loraward Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 We can't defend the Falklands now, we don't have the capability anymore What do you think the Argentinians have that we couldn't defend against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Part of an article from the Gatestone Institute: "Russia has, over the past six years, repeatedly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against U.S. allies and NATO, as well as a new threat on April 2, if the U.S. armed Ukraine or protected the Baltic states. The Russian ambassador to Denmark recently threatened to aim Russian nuclear warheads at Danish warships if they deployed missile defense radars. Such dangers will only be magnified if the number of nuclear powers multiplies, such as if Iran and Sunni states develop nuclear weapons. Iran's Foreign Minister has said that Iran plans to sell "enriched uranium" on the international market, and will be "hopefully making some money" from it. Such rogue threats might also involve surreptitious missile launches, such as from freighters or submarines, where the state of origin could not be readily identified. A more serious threat is North Korea's ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead, allowing it to be placed on a wider range of missile types. "The threat continues to grow..." — Admiral James Syring, Director, Missile Defense Agency, March 25, 2015." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 What do you think the Argentinians have that we couldn't defend against. Some pretty mean gauchos..they want there beef back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Part of an article from the Gatestone Institute: "Russia has, over the past six years, repeatedly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against U.S. allies and NATO, as well as a new threat on April 2, if the U.S. armed Ukraine or protected the Baltic states. The Russian ambassador to Denmark recently threatened to aim Russian nuclear warheads at Danish warships if they deployed missile defense radars. Such dangers will only be magnified if the number of nuclear powers multiplies, such as if Iran and Sunni states develop nuclear weapons. Iran's Foreign Minister has said that Iran plans to sell "enriched uranium" on the international market, and will be "hopefully making some money" from it. Such rogue threats might also involve surreptitious missile launches, such as from freighters or submarines, where the state of origin could not be readily identified. Can you provide a credible link to the above? A more serious threat is North Korea's ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead, allowing it to be placed on a wider range of missile types. That is very hard to believe as N.Korea have yet to create a viable Nuke that actually works so any idea of a mini one is preposterous. Idi Amin talked about using suitcase Nukes years ago so nothing new there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Can you provide a credible link to the above? That is very hard to believe as N.Korea have yet to create a viable Nuke that actually works so any idea of a mini one is preposterous. Idi Amin talked about using suitcase Nukes years ago so nothing new there. Any fool with enough enriched uranium can make a working nuke. It's is trivially easy to do so - if you have enough you can make a bomb easily as good as the Hiroshima one. There is no doubt about N Koreas ability to do this - any A-level physics student could tell you how to do it. Making a compact one though as you say is very different. The USA spent an incredible amount of time and money making the W54 which was about 25kg and had perhaps a kiloton of yield, which is not that impressive against a large area - and it was not a "suitcase" by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorphanger Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Not a waste of money in my opinion it is what keeps Britain safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Not a waste of money in my opinion it is what keeps Britain safe. What is keeping Sweden, Norway, Holland, Italy, Spain, Germany plus many others safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 What is keeping Sweden, Norway, Holland, Italy, Spain, Germany plus many others safe? Now stop that!! Going around asking sensible questions!! Dont you know where you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 What is keeping Sweden, Norway, Holland, Italy, Spain, Germany plus many others safe? NATO and its Nuclear sharing policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 What is keeping Sweden, Norway, Holland, Italy, Spain, Germany plus many others safe? Do you seriously believe the the Soviets wouldn't have made a move for West Berlin, if the threat of nuclear armageddon didn't hang over their heads? Likewise the Americans and Cuba? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now