 |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| thx1138 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
thx1138
World Chat Champion
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
   |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Im-a-Ridah |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :
|
 Posted: 02:53 - 29 Jun 2021  Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fat Angry Scotsman wrote: | | Im-a-Ridah wrote: | That's an air defence destroyer, it has loads of ways to zap a plane. Short (~40km) and medium range (~120km) extremely agile very high speed air defence missiles, 2 CIWS which are 20-30mm robotic chainguns "cannons" designed for shooting down anti-shipping missiles, plus other "cannons" and miniguns! Even if there was a war it wouldn't go nuclear, people seem to have this weird idea that wars are all or nothing as per the cold war. Now its all about slicing the salami to get what you want. |
Personally, I think that the reason I will never see a Third World War in my lifetime is because a fight between any of the nuclear superpowers NATO vs Russia, NATO vs China, West vs East, etc in full and earnest would extremely quickly escalate from a conventional war to a nuclear one. |
You won't see a 3rd world war because roads. WW1 and WW2 were slow affairs. Now you can just drive up your neighbours land border motorway at 60mph straight to the capital. To prolonged battles.
| chickenstrip wrote: | | Easy-X wrote: | A game of chicken with conventional weapons sounds quite entertaining but when one of the players is sitting on the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the known universe it kinda takes the edge off it  |
On the other hand, no matter how powerful your arsenal, you can only kill someone once. And if you use nukes, you have to factor in that someone might reply in kind. The nuke argument in the field of this particular situation in the Black Sea is a straw man effectively. You can stomp around shouting about how many of the things you have, but you would actually have to be quite mad to use them. Is Putin mad? I don't think so. Kim Jong Un? Quite possibly mad enough. |
Putin has the worlds largest nuclear stockpile, a fact commonly cited. Less commonly cited is that his country is basically just Moscow and St. Petersburg. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ribenapigeon |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ribenapigeon
Super Spammer
Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Karma :
|
Posted: 20:42 - 30 Jun 2021  Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MCN |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MCN
Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ribenapigeon |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ribenapigeon
Super Spammer
Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ribenapigeon |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ribenapigeon
Super Spammer
Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Easy-X |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Easy-X
Super Spammer
Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :
|
| Posted: 11:28 - 02 Jul 2021 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Im-a-Ridah |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 02:43 - 03 Jul 2021 Post subject: |
|
|
| Easy-X wrote: | | Im-a-Ridah wrote: | Putin has the worlds largest nuclear stockpile, a fact commonly cited. Less commonly cited is that his country is basically just Moscow and St. Petersburg. |
And the UK is just London, the US is just NY & LA... Singapore is just...  |
The US is a very evenly spead country actually. The loss of LA and NY would be a tremendous loss but it wouldn't mean the end of the US. China is also like the US but on a much bigger scale, they can take loads of nuke hits and still continue. If LA were a Chinese city it would be the 28th biggest, just ahead of Taiyuan a city most people have never even heard of.
Top 50 of the Largest Cities in Mainland China by Population of Urban Area Rank City Province Latest Estimate[4] 2010 Census[5]
1 Shanghai#~ — 26,917,322 20,217,748
2 Beijing⍟# — 20,381,745 16,704,306
3 Chongqing# — 15,773,658 6,263,790
4 Tianjin#~ — 13,552,359 9,583,277
5 Guangzhou#*~ Guangdong 13,238,590 10,641,408
6 Shenzhen† Guangdong 12,313,714 10,358,381
7 Chengdu#* Sichuan 9,104,865 7,791,692
8 Nanjing* Jiangsu 8,789,855 5,827,888
9 Wuhan#* Hubei 8,346,205 7,541,527
10 Xi'an#* Shaanxi 7,948,032 5,403,052
11 Hangzhou* Zhejiang 7,603,271 5,849,537
12 Dongguan Guangdong 7,402,305 7,271,322
13 Foshan Guangdong 7,313,711 6,771,895
14 Shenyang* Liaoning 7,191,333 5,718,232
15 Harbin* Heilongjiang 6,360,991 4,596,313
16 Qingdao~ Shandong 5,597,028 4,556,077
17 Dalian~ Liaoning 5,587,814 3,902,467
18 Jinan* Shandong 5,330,573 3,641,562
19 Zhengzhou#* Henan 5,286,549 3,677,032
20 Changsha* Hunan 4,555,788 3,193,354
21 Kunming* Yunnan 4,422,686 3,385,363
22 Changchun* Jilin 4,408,154 3,411,209
23 Ürümqi* Xinjiang 4,335,017 2,853,398
24 Shantou† Guangdong 4,312,192 3,644,017
25 Hefei* Anhui 4,216,940 3,098,727
26 Shijiazhuang* Hebei 4,098,243 3,095,219
27 Ningbo~ Zhejiang 4,087,523 2,583,073
28 Taiyuan* Shanxi 3,875,053 3,154,157
29 Nanning* Guangxi 3,837,978 2,660,833
30 Xiamen† Fujian 3,707,090 3,119,110
31 Fuzhou*~ Fujian 3,671,192 3,102,421
32 Wenzhou~ Zhejiang 3,604,446 2,686,825
33 Changzhou Jiangsu 3,601,079 2,257,376
34 Nanchang* Jiangxi 3,576,547 2,614,380
35 Tangshan Hebei 3,399,231 2,128,191
36 Guiyang* Guizhou 3,299,724 2,520,061
37 Wuxi Jiangsu 3,245,179 2,757,736
38 Lanzhou* Gansu 3,067,141 2,438,595
39 Zhongshan Guangdong 2,909,633 2,740,994
40 Handan Hebei 2,708,015 1,830,000
41 Weifang Shandong 2,636,154 2,044,028
42 Huai'an Jiangsu 2,632,788 2,494,013
43 Zibo Shandong 2,631,647 2,261,717
44 Shaoxing Zhejiang 2,521,964 1,725,726
45 Yantai~ Shandong 2,511,053 1,797,861
46 Huizhou Guangdong 2,509,243 1,807,858
47 Luoyang Henan 2,372,571 1,584,463
48 Nantong~ Jiangsu 2,261,382 1,612,385
49 Baotou Inner Mongolia 2,181,077 1,900,373
50 Liuzhou Guangxi 2,153,419 1,624,571 |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Polarbear |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Polarbear
Super Spammer
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Im-a-Ridah |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| chickenstrip |
This post is not being displayed .
