Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] UK to increase nuclear warheads by 40%



WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,767
I hadn't seen anything on the news about this, and certainly hope this isn't right, but

Russia condemns UK plan to increase nuclear weapons as threat to ‘international stability’

Russia has condemned the decision by the UK government to boost its arsenal of nuclear weapons, saying the move would harm international stability. The UK will increase the cap on its nuclear warhead stockpile by more than 40 per cent, prime minister Boris Johnson revealed as part of his foreign and defence policy review on Tuesday.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nuclear-weapons-uk-boris-johnson-b1818339.html

After many, many years of all the major powers around the world working on reducing nuclear warheads, just the 2 questions

1. Why ?
2. How are we going to pay for it given our current debt situation ?
 




Hotchilidog

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2009
9,120
If anything demonstrated the disconnect between this government and the problems this country faces this is it.

More nukes for the UK, the answer to a question nobody is asking.
 


Insel affe

HellBilly
Feb 23, 2009
24,335
Brighton factually.....
I hadn't seen anything on the news about this, and certainly hope this isn't right, but

Russia condemns UK plan to increase nuclear weapons as threat to ‘international stability’

Russia has condemned the decision by the UK government to boost its arsenal of nuclear weapons, saying the move would harm international stability. The UK will increase the cap on its nuclear warhead stockpile by more than 40 per cent, prime minister Boris Johnson revealed as part of his foreign and defence policy review on Tuesday.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nuclear-weapons-uk-boris-johnson-b1818339.html

After many, many years of all the major powers around the world working on reducing nuclear warheads, just the 2 questions

1. Why ?
2. How are we going to pay for it given our current debt situation ?

Because our army is under funded and dwinderling ?
I guess big time mass army fights for want of a better word are a thing of the past, the bigger the missile and a smaller number of elite soldiers would be the way to go ??
Just guessing, I have no idea !
 


Does seem a complete waste of money and giving in to the sabre rattling types who believe in a return to 'Splendid Isolation'.

Putting the pro/anti nuke argument to one side; surely once you have enough weapons to effectively wipe out all enemies plus the bonus (?!) of all life on earth; then is it time to spend your money on something else?

With an ageing population the social care time bomb seems more urgent than adding to literal bombs that we already have plenty of.
 


Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
1. Military–industrial complex is strong.
2. Just take another loan and maybe make some cuts in public spending, perhaps some privatisation of state stuff. One day all the nations wont be able to pay their debts and the lenders will say "well, you are ours now". But until then... loan money.
 




Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
I hadn't seen anything on the news about this, and certainly hope this isn't right, but

Russia condemns UK plan to increase nuclear weapons as threat to ‘international stability’

Russia has condemned the decision by the UK government to boost its arsenal of nuclear weapons, saying the move would harm international stability. The UK will increase the cap on its nuclear warhead stockpile by more than 40 per cent, prime minister Boris Johnson revealed as part of his foreign and defence policy review on Tuesday.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nuclear-weapons-uk-boris-johnson-b1818339.html

After many, many years of all the major powers around the world working on reducing nuclear warheads, just the 2 questions

1. Why ?
2. How are we going to pay for it given our current debt situation ?
2. The change is just to the theoretical maximum number allowed. It is a sleight of hand and we are not actually getting any more.

Result : Headline.
Cost : £0.
 


Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,918
West Sussex
I don't begin to understand this. Is it a case of renewing/changing/upgrading technology that happens to change the configuration/number of warheads or are we really expanding our capacity??
 






blue-shifted

Banned
Feb 20, 2004
7,645
a galaxy far far away
Does seem a complete waste of money and giving in to the sabre rattling types who believe in a return to 'Splendid Isolation'.

Putting the pro/anti nuke argument to one side; surely once you have enough weapons to effectively wipe out all enemies plus the bonus (?!) of all life on earth; then is it time to spend your money on something else?

With an ageing population the social care time bomb seems more urgent than adding to literal bombs that we already have plenty of.

Well quite

And this totally ignore the fact that we've signed the non proliferation treaty which legally binds us to be working to reduce our stockpiles.
It also ignores the fact that this just encourages our enemies to boost their supplies.
It also ignores the fact that the most pressing defence item we need to be spending money on is cyber security
It also ignores the fact that nurses are getting a 1% pay rise despite putting their lives on the lines to save us for the past year.

You do have to wonder whether this government is the most brain dead in our country's history
 


lawros left foot

Glory hunting since 1969
NSC Patron
Jun 11, 2011
14,071
Worthing
I’ve always thought we should just pretend we have loads of nukes. If we were ever in a situation where we would have to use them, there is not going to be many of us left to criticise the Government for lying about the amount we have.

It’s not only the bomber submarines that have them either. I can neither confirm or deny that I served on at least one ship that carried tactical nukes.
 


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,767
Because our army is under funded and dwinderling ?
I guess big time mass army fights for want of a better word are a thing of the past, the bigger the missile and a smaller number of elite soldiers would be the way to go ??
Just guessing, I have no idea !

If now is the time to increase our funding on defence (and I really can't see it is), I would rather see it going on job opportunities for thousands of young kids that are going to have bugger all other opportunities, rather than into shareholder dividends for a few multi national arms companies :shrug:
 




Giraffe

VERY part time moderator
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Aug 8, 2005
27,221
As someone that generally supports the current Government I am also baffled by this. Other than job creation maybe? Really can't see the point. Are we missing something?

I'd rather they spent the money on increasing the size of our armed services, and extending their remit to include community projects. The military have been invaluable in helping with Covid projects and I think they could do more like this with more resources.
 




Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
But why even do it?
So they can make cuts in other areas and say they have boosted the nukes to compensate.

It is typical Johnson. All headline, little substance.


The number of nukes we actually have is a state secret. Boosting the published theoretical maximum number is just a headline.


The defence equivalent of "Building a bridge to Ireland".


Johnson does this time and time and time again.
 
Last edited:










The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
26,182
West is BEST
I was listening to a radio documentary about our nuclear arsenal. Apparently, all our nuclear weapons actually belong to the US. We rent them off them. I would imagine this will be the same for the new warhead stock, which leads me to believe this is probably the result of some under the table, toxic deal we have done with the States in order to secure some moody trade deal now that we are going around the globe begging anyone for deals.

But as pointed out earlier, this is, at present, a theoretical increase. But the Tory's have a way of laying the land for something bigger.
 




Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,918
West Sussex
I was listening to a radio documentary about our nuclear arsenal. Apparently, all our nuclear weapons actually belong to the US. We rent them off them. I would imagine this will be the same for the new warhead stock, which leads me to believe this is probably the result of some under the table, toxic deal we have done with the States in order to secure some moody trade deal now that we are going around the globe begging anyone for deals.

But as pointed out earlier, this is, at present, a theoretical increase. But the Tory's have a way of laying the land for something bigger.

They have 6000, we have 200... hardly seems like this would even matter to them. There must be something we are missing here!
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,685
The Fatherland


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here