believe them.
>The UK actually strong armed France into handing over the codes for Exocets missiles on the grounds that if the task force was put into a dire situation, they'd nuke the Argentine mainland.
>codes for Exocets missiles
Please stop spreading ahistorical memes, kthanx retard
I wasnt aware the Argies were a nuclear power.
If i could wave a magic wand?
Begin development of an all new warhead and CSA. Limited testing program to test the new design.
New ICBM design.
New SSBN design.
New ALCM design.
All designed to use the new common warhead.
As for the Ohios, their design and the design of the follow on are dictated by the force structures that are required.
I misspoke out of term.
Technically information of the exocet missiles were provided to the British government by France. According to Sir John Nott, the Defence Secretary at the time.
How likely do you actually think a nuclear conflict (ideally involving the UK or France) is in the modern world?
I get the impression you know your shit about how such a conflict would go down, but that the odds of any such conflict are overstated. (Not enough to make unilateralism an obvious choice for those countries, but enough to put it in the realm of 'sure, you could do that without signing your own death warrant')
In broad terms, the probability of a nuclear conflict between nations is moderate if you consider all nuclear armed nations and a timeline of 5 or 6 decades.
If you limit yourself to just the big powers (Russia, China, US) over a decade or so, the probability is remote.
Approximately 56.12 million people died as a direct result of WWII. Each warhead on each of the eight missiles would have to kill 1.40 million people.
That's not going to be very easy against Russia, because there are only 12 cities in Russia with more than 1 million people, totaling a little under 30 million inhabitants between them, and these cities are pretty spread out, making it difficult for MIRV-based attacks to hit all of them.
If you were attacking China it would be easy to kill more people than that; you could probably do it just by hitting cities, but even better would be to take out the dam at Three Gorges and kill more people in a single stroke than probably anyone else ever would in history; something like half a bil.
This is all assuming, of course, that every warhead would kill the entire population of every city targeted, which almost certainly wouldn't happen, for various reasons.
This post reminds me to ask Opp since he's around; what would the consequences be of destroying Three Gorges? I know it isn't specifically your field, but on /k/ answers range from 'lol u wont get it' to 'All of China dies.'
>Pretending our Mum is your child
If you're going to mock the family, do it right.
Old mother Britain is senile, lost her house and is now in a nursing home talking about all those nice refugees she's met.
Canada is still the older child who comes to visit every week, eh?
U.S.A is the youngest but most successful of her children who only visits once a year, but brought her a new sports car. She can't drive the car, of course, but it gives her something to talk about with the nations who she grew up with (since they all have sports cars now).
tl;dr with a little creativity and glitter glue you can make your metaphors much stronger.