35bn trident costs..what a waste of money

[Harleyman]

That would have been tricky as they didn't even know it was possible. Most of the early work on the bomb was done by the UK and it was decided that the quickest way to build one was to take the pilot plant work and move it all to the USA, to take advantage of the labour pool there and more importantly to remove it from the disruption of German bombing.

 

I once wrote up a paper discussing what would have happened if the bomb had been available in the european theatre, and what would be needed to make it happen. The conclusion was it was possible to have built it by early 1944 - certainly in time for Neptune and Overlord. To do that the US would have had to have been convinced of the utility of it a lot earlier and put a lot of effort into the Hanford plants.

 

The conclusion from using it was not ideal though - it would probably have lengthened the war considerably as the opionion was that the Germans would go partisan and it would have degenerated into a series of low level guerrilla wars all over Europe for a considerable number of years. It would still have saved a considerable number of lives however.

 

Valid points. I was creating a scenario where the first stages in development of the Bomb would have had to start even as far back as the mid to late 1920s but of course that was impossible in a world in the midst of a depression and Europe and America yet to see the rise of Adolf Hitler'

 

I don't think that German guerilla groups could have lasted very long in your post Bomb, European end of war scenario.

 

Partisan or Guerrilla groups need the right surrounding to operate effectively within. They need either the sympathy, the support or both overall among their own people who hide, protect, supply them with food, arms and intelligence. These German guerrillas would have received none of that in the lands they had occupied. In Russia they would have been extinct even quicker.

 

As for western Europe the geography alone is hardly suited for clandestine warfare, too much open land, only low lying hills or mountains of low altitude, hardly rugged either and no thick dense forests stretching for endless miles.

 

I think the total destruction of Berlin and the death of most or if not all of the Nazi leaders would have in a short matter of time shocked the German military leaders into starting surrender negotiations.

 

The Germans at that time were "sheeple" I've heard stories of large groups of German troops surrendering after the death of their officer/s when in fact they were quite capable of fighting on

 

This was not the case with the British , Americans, Canadians or Russians. If their officers were lost, generally the NCOs would take their place and continue on.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Harleyman

[SteveJ68]

I'm OK with it if the tax dodging corporations pay for it!

[tinfoilhat]

Thread resurrection time.

 

Given the state of the world and the fact we can bring a country to it's knees with a few thousand well placed holiday makers, do we need nuclear weapons? Can we afford them?

 

 

[apelike]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

Thread resurrection time.

 

Given the state of the world and the fact we can bring a country to it's knees with a few thousand well placed holiday makers, do we need nuclear weapons? Can we afford them?

No we don't need them at all and certainly can't afford them now. What does amaze me is that people bemoan contracts with the USA in other regards and yet are happy to give them billions just to upgrade something that is now basically redundant and will never be used. Having Nukes has always been down to a show of power and bravado to please those old guard generals in the war rooms. As we have already seen, if a country wants to bring down another or just cause havoc then all they need to do now is to tap into social media or hack computers. People are now so addicted to social media now they would be rioting and committing suicide if their ideal life on the social media platforms suddenly stopped. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by apelike

[woolyhead]

Apelike, you said    "People are now so addicted to social media now they would be rioting and committing suicide if their ideal life on the social media platforms suddenly stopped."    This is an exaggeration of course but in any case what makes you think that "what people want" matters if conscription into the armed forces, or orders to launch nuclear weapons  should occur?  We do what we're told, don't we?

Edited August 1, 2020 by woolyhead

[apelike]

3 hours ago, woolyhead said:

Apelike, you said    "People are now so addicted to social media now they would be rioting and committing suicide if their ideal life on the social media platforms suddenly stopped."    This is an exaggeration of course....

Me bold... Not really an exaggeration and more an observation of the times we are in as young people nowadays can't seem to go anywhere without having a phone in hand texting or browsing on facebook. How many times have you had to avoid someone on the pavement who was just walking along not looking where they were going because they were fixated with their phone. Young people especially are now very addicted to the social media phone culture so if that was to suddenly stop all hell would break loose.

 

3 hours ago, woolyhead said:

but in any case what makes you think that "what people want" matters if conscription into the armed forces, or orders to launch nuclear weapons  should occur?  We do what we're told, don't we?

I think the recent problems with coronavirus answers some of that. 

[woolyhead]

No,  apelike, I don't think it does.  They haven't been ordered not to do it. only advised not to. And if the navy were ordered to launch, do you think they would fail to do so? Of course not.  And if people were conscripted and didn't turn up the police would pretty soon be round looking for them.  "What they wanted" wouldn't come into it.

Edited August 2, 2020 by woolyhead

[apelike]

Well I can only say that we disagree on that but the situation around the world at the moment shows how unhappy some of the young are in being told what to do. They are the ones suffering mainly because of no jobs, lack of housing, no prospects and no spare cash to spend. When the cold war was in its prime spending on weapons did in part make sense but spending billions on something that wont be used as after all it's a "deterrent" is now pointless. How many do we need to make it a deterrent anyway?

 

If a nuclear war was to happen now all that they have come to rely on will stop, no internet, no mobile phones, no social media, no freedom just control, censorship and rationing, and I think that would be more important to them now than the prospect of going to war. To me modern technology is changing the very nature of how any potential war may take place and that is now very unlikely to be nuclear.

[Bargepole23]

9 hours ago, woolyhead said:

No,  apelike, I don't think it does.  They haven't been ordered not to do it. only advised not to. And if the navy were ordered to launch, do you think they would fail to do so? Of course not.  And if people were conscripted and didn't turn up the police would pretty soon be round looking for them.  "What they wanted" wouldn't come into it.

What's conscription got to do with Trident or its successor?

[L00b]

On 1 August 2020 at 13:57, woolyhead said:

Apelike, you said    "People are now so addicted to social media now they would be rioting and committing suicide if their ideal life on the social media platforms suddenly stopped."    This is an exaggeration of course but in any case what makes you think that "what people want" matters if conscription into the armed forces, or orders to launch nuclear weapons  should occur?  We do what we're told, don't we?

Not anymore, according a recently-retired nuclear sub commander interviewed in a broadsheet last week. He'd have a very serious issue launching, as the trust compact with the political executive is, to all intents and purposes, broken under the current post-truth politics.