On 19/03/2012 11:30, d wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:48:04 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 19/03/2012 09:40, d wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:37:18 +0000
Arthur wrote:
The world is not short of loony leaders. Those who invent technologies
always run the risk of losing out to others who copy it.


That doesn't answer the question.

People don't figure out exactly who is going to nick their stuff before
taking out insurance.

Good analogy , I'm going to remember that one!


On the other hand insurance companiea work out how likely you are to get
your stuff nicked /before/ working out the premium.

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.

Also given its a de factor

Perhaps you mean de facto...

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.

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
with Israel and South Korea respectively. Neither of which require the
capabilities of 4 Trident ballistic missile submarines to cope with.
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?

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.

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


Perhaps you have a crystal ball and can predict what
the world will be like in 20 years time but everyone else can't so its best
to err on the side of taking precautions.

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.

And if you're one of the people
who think that not having nukes means we'll never be nuked then perhaps
you should ask the japanese about the logic of that.


To put your mind at rest I am not one of those people.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

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

On Mar 19, 1:01*pm, wrote:
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.

India is improving politically, and economically. India would be a
much better Ally than Pakistan.

On 19/03/2012 13:01, d wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:27:31 +0000
Graeme 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.

Unlikely from our perspective I agree but that is not the way the
Russians saw it. Also the Soviets, for the most part, didn't actually
want to invade Western Europe, they wanted the eastern European states
they controlled as a cordon sanitaire between the motherland and the
hostile west.


Also given its a de factor

Perhaps you mean de facto...

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

You might have meant 'a factor' and then changed the sentence, I was
just checking.


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?

Deterioration, they can't actually afford to maintain the equipment, see
all the articles about the problems the Russians are having with their
nuclear submarines for instance.


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.

My own opinion is it is just sabre rattling as far as Israel is
concerned. After all the Iranians can't nuke Jerusalem, it is just as
much an Islamic holy city as it is a Christian and Jewish one. They
might target Tel Aviv but that runs the real risk of also hitting the
Gaza strip which wouldn't do their pro-Palestinian credibility any good.
The greater danger is that they might attack Riyadh over the
Shia-Sunni split. Especially as they know the Saudis don't have nukes.


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 ...

Why? There is no possible rational for targeting anything other than
the capital city.


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.

You just have to hope they'll believe you. Only needs someone in Moscow
to be paranoid. I agree it's not very likely but it has to be born in
mind. Also, as the current paralysis over Syria demonstrates, you
wouldn't necessarily want to tell the Russians what you were up to in
advance.


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.

If the first one doesn't get through, fire another. It would be mixed
up in a salvo of conventional missiles anyway. Also if the Iranians
shoot down the nuke and it detonates over the city anyway you've
achieved your objective, After all it's not a point target weapon is it.


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.



India is not the problem, it is the target. Not sure what you mean
about if Pakistan goes the way of Afghanistan, Pakistan is actually the
sponsor of the problems in Afghanistan.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:00:52 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
The greater danger is that they might attack Riyadh over the
Shia-Sunni split. Especially as they know the Saudis don't have nukes.

And have the entire arab world put them on their hit list? Even iran
needs some friends.

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 ...

Why? There is no possible rational for targeting anything other than
the capital city.

Of course there is. No sensible government puts all its eggs in one basket.
Apart from that you can guarantee if war broke out then Achmed Dinnerjacket
and his flunkies would be nowhere near Tehran.

mind. Also, as the current paralysis over Syria demonstrates, you
wouldn't necessarily want to tell the Russians what you were up to in
advance.

The russians just like to stick their oar in. They don't actually give
a **** about Syria other than using it as a tool to prove that they won't
blindly follow western wishes at the UN.

If the first one doesn't get through, fire another. It would be mixed
up in a salvo of conventional missiles anyway. Also if the Iranians

In which case why bother in the first place?

