Nuclear Warheads

I know nothing about this subject.. But my impression is that 180 nuclear warheads would probably be enough to pretty much wreck the planet. So can anybody tell me what we want with another 80?

 

Nope I’ve no idea either, seems barmy to me.

 

We're protecting our borders and taking back contrails.

 

I wouldn’t trust Boris with a sky rocket let alone one with a nuclear war head on it

 

Populist nonsense as far as I can work out.

And expensive!

 

There’s no actual opposition to this government anymore.

 

A load of absolute ******** is what it is. Why invest money in people and projects that deserve and need help, in a once in a lifetime ******* pandemic no less, when you can buy more world-ending deterrent bombs. Anyone complicit in voting these fascists in for the sake of "getting Brexit done" or "lack of a credible alternative" should be utterly, utterly ashamed. This is on you.

 

Never understood the numbers needed since as you say, a handful of ICBMs (assuming that is what we are talking about as opposed to tactical battlefield warheads ) would be sufficient to pretty much wipe humanity out given any use would result in a similar number or more being launched in response.
In any case, the very existence on the planet of either type is an abomination and IMO a symbol of man's stupidity and inhumanity. But then again so are conventional weapons and the acts of war. They are invariably started by a single person who somehow manages to convince sufficient people (we are all pretty stupid) that initiating a war is, justified, vital, and even worse winnable and beneficial. We never seem to learn that no one 'wins' a war.
Unfortunately Nuclear weapons can't be un-invented and with egotistical and power hungry and/or religious, ideaological zealot leaders that exist in those countries possessing, or on the point of possessing, such weapons we do need them. I am layman when it comes to strategic defence but can only suggest the increasingly diverse threat above what used to be the 'old enemies' i.e. The Soviets and the Chinese means the defences must be capable of simultaneously targeting more potential regions. Then again that could all be total b*llox.
IMO, it is a laudable desire in an increasingly mad and unstable World to unilaterally disarm, but unbelievably naive. Nevertheless, like you, although I can understand replacing obsolete weapons I do not understand the need to increase the numbers we have. I disagree that it is "populist nonsense" as one poster has stated on this thread, since most people have more immediate issues such as a Pandemic that affect them both health wise and financially. In any case, an increase in the proliferation of Nuclear weapons is hardly likely to be a vote winner in most stable First World countries

 

Bugger thought this was going to be a thread about our second half substitutions

 

We’re going to paint them red white and blue and show the world how outward looking, friendly and open for trade we are.

 

It’s kept the peace in Europe though

 

I was looking to see what price it was in the 15.05 at Cheltenham.

 

The sarcasm is, IMO, misplaced ..... in a mad world.... M.A.D. has actually done that job up to a point.

 

I saw this yesterday. The economy completely shafted by Brexit and COVID so we spaff a few more billion on useless nuclear toys for the boys.

Completely insane.

 

But we can’t afford a decent pay rise for NHS workers.

 

It must be completely devastating for any NHS workers hearing this crazy news.

 

Absolutely.

 

I’m more concerned over where our lovely mad right wing war mongering Tory govt will store them.

 

Nurses 1% rise
Nuclear weapons 44% rise.

Glad we got our priorities sorted out.

 

The nurses got a clap. What more do they need?