View Single Post
  #102   Report Post  
Old March 19th 12, 12:01 PM posted to uk.transport.london,misc.transport.urban-transit,uk.railway
[email protected] boltar2003@boltar.world is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,920
Default Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:27:31 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
If the west hadn't had nukes russia would have rolled across western europe
long ago.


Possibly, I've come across Russians in the Soviet era who argued that if
they didn't have nukes the west would have rolled across them long ago.


Unlikely. Western europe wouldn't have had the will and the yanks had
other things to worry about. The soviets however were forever sabre rattling.

Also given its a de factor


Perhaps you mean de facto...


Pointing out typos? Come on , you can do better...

dictatorship that threat hasn't
completely disappeared and who knows who'll end up running it when Putin
finally falls off his perch.


Currently the Russian nuclear weaponry is a greater danger to the
Russians than to anybody else.


In what sense? Self detonation or just theft?

And then there are unpredictable states such as iran, north korea etc.


Neither of which is a direct threat to the UK, being far more obsessed


Yet. Admittedly north korea is only ever likely to be a threat to asia
but Iran looks like its going to become a real problem real soon.

After all even one missile has 12 MIRVs. Once you've targeted Tehran,
or Pyongyang, what are you going to do with the other 11 warheads?


Target other cities. I'm not saying thats right ...

Also you launch an SLBM against Tehran from the middle of the Atlantic
and the Russians are going to get very jumpy! By the time they've
confirmed the flight path they may well have already ordered a
retaliatory strike just in case.


Which is why they would be told first as currenly happens with all missile
tests and initiation of conflict.

A far better and more cost effective solution is to use submarine
launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.


Cheaper certainly, but cruise missiles are slow and can be shot down.

But the precautions have to be proportionate to the threat. I note you
ignore what is likely to be the biggest threats in the nuclear world,
Pakistan and India, especially the former.


Fair point. If pakistan goes the way of afghanistan we've got real problems.
India I'm not too worried about right now. For all its problems its a
pretty stable country.

B2003