India is not the problem, it is the target. Not sure what you mean
about if Pakistan goes the way of Afghanistan, Pakistan is actually the
sponsor of the problems in Afghanistan.

True, but its not yet overtly hostile to the west and it limits itself to
regional powermongering. If some taliban supporting islamic nutters got
control of the nuclear missiles then god help us.

B2003

On 19/03/2012 14:50, d wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:00:52 +0000
Graeme wrote:
The greater danger is that they might attack Riyadh over the
Shia-Sunni split. Especially as they know the Saudis don't have nukes.

And have the entire arab world put them on their hit list? Even iran
needs some friends.

Only half the Arab world and do the Iranians actually care, after all
they aren't Arabs.


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 ...

Why? There is no possible rational for targeting anything other than
the capital city.

Of course there is. No sensible government puts all its eggs in one basket.

We are not talking about a sensible government we are talking about what
is effectively a medieval theocracy.

Apart from that you can guarantee if war broke out then Achmed Dinnerjacket
and his flunkies would be nowhere near Tehran.

Doesn't really matter, you knock out Tehran and it doesn't matter where
the monkeys are hiding, you've got the organ-grinder.


mind. Also, as the current paralysis over Syria demonstrates, you
wouldn't necessarily want to tell the Russians what you were up to in
advance.

The russians just like to stick their oar in. They don't actually give
a **** about Syria other than using it as a tool to prove that they won't
blindly follow western wishes at the UN.

More to the point it is one of the few states left buying Russian weaponry.


If the first one doesn't get through, fire another. It would be mixed
up in a salvo of conventional missiles anyway. Also if the Iranians

In which case why bother in the first place?

I'm assuming the Iranians have already fired a nuke and the west is
demonstrating that instant virgins for the masses works both ways. If
there is no point in launching a nuke, why bother having them in the
first place.


India is not the problem, it is the target. Not sure what you mean
about if Pakistan goes the way of Afghanistan, Pakistan is actually the
sponsor of the problems in Afghanistan.

True, but its not yet overtly hostile to the west and it limits itself to
regional powermongering. If some taliban supporting islamic nutters got
control of the nuclear missiles then god help us.


Be afraid, be very afraid, they already have.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:07:52 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
And have the entire arab world put them on their hit list? Even iran
needs some friends.

Only half the Arab world and do the Iranians actually care, after all
they aren't Arabs.

No , but they like to be puppet master of a number of arab terrorist groups.
And I wouldn't be the one to place a bet on whether shia arabs would support
persians after they'd just wiped out half the peninsula.

Of course there is. No sensible government puts all its eggs in one basket.

We are not talking about a sensible government we are talking about what
is effectively a medieval theocracy.

Even theocrats arn't complete idiots.

Doesn't really matter, you knock out Tehran and it doesn't matter where
the monkeys are hiding, you've got the organ-grinder.

Not if he's already legged it.

The russians just like to stick their oar in. They don't actually give
a **** about Syria other than using it as a tool to prove that they won't
blindly follow western wishes at the UN.

More to the point it is one of the few states left buying Russian weaponry.

I doubt thats true. The russians sell via arms dealers to many many nations.
Look at where half the arms in africa come from.

I'm assuming the Iranians have already fired a nuke and the west is
demonstrating that instant virgins for the masses works both ways. If
there is no point in launching a nuke, why bother having them in the
first place.

I mean why bother with cruise missiles if you're going to use conventional too.

True, but its not yet overtly hostile to the west and it limits itself to
regional powermongering. If some taliban supporting islamic nutters got
control of the nuclear missiles then god help us.


Be afraid, be very afraid, they already have.

Not quite yet, but it might not be far off. Though if they even looked at
the red button the wrong way I suspect the yanks would have a quiet word
with the indians and help them carry out a pre-emptive strike.

B2003

On 19/03/2012 15:24, d wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:07:52 +0000
Graeme wrote:
And have the entire arab world put them on their hit list? Even iran
needs some friends.

Only half the Arab world and do the Iranians actually care, after all
they aren't Arabs.

No , but they like to be puppet master of a number of arab terrorist groups.
And I wouldn't be the one to place a bet on whether shia arabs would support
persians after they'd just wiped out half the peninsula.

Riyadh is hardly half the peninsular.


Of course there is. No sensible government puts all its eggs in one basket.

We are not talking about a sensible government we are talking about what
is effectively a medieval theocracy.

Even theocrats arn't complete idiots.

But they do tend to assume their view of the world must be the true one.


Doesn't really matter, you knock out Tehran and it doesn't matter where
the monkeys are hiding, you've got the organ-grinder.

Not if he's already legged it.

See above. Besides which conventional drones can be used if you want to
continue.


The russians just like to stick their oar in. They don't actually give
a **** about Syria other than using it as a tool to prove that they won't
blindly follow western wishes at the UN.

More to the point it is one of the few states left buying Russian weaponry.

I doubt thats true. The russians sell via arms dealers to many many nations.
Look at where half the arms in africa come from.

The AK47 is Czech manufacture. Tghere are not many states putting in
new orders for T54 (or whatever) tanks and MiG fighters.


I'm assuming the Iranians have already fired a nuke and the west is
demonstrating that instant virgins for the masses works both ways. If
there is no point in launching a nuke, why bother having them in the
first place.

I mean why bother with cruise missiles if you're going to use conventional too.

I meant conventionally armed cruise missiles.


True, but its not yet overtly hostile to the west and it limits itself to
regional powermongering. If some taliban supporting islamic nutters got
control of the nuclear missiles then god help us.


Be afraid, be very afraid, they already have.

Not quite yet, but it might not be far off.

The Pakistan Intelligence Service effectively controls the government
and is the prime supporter of the Taliban in that country.

Though if they even looked at
the red button the wrong way I suspect the yanks would have a quiet word
with the indians and help them carry out a pre-emptive strike.


You are still looking at it purely from a western perspective, the
Americans are quite capable of deluding themselves that Pakistan is
still our ally right up to the point that Mumbai disappears in a
mushroom cloud.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 19/03/2012 12:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 19/03/2012 11:30, d wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:48:04 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 19/03/2012 09:40, d wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:37:18 +0000
Arthur wrote:
The world is not short of loony leaders. Those who invent
technologies
always run the risk of losing out to others who copy it.


That doesn't answer the question.

People don't figure out exactly who is going to nick their stuff
before
taking out insurance.

Good analogy , I'm going to remember that one!


On the other hand insurance companiea work out how likely you are to get
your stuff nicked /before/ working out the premium.

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.

What do the Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians say on the subject of who was
doing the rolling? (Okay, there was Egypt, but the US put a stop to that!)

Also given its a de factor

Perhaps you mean de facto...

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.

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
with Israel and South Korea respectively.

The fun starts once Iran gets nukes, the West says "ha ha, that's one in
the eye to yanks and zionists.... Oh, what do you mean various Arab
states are now saying 'well in that case we have to be able to defend
ourselves against Persian attack' while Pakistan is saying "uh-uh, we're
surrounded...""

Neither of which require the
capabilities of 4 Trident ballistic missile submarines to cope with.
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?

Middlesbrough.

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.

Unless they are in on it.

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

I suspect that isn't the plan for most people objecting to current plans!

Personally I'd look at doing a deal with the French. AIUI they know they
only have to be able to nuke Berli^H^H^H whatever the target might be
once, rather than Moscow 137 times or whatever.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 19/03/2012 19:44, Arthur Figgis wrote:

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
with Israel and South Korea respectively.

The fun starts once Iran gets nukes, the West says "ha ha, that's one in
the eye to yanks and zionists.... Oh, what do you mean various Arab
states are now saying 'well in that case we have to be able to defend
ourselves against Persian attack' while Pakistan is saying "uh-uh, we're
surrounded...""

Sorry, I don't understand any of that.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail