Nato 'must prepare to launch nuclear attack'

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by thingy, Jan 22, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I think a nuclear war is the last thing we want.
  2. And THAT, ladies and Gentlemen, is the main contender for understatement of the year!!
    :D :D :D
  3. I have no problem with the concept of turning Mecca into a glass surfaced, self illuminating, parking lot.
  4. Really?

    I think that the use of Nuclear Weapons would wreck the world as a whole.
    I think it would be the end of all of us.
  5. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    But it may be a case of get there fastest with the mostest.
  6. Why though?
    There would be nothing left!
    Don't tell me the Russians won't get involved, because they will.
    Then EUROPE will be a glass factory too.
  7. Mutually assured destruction (MAD), the principle behind the deterent.

  8. Guns

    Guns War Hero Moderator

    Would love to send in my end of month returns on that one

    7.62mm 4B1T - 4000 rnds
    4.5" HE - 6 rnds
    5.56mm Ball - 5000 rnds
    Trident Missile - 2
  9. I've often wondered about that... but how exactly?

    In the 1940's, two bombs were let off in populated areas, and we're all still here. In the 50's and 60's, Nuclear bombs were let off on the surface during testing of increasingly large warheads - and we're all still here.

    Nuclear war in a fight where both sides had the bomb would be devastating, but as a pre-emptive strike, would it really? Would be devastating for them certainly. But for the world?

    I still don't support it though.
  10. Whoo i will finally win something.
  11. There would be riots if we used nukes first, the do gooders and the muslim radicals would join together, more muslims would turn radical. And i doubt any other faiths would apreciate us wiping out a nation.

    Britan would be under threat from the inside with mass riots.

    I cant remember who said it but every fortress falls from the inside.
  12. I can't compare the 40's 50's and 60's with today. The world is a totally different place, with FAR more countries and perhaps even PEOPLE having access to Nuclear Weapons of different descriptions. We act against the Middle East in a pre-emptive strike. Are we taking out Israel too? Yes, I think we would be.
    How about Kuwait? Saudi? How far will the devastation cover? Turkey? Parts of Russia? Yes, I think they will. Russia will get involved because, like us, they refuse to believe that they are no longer the world power that they once were. If Russia start, will the Chechens take the opportunity to have a go at Russia? Probably. Here we have the end of the World. Its called (for those that DON'T know) the domino effect.
  13. I see two big problems with the thought even of pre-emptive strike with nuclear weapons.

    Firstly just thinking it may be a suitable solution fully justifies other countries in their ain of getting their own weapons to at least use in some way as a deterent.

    Secondly if you do use them how do you guarantee that no one else with the capability joins in on the other side
  14. There is absolutely no need to use destructive weapons against Mecca.... the King of SA is already very effectivly demolishing its heritage. Imagine if the British had demolished the birthplace of Mohammed - there would have been an outcry. When the KSA does it, NOT A WORD of criticism from the ISLAMIC Community? What does that tell you?
  15. Not to mention the fact that the radiation would drift depending on which way the wind is blowing and either infect half of china. Im sure they wont be too pleased. Or half of europe would have babies with 3 eyes.
  16. I was referring to the effects of the actual Nuclear detonation. It's fair to assume that more the 3 Nuclear bombs were set off above the surface of land during the testing periods in the 50's and 60's.

    It wouldn't really take more than 3 Nukes to incapacitate any country in the Middle East - whilst it would be devastating for the country involved - and perhaps those surrounding it, it wouldn't be the end of life as we know it.

    From a political point of view, it would very much depend on the circumstances. It's very likely that the use of Nukes would have to be checked with the other official members of the Nuclear club.

    You're right in saying that many countries have Nukes that are undisclosed - possibly those that went missing in the 90's, but to be honest, if many of these countries have access to Nukes, it's possible just going to be sooner rather than later.

    I don't agree with Nuking the middle east, but if it did happen, it wouldn't be the end of life as we know it.

    Russia or China however - well, yeh that would be pretty catastrophic all round.
  17. It would be the end of life as we know it because millions of people would be wiped off the face of the planet and thousands of kilometers would be uninhabitable for years. Plus as i mentioned before riots from the public and nobody would ever trust the military again.
  18. Was it a Listed Building or a World Heritage Site? Preparation and planning goes a long way.

    Unless the nuclear device is in a lock-up or pantechnicon sited within the target, the offended will have a pretty fair clue who the offender was at some point in the pre-emptive strike. Making this an open and discussed option by the grown-ups is hardly going to dissuade a nuclear Power to make its means of retaliation less ready and deployed. There is an argument that any State taking a terminal hit could consider itself justified launching at whoever was the biggest in range. The "if I'm going down, some buggers coming with me" principle. It would make post incident diplomacy interesting.

    If there is worthwhile exchange of devices, look on the bright side. That post thermonuclear winter we are promised would go a long way to offsetting Global Warming.

  19. It would certainly be the end of Mecca!

Share This Page