Is it time for the UK abandon nuclear weapons.

[Quiller]

You could *potentially* base silos at known targets, say, London and Birmingham, then add in ABM defences in the outlying areas so you'd be defending the silos from an incoming strike plus the cities they'd be based in.

Politically however...

We had land based missiles back in the fifties for a brief time - Thor, under a dual control arrangement with the USAF but these were above ground launch systems, defended usually by Bloodhound missiles. Folk weren't keen on having the missiles nearby - and a modern permanent missile silo would have to be well defended from ground attack, large enough to preclude mortar or other indirect fire from the perimeter and have the right geology to support an underground silo.


Can't see it being palatable.

How about in the Scottish highlands? Lots of bedrock in the north, lightly populated, etc.

 

[Quiller]

In a sense you are right, but the past 62 years did have numerous major conflicts, obviously not in the way as WO 1 & 2 but do not forget the smaller conflicts who where for a large part based upon nuclear weapons in terms of : Having, producing or allegedly having / producing them or having a program.
Also the Cold war was a time where in a public way it was a cold war, but behind the scenes it was anything but cold and there have been moments where both sides literally would decide if they would have a go at each other based upon impulsive actions and decisions made by either side, causing to trigger a stand down.

So yes peace is being guaranteed by nukes and the prospect of M.A.D
On the other hand it caused some serious situations and conflicts.
IMO Nukes only serve US and Russia and to a smaller degree China.
All the other nations who do posses nukes could do without them, with the exception of Pakistan and India as they have a sort of smaller cold war version between the 2 of them which brings back the M.A.D concept.

I personally would love to see the nukes gone...all of them period.
But fact is as some others said in this day and age nukes will remain and i am convinced that in the future we will see the actual use of it or at least a stalemate where 2 powers cross each other in such way that the use of nuclear weapons becomes a reality.

Ones there was a movie about a nuclear sub (USS Alabama) about 2 captains fighting over who is right or wrong after a fragmented order came in to hit a target (Damn forgot the name)
And during the dinner they where smarting eachother out with Von Clausewitz quotes and one of them said: In a nuclear world the true enemy during the war is not the side you are fighting but the very war itself.

And this would apply very much to this situation where the world still has enough nukes to make mother earth shine brighter then the sun itself.
My point here is that with the best intentions the biggest mistakes are being made and thus it only takes one wrong judgment call and it cannot be undone.
That being said in a conventional war calls are being made some wrong some good, but neither of those calls carry the dangers that a nuclear exchange would have.
So we cannot disband the nukes we have, but it would be in everyones best interest to do so.

BTW, MAD may not be the exclusive purpose of nukes in today's interesting political and military climate. Some of you may recall that in the run up to the first Iraq war, Hussein was threatening to use chemical weapons against any allied troops that attacked his country. Although no WMD's (meaning nukes) were found per se, Iraq did have (and used on Kurds) chemical munitions.

Diplomatic contacts were engaged with Hussein and his military, sending the message that if Hussein deployed chemical weapons, the US would respond with nuclear weapons. According to intelligence at the time, Iraq decided not to risk the nuclear response option and did not use chemical weapons in theater.

So to some extent, the threat of use, coupled with the real ability to do so, may have had some strategic and tactical effect in a more confined conflict.

 

[Belesari]

Then there is the question of just how many nukes China has and or is building.

The US nuclear arsenal is basicly our insane stick. US something like chemical or nuclear weapons on us or our allies we will us them on you.

MAD still works, always did. The lack of a major war in western europe in the last half century shows that as well as the lack of around 100,000,000 or more casualties between the US and european nations.

BTW, MAD may not be the exclusive purpose of nukes in today's interesting political and military climate. Some of you may recall that in the run up to the first Iraq war, Hussein was threatening to use chemical weapons against any allied troops that attacked his country. Although no WMD's (meaning nukes) were found per se, Iraq did have (and used on Kurds) chemical munitions.

Diplomatic contacts were engaged with Hussein and his military, sending the message that if Hussein deployed chemical weapons, the US would respond with nuclear weapons. According to intelligence at the time, Iraq decided not to risk the nuclear response option and did not use chemical weapons in theater.

So to some extent, the threat of use, coupled with the real ability to do so, may have had some strategic and tactical effect in a more confined conflict.

 

[Quiller]

Then there is the question of just how many nukes China has and or is building.

The US nuclear arsenal is basicly our insane stick. US something like chemical or nuclear weapons on us or our allies we will us them on you.

MAD still works, always did. The lack of a major war in western europe in the last half century shows that as well as the lack of around 100,000,000 or more casualties between the US and european nations.

Of course I agree... my only point was MAD is no longer the exclusive reason for a western power (or any power) to maintain its pre-existing nuclear arsenal. It tends to inhibit abject craziness on the part of some regimes not known for restraint.