|
chickenstrip
Super Spammer
Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 00:13 - 05 Jul 2021 Post subject: |
|
|
| Im-a-Ridah wrote: | | Polarbear wrote: | I'm sure even we have 50 nukes. Bye bye China. |
We have around 250, plenty to handle China and Russia. That said nuke numbers are hardly a problem when you have a nuke factory as we do  |
Apparently the cap on the UK's stockpile was 225, just recently lifted to 260 (the goal, not at present). Interesting and recent article here:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-does-the-uk-want-more-nuclear-weapons/
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE! |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Nobby the Bastard |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar
Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| chickenstrip |
This post is not being displayed .
|
chickenstrip
Super Spammer
Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :
|
| Posted: 12:13 - 06 Jul 2021 Post subject: |
|
|
These days you'd need some kind of super-stealth aircraft if that was your chosen method of delivery. Countries stopped using aircraft as a means of delivery for good reason - too vulnerable. The SSBN was a much less detectable delivery platform, and probably still is to this day. Constant battle of technology though, so who knows what will be preferable in the future. Coupled with intelligence on the whereabouts of your enemy's major assets, command and control network etc, it may be that nukes will shrink in power and just increase in precision. The old style MAD strategy still doesn't really make any sense. That's more about generating fear factor in your enemies, probably has more political weight than military, especially when talking about countries with huge land masses like the USA, China, Russia. Nukes today I think are more about smaller, less militarily powerful countries multiplying their deterrence factor. I wonder would China be so aggressive about Taiwan if Taiwan had nukes mounted on a state-of-the-art delivery system, with good intelligence networks to aid effective targeting?
Then again, it seems to be easier to overthrow a country by poisoning its political system, as we are seeing done to great effect in the US currently. Internal strife can easily paralyse a country. Takes much longer, but communism has always been about the long game. And there is much more to be gained by dominating your enemies rather than destroying them by creating nuclear wastelands.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE! |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| thx1138 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
thx1138
World Chat Champion
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Karma :
|
| Posted: 21:34 - 07 Jul 2021 Post subject: |
|
|
I came here to post a link to this article, which I had read online and found interesting. Then I remembered where I had seen it before. In this thread.
I am getting old.  |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Im-a-Ridah |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 22:04 - 10 Jul 2021 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nobby the Bastard wrote: |
Getting the ICBMs to put them on is problematic though. Ours are all made by the US.
I'm not aware of any aircraft in current use in the UK that can carry them either.
The last one with a nuclear capability was, I think, Tornado. |
The new generation of subs will be able to carry 12 missiles, each can theoretically carry 12 warheads, so 2 submarines could easily carry more than our entire stockpile. It exceeds treaty limits, but pretty minor compared to wiping out 250 cities. Realistically as a maximum you would want to split the warheads 3 ways because of 4 subs 1 is in refueling/refit, 1 outbound, 1 inbound, 1 in workup/pier side sub-strategic.
7 warheads x 12 missiles = 84 warhead per sub
84 warheads x 3 submarines = 252 warheads
The UK could make SLBMs if it wanted to spend the money, but buying American ones is more cost effective. Typhoons can be made nuclear capable if that is a requirement. The UK designed them and it can modify them. F35 will also be nuclear capable but again no requirement exists in the UK for this. If the UK actually wanted to have some nuclear air launched missiles then it would use a variant of Perseus or modify its Tomahawk or Storm Shadow missiles. Air dropped bombs are the quickest, probably under a week to roll a few of them under emergency use. It's a careful balance, the SLBMs are more than sufficient for the nuclear role and so using cruise missiles etc to overkill the role really just takes useful conventional munitions out of the stockpile which could otherwise be used to strike real enemy targets. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 2 years, 283 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.11 Sec - Server Load: 0.46 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 117.71 Kb
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating