Finger on the nuclear button.

I have just seen an add on the main BBC site for this rather interesting radio show.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 758347.stm

It's about whether or not Gordon Brown has asked our nuclear subs to retaliate if we are attacked and he's killed before he can take action. It sounds like it could be rather interesting and it got me thinking what would I decide. I first thought "Hell yes I'd want some payback" for the more than likely millions dead in the UK but then I started think whats the point as we are most likely already dead and how will striking back with massive power help.

I think in the end I'd not want to strike back as the chances of of retaliating against the wrong people in the heat of the moment would be to high and that would just make things even worse.
What would you decide given the choice?

This was my best topic in years .

Screw you all .

Seeing my friends and family die I would fire without hesitation.

I'd push the button, strawberry float it, I ain't killin people, the button is.

Also, if they were willing to strawberry float up the UK chances are they would be trying to strawberry float with other countries as well, so you might as well try stop them.

Anyway, Ima bounce to Ireland if anything like this ever pops off mayne.

It was too thought provoking, demanded too much from the readers; you're destined to go unappreciated in your own life time Pete. You need to throw in a few hot or nots to warm people up, then hit them with the ol' nuke scenario. For the record though, I would nuke the last country I had an argument with, or suspected of bad-mouthing me behind my back, in a tit for tat reprisal. It's the only language these armageddon-bringers understand.

ALBEAR'D!

it's a wonderful moi wrote:It was too thought provoking, demanded too much from the readers; you're destined to go unappreciated in your own life time Pete. You need to throw in a few hot or nots to warm people up, then hit them with the ol' nuke scenario. For the record though, I would nuke the last country I had an argument with, or suspected of bad-mouthing me behind my back, in a tit for tat reprisal. It's the only language these armageddon-bringers understand.

I've never done a Hot or Not topic and I feel I would just let the side down with obvious and dreary choices.

You would have to push that button as a matter of principle otherwise it'd become "if I nuke first, I win since they will see it pointless to retaliate". You have to add a consequence to the oppositions actions. You nuke away, you have no choice, just like you don't negotiate with terrorists as you'll be opening the flood gates for every Tom, Dick and Harry to start taking hostages.

As one Trident sub has enough firepower to wipe out every major city in Russia, I doubt the Russians would risk using nuclear weapons against a major nuclear power such as Britain.

Obviously you have to make the enemy think you would hit the button without hesitation to retain some credibility but it's a moral question more than anything else. If you listen to a clip on the site I posted you can hear Lord Healey who was the Man responsible if the PM was Dead say that he would not have killed 20 million Russians (I'm sure thats a fairly low estimate of the results of a Trident strike as well) if he had had to make the decision.

I can see his point and I agree.

I can't say... They're watching me.

IronTidings wrote:As one Trident sub has enough firepower to wipe out every major city in Russia, I doubt the Russians would risk using nuclear weapons against a major nuclear power such as Britain.

Well, someone would have to start it - besides, Mr Crisp is making an effort.

I say, sure, nuke those strawberry floaters - twice.

$ilva $anta wrote:You would have to push that button as a matter of principle otherwise it'd become "if I nuke first, I win since they will see it pointless to retaliate". You have to add a consequence to the oppositions actions. You nuke away, you have no choice, just like you don't negotiate with terrorists as you'll be opening the flood gates for every Tom, Dick and Harry to start taking hostages.

Indeed, deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the fear to attack. If anything the human factor should be removed in the event of nuclear war, where a specific and clearly defined set of circumstances, under which the missiles are to be launched, can be programmed into a computer.

Cuttooth wrote:...If anything the human factor should be removed in the event of nuclear war, where a specific and clearly defined set of circumstances, under which the missiles are to be launched, can be programmed into a computer.

You don't watch much sci-fi, do you?

Peter Crisp wrote:

it's a wonderful moi wrote:It was too thought provoking, demanded too much from the readers; you're destined to go unappreciated in your own life time Pete. You need to throw in a few hot or nots to warm people up, then hit them with the ol' nuke scenario. For the record though, I would nuke the last country I had an argument with, or suspected of bad-mouthing me behind my back, in a tit for tat reprisal. It's the only language these armageddon-bringers understand.

I've never done a Hot or Not topic and I feel I would just let the side down with obvious and dreary choices.

Hot or not: Nuclear Retalitaion.

Peter Crisp wrote:Obviously you have to make the enemy think you would hit the button without hesitation to retain some credibility but it's a moral question more than anything else. If you listen to a clip on the site I posted you can hear Lord Healey who was the Man responsible if the PM was Dead say that he would not have killed 20 million Russians (I'm sure thats a fairly low estimate of the results of a Trident strike as well) if he had had to make the decision.

I can see his point and I agree.

I'd like to know Lord Healey's opinion actually. What does he say? Sorry I'm too lazy to listen to the clip.


There's no other choice but to nuke back....it keeps the powers in check. It'd be evil sure, millions of innocents suffering but it'd be a necessary evil to keep things in check. Lord Healey should have kept his opinion quiet on this one though, I'd hate for anyone to think this country could be nuked with no consequences.

Cuttooth wrote:

$ilva $anta wrote:You would have to push that button as a matter of principle otherwise it'd become "if I nuke first, I win since they will see it pointless to retaliate". You have to add a consequence to the oppositions actions. You nuke away, you have no choice, just like you don't negotiate with terrorists as you'll be opening the flood gates for every Tom, Dick and Harry to start taking hostages.

Indeed, deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the fear to attack. If anything the human factor should be removed in the event of nuclear war, where a specific and clearly defined set of circumstances, under which the missiles are to be launched, can be programmed into a computer.

Nah you can't computerise it, wouldn't people just seek other means to circumvent it? For example the Lebanese government were allowing terrorists to attack Israel, they weren't supporting them, but they sure as hell weren't doing anything to stop it. Our governments are quite clearly capable of selling nuclear arms through the back door to terrorist factions and allowing them to do the dirty work and then sitting back and saying "wasn't me". Back in the days it wasn't nuclear arms they were selling but they were selling arms to Saddam to put him in power, he did their dirty work and then they got rid of him, the American government took no responsibility and the best youcn hear is whisperings that the CIA planned to put him in power for their own purposes.

You have to think about more than just revenge. The public may demand it, maybe people might even try to make it happen by breaking into wherever this red button is, metaphor or not.

It'd mess up the whole world's environment, for one. Ridiculous.

$ilva $anta wrote:Nah you can't computerise it, wouldn't people just seek other means to circumvent it?

As long as it triggered automatically and was also impossible to untrigger there wouldn't be a problem. Such a machine would be terrifying and simple to understand to anyone who would want to start a nuclear war.

Cuttooth wrote:

$ilva $anta wrote:Nah you can't computerise it, wouldn't people just seek other means to circumvent it?

As long as it triggered automatically and was also impossible to untrigger there wouldn't be a problem. Such a machine would be terrifying and simple to understand to anyone who would want to start a nuclear war.

Yeah, but the hackers would just hack it. They can hack anything, you see. They'd make it run Linux or something, just because they can.