So if nuclear weapons were fired at the UK and our leaders waited for conclusive proof that had happened, and instructed our subs to retaliate, then you would define that as us causing a nuclear holocaust?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Would you be prepared to press the button?
- Thread starter Albumen
- Start date
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,016
because people have brought into the idea that as we have to rely on US for servicing the weapons, we have to get permission to fire. as if we'd sign up to a system that couldn't be launched without permission from a chain of command that may not be communicable or even in existence. the launch codes are on the subs already, otherwise the whole system (including those run by the US) doesn't work.
and this is another nuance the question misses, its not about "pushing the button" its about the instructions given to the sub commanders to enact in event of no communication from London - once assumed a war has initiated, what response to take, fire, dont fire, go to the US, Australia, or wherever to see out what days are left. that's why Trident is at sub based and not land/air based.
Well we certainly should be able to, in the even that we were attacked.
Because they built them.
I don't know if that applies to our land based missiles as well as those in subs though.
Although the US maintain Trident, I find it difficult to believe that we have no ability to fire a single missile from land or sea without them passing us codes etc.
If a significant chunk of Russia's 3,000 nuclear warheads have landed here, I really couldn't care less whether we were able to 'retaliate' or not. Whats the POINT?
If the UK is whiped out by Russia, then I'd want humanity to continue without those that caused the nuclear war. It's possible the US and the UK could get wiped out, but there would still be a lot of good countries left that deserve to be free from those that started the war.
There would also be millions and millions and millions of good PEOPLE - men, women and children, in 'bad' Russia.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
- Thread starter
- #47
Hans saved me from typing. Unless we can aim ours at theirs in mid-air and blow up Belgium we'd be all dead very soon very quickly. I'd rather have sex with as many people as possible in that time rather than waste time pressing a button. *awaits SEX BUTTON jokes*
Becktheman
New member
- Jul 7, 2015
- 28
The question makes little sense.
Not at all, he didn't answer the question I asked you. He said 'what's the point' (which is one point of view), but I was asking you to explain the poorly phrased poll, not whether there'd be any point in retaliating.
I'm aware of that, I live with a Russian, but if the leaders of Russia are happy to destroy us and we don't retaliate, then they will destroy every other country on earth, maybe except China (purely because China have nukes) until they have complete global domination. And once they'd done that, they'd attack China. Of course sending nukes back would kill millions of innocent people, but if we didn't then Russia would go on to kill many millions more people around the globe, and dictate over those that they didn't kill.
Leyton Gull
Banned
- Sep 14, 2015
- 411
You live with a Russian? Risky!
Its a scenario that makes no sense. How far through this campaign of destroying every country on earth would they need to get before the planet is contaminated to the point that the Russians are all going to die anyway - just more slowly?
Don Quixote
Well-known member
- Nov 4, 2008
- 8,362
What would be the point if it would only be a retaliation? Everyone in the country would be dead anyway.
There is no button. The pm writes a letter which is kept in the submarines in case we are attacked.
There is no button. The pm writes a letter which is kept in the submarines in case we are attacked.
A scenario that would make no sense is for Russia to destroy the UK with nukes, receive no retaliation, and then do nothing more. That would make no sense, of course they would then attack other countries. They wouldn't have to nuke all other countries, they'd simply tell them to surrender and accept Russian rule, or be nuked.
Our allies can send in special troops to take out the Russian leaders, then hope that their replacements are open to diplomatic resolutions. Why retaliate by killing millions of innocent people, who had nothing whatsover to do with the original decision?
I suggest that's too difficult, and why we were unable to do the same to German leaders.
The original decision? Did we kill one single German in the whole of WWII who had anything to do with the original decision on invading Poland? I guess you wouldn't have gone to war with Germany, as the result would lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people. Germany would have just got stronger and stronger unopposed and more people would have died.
Our missiles would be aimed at military targets and while there would of course be millions of innocent casualties, it would limit Russia's ability to take over the whole of Europe, and it would ultimately save lives.
sir albion
New member
Absolutely
AlastairWatts
Active member
I think that you've been reading too many fictional novels.... If the UK was attacked, the only realistic defence, given the naff state generations of politicians have left our military in, would be nuclear one. No time then for a referendum: it would probably be the only answer. To talk of 'our allies (quite who this is supposed to be leaves me puzzled, just hope it's not the garlic eaters) sending special forces' in this context is so daft even Tom Clancy wouldn't have included that one it.
I accept HKFC's point that it's not really a defence of the UK, as we would already be doomed, so there's nothing to defend. But it would be a defence of what's left of the world.
Agreed.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
As others have said Causing a holocaust implies a first strike. Answer No
If retaliatory, as long as potential aggressor with any sense of self preservation believes I would that's all that matters.
By the way liked the use of "Following the fallout"
If retaliatory, as long as potential aggressor with any sense of self preservation believes I would that's all that matters.
By the way liked the use of "Following the fallout"