Done this with Newcastle as the target area and it said there would be no more damage than there is now !!!!!!
I believe that nuclear weapons are a necessary evil as a deterrent...There is a few very dodgy states either have them or are trying to get them, so in the interests of balance of power we have to have them..
I did it over SJP wih a 20 megaton bomb and Sunderland survives The fallout of radioactive Greggs pasties is horrific though. They have a half-life of 1,000 years or, if they're in the Bigg Market, 23 seconds...
You won't get an argument on here that'll make you change your mind Sid. Most people's minds are pretty much set on this issue anyway. The fact is we have them. And no one's gonna give them up in the world we live in today, not even the Labour Party. It gives us a seat at the big boys table. I've also heard it said that the nuclear deterrent's budget is above and beyond the budget set for conventional forces, set aside quite separately by the Treasury. There would therefore be no guarantee that giving up Trident would free up funds for the MoD. It could go on other crap, like benefits, foreign aid, hospitals.
****ing politicians on Question Time! To pretend that getting rid of nuclear weapons will make the world safer is so ****ing naive. If everyone got rid of nuclear weapons we'd have even more conventional wars, and our young'uns would be getting killed in their thousands. Putin would almost certainly be back in the Baltic States, Pakistan and India might have had a full scale war, potentially dragging in the Chinese and Russia and Israel wouldn't exist.
taken from the Scottish Herald - Q&A: what's the Trident row about? The Conservatives and Labour are engaged in a bitter row around replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent - but what is it, how much will it cost and what are the options? What is Trident? Trident is a complete system of submarine-based nuclear missiles. It is based on four boats and at any time at least one of them is at sea, on patrol, somewhere in the world. One of the four Vanguard-class submarines has been constantly on patrol since the system came online in 1994. The system is operated by the Royal Navy and based at the Clyde Naval Base on the west coast of Scotland. The name Trident comes from the American-built UGM-133 Trident II missiles which are carried by the boats. Trident replaced a system of Polaris nuclear weapons based on Resolution-class submarines. These had operated since 1963 under an agreement with the United States. The Trident programme was announced as a replacement in 1980. Why does it need replacing? While the Trident missiles are expected to be useful for several more decades, the four submarines are coming to the end their life. The Vanguard-class was designed to operate for 25 years - taking the boats to the mid 2020s. The life of the submarines can be extended by about five years with a refit but new submarines - either new Vanguard-class boats or a completely new design - will be needed to renew the Trident system. Why can't Britain just disarm and give up its nuclear weapons? The Government insists unilateral nuclear disarmament would leave Britain vulnerable in a dangerous world. The number of warheads has been reduced and is already the smallest stockpile of the five recognised nuclear powers - Britain, the United States, Russia, France and China. Government policy is to put British disarmament up for negotiation when other powers have reduced stockpiles to similar levels. How much will a like-for-like replacement cost? A House of Commons Library note suggests that in 2013/14 prices, replacement for the whole Trident system would cost about £17.5 billion to £23.4 billion. Replacing the submarines would be £12.9 billion to £16.4 billion of that cost. Once in place, the successor system is expected to cost around 5% of the annual Ministry of Defence budget - similar to today. Around £750 million will be saved over the next five years by the decision to shrink Britain's stockpile of warheads. Trident opponents, such as the CND, claim replacing the system will cost £100 billion over its lifetime. Are there any alternative systems or options? At the urging of the Liberal Democrats, the coalition commissioned a review of alternatives to a like-for-like replacement for the Trident system. Produced by former Liberal Democrat defence minister Sir Nick Harvey, the review suggested abandoning continuous at-sea patrols and cutting the number of submarines from four to three. The Conservatives and Labour rejected this as a "part time" deterrent which would risk increasing international tensions every time a sub was put to sea. Alternative platforms, including land-based nuclear weapons and missiles that can be fired from an aircraft, were also considered by the review. It found aircraft-based missiles could be more vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike and that it would take much longer to design and build the new weapon. Land-based cruise missiles would limit Britain's ability to strike anywhere in the world without a third-party nation's help, as well as also being expensive to design and produce. All alternatives to a submarine system would still need at least two new submarines to cover the capability gap between the end of the current Trident programme and the new alternative, significantly increasing the cost of all alternatives, the study found
All alternatives to a submarine system would still need at least two new submarines to cover the capability gap between the end of the current Trident programme and the new alternative, significantly increasing the cost of all alternatives, the study found meaning what? get rid of the nukes we are ****ed.. just another tiny nation..
An excellent point, Commo. In the late-1970s, General Zhia of Pakistan left the British Commonwealth because he saw it as a worthless antiquity. In the early 1990s, he applied to re-join it, because he found that as an un-connected entity, Pakistan wasn't even listened to. There is far too much of this 'sod the monarchy', 'sod the House of Lords', and 'sod the commonwealth' attitude around. The bottom line is, Britain has a great system, slow and ponderous at times, yes, but well evolved and in the end will reach the right decision. Our nuclear capacity means that loads of little countries, like the Falkland Islands, Tonga, or Tristan da Cunha get heard at the big boy's table instead of those out of it like Pakistan tried to be. And, at a time when British opinion is well and truly in favour of leaving the E.U., reforming the E.U., or whatever, we need these old friends to negotiate trade with if we ditch Europe. The simple fact is, get rid of the nukes which get us all heard at the top table, and we get rid of our old friends as well - and we might just need to re-negotiate those old Commonwealth trading options soon. Get rid of our nukes and we get rid of our future commercial options. That's the truth of it..
Ed Milliband will probably wet his knickers and give them to Kim Jong Un if he was in charge of a ****ing Nuke.
The nuclear debate continues in the media as Faslane mentioned earlier in this thread has made the news today - Thirty four people have been arrested following an anti-nuclear blockade of the Faslane naval base on the Clyde. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-32282564 can see scrapping of nukes debate becoming a hot topic as the political campaigning gets under-way
****ing scruffy bastards. Wonder if they'd be so keen for this malarky if their families worked there.
