Jump to content

Kim-jon plinky plonk


ditchman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do America etc not have similar policy policies. ?

Not publically like the UK.

 

This because of our limited amount of warheads and smaller yields, Russia the the US couldn't publically have a first strike policy, it messes up the deterrent.

 

Even states having public fallout shelters unbalances things, it appears they are planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not publically like the UK.

 

This because of our limited amount of warheads and smaller yields, Russia the the US couldn't publically have a first strike policy, it messes up the deterrent.

 

Even states having public fallout shelters unbalances things, it appears they are planning.

 

Years ago, Peterborough was a stated "NUCLEAR FREE ZONE", we felt much safer just up the road at RAF Wittering knowing that nobody would dare send a nuke over during the cold war!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not publically like the UK.

 

This because of our limited amount of warheads and smaller yields, Russia the the US couldn't publically have a first strike policy, it messes up the deterrent.

 

Even states having public fallout shelters unbalances things, it appears they are planning.

Are you sure. :hmm:

 

The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. The U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released April 6, 2010.

 

Edited by ordnance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the no first strike it's all the rest. The uk has basically said they will use one when they see fit with no restrictions. Not only to protect herself but her allies. As far as i am aware no other country has that freedom.

A attack on any NATO country is an attack on all NATO members, so yes it would make scene to say all options would be available if it happened.

 

The uk has basically said they will use one when they see fit with no restrictions.

 

Have you a link to that policy.?

Edited by ordnance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just on the by.......................if we went out on a limb to protect NATO...at great cost to ourselves............could we guarantee that NATO Europe would come to our hour of need in the same way ?

 

 

i think not...we have the balls / guts .....they dont

Edited by ditchman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not their policy.

The bay of pigs was an eye opener, recently an eye opener as well when the russian sub captains revealed that they were armed with nuke torpedos and had authority to use them at their discretion.

The whole thing is self protection.

Kim ain't going to be invaded and thir will be no regime change or he can nuke the states. The states aren't going to test his resolve. In 6 months after some dummy throwing and tantrums we will be back where we were and the wheel will go round.

As for governments policy on nuclear use have a try in google.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not their policy.

The bay of pigs was an eye opener, recently an eye opener as well when the russian sub captains revealed that they were armed with nuke torpedos and had authority to use them at their discretion.

The whole thing is self protection.

Kim ain't going to be invaded and thir will be no regime change or he can nuke the states. The states aren't going to test his resolve. In 6 months after some dummy throwing and tantrums we will be back where we were and the wheel will go round.

As for governments policy on nuclear use have a try in google.

I have, i just thought you would want to back up your post. You are contradicting your earlier post saying that the UK (Quote the Brits have THE most aggressive nuclear policy on the globe"

A lot of people don't understand that.) Now you are saying that the Russians had (nuke torpedos and had authority to use them at their discretion.) The British policy is no more or less aggressive than America or the Russians.

Edited by ordnance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the news yesterday they said that US armed forces activity was actually low in the region and even the US cariers were not close which indicated that not much would happen as the US weren't really gearing up. I guess no one knows where the Subs are though.

Plus if we had steath bombers flying arpund for more than 10 years before anyone knew about them heaven knows what trump has to hand or what he is planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have, i just thought you would want to back up your post. You are contradicting your earlier post saying that the UK (Quote the Brits have THE most aggressive nuclear policy on the globe"

A lot of people don't understand that.) Now you are saying that the Russians had (nuke torpedos and had authority to use them at their discretion.) The British policy is no more aggressive than America or the Russians.

Yep, your right it does contridict it but only for one instance. Not a complete policy.

And my post was "not a lot of people understand that" not the beginning which I was quoting.

Edited by GingerCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Kim ain't going to be invaded and thir will be no regime change or he can nuke the states. The states aren't going to test his resolve. In 6 months after some dummy throwing and tantrums we will be back where we were and the wheel will go round.

As for governments policy on nuclear use have a try in google.

 

I hope you are right. :) Kennedy talked tough, and they backed down and did a secret deal with the Russians and called it a victory. Maybe Trump might do similar.

Edited by ordnance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ping pong cant back down the true ruler,s of Korea would feed him to the dogs in a minute but Trump has always said Korea is a problem to the US so he cant back down .We just have to hope cooler heads prevail as if Trump does attack China,s pet the fallout will be a right mess.The Chinese and Russians dont wont America playing in their back yard and as we know Russia and China are not the most stable of regimes so who knows how they,l react if B1,s drop a bomb or 2 on North Korea .

The 1st Korean war was all but done till a few 100, thousand chinese popped over the border to help their "brothers" in communism :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot get my head round all this from Americas view,if they just shoot the damn things out of the sky and just act a if nothing happened.

Maybe they have a real answer to missiles and do not wish to show their hands to the other big players. Lasers comes to mind..

Shoot them out the sky and make them all worthless as far as N K is concerned..

Or this an act of war doing that?.

Russia was really concerned some years back about Star Wars..

In fact Putin actualy spoke of that some weeks back,saying if they could keep them from flying to targets,it would change the Balance of war for ever..

Makes them obselete in other words,that is why the do not want the Americans on their borders..

Quicker is better so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lasers have been looked at extensively for missile defence but with current technology focusing sufficient energy on a BM reentry vehicle through the atmosphere makes it impractical.

 

Traditional missile to missile intercept is also a lot less of a certainty than people often think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lasers have been looked at extensively for missile defence but with current technology focusing sufficient energy on a BM reentry vehicle through the atmosphere makes it impractical.

 

Traditional missile to missile intercept is also a lot less of a certainty than people often think.

They would need to have improved over the patriot missile system used against the scud missiles in the golf war, after all the hype it turns out the failed to shoot down any scud missiles. All they did manage to shoot down was a British Tornado jet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lasers have been looked at extensively for missile defence but with current technology focusing sufficient energy on a BM reentry vehicle through the atmosphere makes it impractical.

 

Traditional missile to missile intercept is also a lot less of a certainty than people often think.

 

 

that was proved when they set the batteries up in Israel.....................bloody waste of time..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...