I reckon I'll be voting Conservative, but one thing I honestly think is an optional extra is our strategic nuclear submarine fleet. I can't think of a situation where we'd be threatened and not have a nuclear armed ally to defend us within the next 20 years. I'd be happy investing in a new batch of supremely silent service subsurface fleet but arming them with SLBMs is a waste of cash. Unmanned drones is the future. Arm them with tactical weapons maybe, launch them from submarines, our new waste of money carriers, or from space. But why waste cash on a full strategic nuclear arsenal.

There's enough folk wasting money on Arsenal......  ;)

I'm all for a strong nuclear deterrent myself.... but launching from space ???

well that would cost infinitely more than nuclear capable submarines....

I stopped reading after the word Conservative.

Putting aside the unacceptable nature of putting atomic weapons into orbit (and the vast cost of doing so due to their huge weight), it just wouldn't work in any case. China 'shot down' a spy satellite the other year as I recall. Can be done with missiles or even lasers. Just enough to heat them up/disrupt the orbit and the weapons would be useless. I'd imagine that keeping nuclear weapons stable/usable in orbit would be an issue due to the increased amounts of radiation outside of the atmosphere as well.

As for drones (and again putting aside the great weight of nuclear weapons), Iran captured a cutting edge US drone recently by jamming communications and hacking the software. No way in the world is any nation going to put atomic weapons in an aircraft which could be relatively easily captured!

We need to develope a high powered laser a bit like the one of the death star in the empire strikes back?

Quoted from fishheadphil

We need to develope a high powered laser a bit like the one of the death star in the empire strikes back?

Thing is....as Star Wars was set "a long time ago" then what has happened to that technology and knowledge?

the title of the thread is awful for what i meant. I was trying to say spending money on nuclear weapons is a complete waste. I'd rather we spent cash developing anything else other than nuclear weapons.

Quoted from Southwark Mariner

the title of the thread is awful for what i meant. I was trying to say spending money on nuclear weapons is a complete waste. I'd rather we spent cash developing anything else other than nuclear weapons.

If we followed this logic the Putin would be sat in Buckingham palace and the women of this country would be sex slaves for the Russian army, so please live in the real world.

As a member of NATO, there is no way that the Russians would ever invade, nuclear weapons or not.

It it came down to war with conventional weaponry, the Russian military would be annihilated by the combined NATO forces.

Does any sane human being truly believe that there are nations out there that would launch an attack on another country with a nuclear weapon in the modern day? Seriously?

Trident, at a cost of hundreds of BILLIONS of pounds, is merely the UK's entry in the most expensive male private-waving contest in the history of mankind.

Quoted from Maringer

As a member of NATO, there is no way that the Russians would ever invade, nuclear weapons or not.

It it came down to war with conventional weaponry, the Russian military would be annihilated by the combined NATO forces.

Personally, I don't see the Russians ever invading the UK, we offer no strategic position or resources.

As for the Russian military being annihilated by the combined NATO forces is also something I can't ever see happening too, having witnessed first hand NATO exercises and deployments.

The Tsar Bomb, detonated by the Russians, was 3,800 times bigger than the bombs the Yanks dropped on Japan.

Quoted from Marinerz93

Personally, I don't see the Russians ever invading the UK, we offer no strategic position or resources.

As for the Russian military being annihilated by the combined NATO forces is also something I can't ever see happening too, having witnessed first hand NATO exercises and deployments.

The Tsar Bomb, detonated by the Russians, was 3,800 times bigger than the bombs the Yanks dropped on Japan.

It's about the technology. The NATO stuff (aircraft and tanks) is much superior to the Russian equivalents. It's also not like the Second World War where the Russians were building hundreds of tanks a day. The Russians would be hugely outnumbered in conventional forces as well.

As you note, however, there is pretty much no chance of the Russians being stupid enough to invade any western nations. Their economy is completely based around fossil fuels and they have such vast reserves of gas that they don't really require anything from the west. On the other hand, there is plenty of other sabre-rattling going on by Putin about nations which were formerly in the Russian sphere of influence. The Baltic states in particular are very worried as they have a substantial number of ethnic Russians in their populations and this might give Putin something to work at even though they are NATO members themselves. It's all distraction, of course, as Putin and the kleptocrats running Russia are just building up nationalism so they can continue to strip their own country of assets.

I remember seeing footage of the Tsar Bomba - scary stuff. I don't think either side has such enormous fusion bombs available these days as smaller, more mobile devices with multiple warheads such as Trident are much more practical. With modern air defences, you're not likely to be able to get close enough to drop a 27 ton bomb on your target!

Quoted from Maringer

It's about the technology. The NATO stuff (aircraft and tanks) is much superior to the Russian equivalents. It's also not like the Second World War where the Russians were building hundreds of tanks a day. The Russians would be hugely outnumbered in conventional forces as well.

As you note, however, there is pretty much no chance of the Russians being stupid enough to invade any western nations. Their economy is completely based around fossil fuels and they have such vast reserves of gas that they don't really require anything from the west. On the other hand, there is plenty of other sabre-rattling going on by Putin about nations which were formerly in the Russian sphere of influence. The Baltic states in particular are very worried as they have a substantial number of ethnic Russians in their populations and this might give Putin something to work at even though they are NATO members themselves. It's all distraction, of course, as Putin and the kleptocrats running Russia are just building up nationalism so they can continue to strip their own country of assets.

I remember seeing footage of the Tsar Bomba - scary stuff. I don't think either side has such enormous fusion bombs available these days as smaller, more mobile devices with multiple warheads such as Trident are much more practical. With modern air defences, you're not likely to be able to get close enough to drop a 27 ton bomb on your target!

You don't need to get close initially, just close enough for the EMP to take out all electronics, a bit like setting an opponent up with the left before clocking them with the right.  The Russians are more advanced than you think and of course they have China who will side with them. You also have Neutron bombs that are smaller and cause less structural damage but destroy anything organic through extremely high dose of gamma rays.

Conventional warfare is becoming a thing of the past, UAV's, cyber attacks and a host of bio weapons means you could be out of the game even before they send out the MOAB.

You also have to keep in mind that it was Vasili Arkhipov during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Stanislav Petrov who prevented WW3 when their early warning system alerted them due to an error were both Russian.

I think the likelihood of any use of neutron bombs or EMP is the same as any other nuclear weapon - incredibly unlikely, thankfully. Military equipment to do with nuclear weapons on either side is going to be hardened against EMP so the deterrent will continue to exist even in the event of an attempted surprise attack.

Similarly, I think bioweapons and chemical weapons have the same deterrent aspects. You use yours on me, I use mine on you.

Conventional warfare between modern military forces is the only way that we would see any conflict between Russia and the west (no chance of any proxy 'rebels' as used in Ukraine). Pretty much no chance of this occurring either. As you note, the Russians are relatively advanced, but the west has no end of US equipment which is even more advanced due to the fact that the Yanks spend more on 'defense' than the rest of the world put together! Don't forget that the UK and the French also spend a heck of a lot on weaponry as do the Germans and the Italians. Those 4 European countries alone spend more than twice as much as the Russians on military hardware. All in all, conventional warfare would be no contest. Again, thankfully.

I certainly agree that drones and cyber warfare are likely to be the areas where lots of money is spent in the future. More usage of drones will require better defences against cyber warfare as well, obviously. Lots of reports in the press all the time about cyber-attacks on business and government websites from within China (and possibly Russia). The obvious thing to ensure is that areas of important infrastructure such as power stations and the like aren't connected to the internet.

Question is, will drones be able to deal with the likes of ISIS and the Taliban who are low-tech but experienced in guerilla warfare and dispersed around remote terrain? Personally, I think it is quite possible that they will to a certain extent. More advanced drones should be able to remain airborne for longer to provide better intelligence. Better batteries and continuing miniaturisation of technology/power systems continues apace so it wouldn't surprise me to see electric-powered surveillance drones capable of staying in the air for days at a time within a year or two.

Why waste money on nuclear weapons when we don't even have a direct train service from London to Grimsby?

Quoted from WokingMariner

Why waste money on nuclear weapons when we don't even have a direct train service from London to Grimsby?

GNER/ Alliance Rail have said they'll be getting an answer regarding their Cleethorpes-London ECML open access request later this year from the office of rail regulation. I expect it will be a no though as it doesn't really add any new passengers to the network.

The rail network is a shambles as always. My wife is planning to visit friends in Newcastle later this month and all of the railway service sites seem to think it is utterly impossible to get a train from Cleethorpes to Newcastle (or anywhere north of Doncaster on the East Coast line). "No Services Available". If you look for separate trains from Clee to Donny then Donny to Newcastle, surprise surprise, there are no problems!

If you search for tickets from Cleethorpes to pretty much anywhere else in the country, you find services with 2 or 3 changes without any problems but it is utterly bizarre that services heading south on the East Coast line are shown, but ones heading north are not considered available!

I know that Virgin are utterly shite at running train services, but this really takes the biscuit!

Quoted from Maringer

I think the likelihood of any use of neutron bombs or EMP is the same as any other nuclear weapon - incredibly unlikely, thankfully. Military equipment to do with nuclear weapons on either side is going to be hardened against EMP so the deterrent will continue to exist even in the event of an attempted surprise attack.

Similarly, I think bioweapons and chemical weapons have the same deterrent aspects. You use yours on me, I use mine on you.

Conventional warfare between modern military forces is the only way that we would see any conflict between Russia and the west (no chance of any proxy 'rebels' as used in Ukraine). Pretty much no chance of this occurring either. As you note, the Russians are relatively advanced, but the west has no end of US equipment which is even more advanced due to the fact that the Yanks spend more on 'defense' than the rest of the world put together! Don't forget that the UK and the French also spend a heck of a lot on weaponry as do the Germans and the Italians. Those 4 European countries alone spend more than twice as much as the Russians on military hardware. All in all, conventional warfare would be no contest. Again, thankfully.

I certainly agree that drones and cyber warfare are likely to be the areas where lots of money is spent in the future. More usage of drones will require better defences against cyber warfare as well, obviously. Lots of reports in the press all the time about cyber-attacks on business and government websites from within China (and possibly Russia). The obvious thing to ensure is that areas of important infrastructure such as power stations and the like aren't connected to the internet.

Question is, will drones be able to deal with the likes of ISIS and the Taliban who are low-tech but experienced in guerilla warfare and dispersed around remote terrain? Personally, I think it is quite possible that they will to a certain extent. More advanced drones should be able to remain airborne for longer to provide better intelligence. Better batteries and continuing miniaturisation of technology/power systems continues apace so it wouldn't surprise me to see electric-powered surveillance drones capable of staying in the air for days at a time within a year or two.

Over 75% of military equipment isn't protected by possible EMP, I was an electrician in the forces working on a whole host of electrical equipment.

The point I was making is that on two separate occasions it was the Russians who were in a position due to technical difficulties / protocol were they had to balance what they knew and what they felt.  They both opted not to attack thus preventing WW3.

The conventional warfare and who would sway the balance I think you are under estimating Russia and her allies.  China and Russia have more equipment and man power (currently serving and in reserve) than NATO.  As for American technology, the Iranians captured one of their drones with damaging it.

The bigger picture is Russia's allies could stir up the middle east against Israel making WW3 the most global warfare the world has ever seen.

You may find the link below interesting.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

Yeah, but I'm specifically talking about a supposed invasion of western Europe by Russia. Russia and China are considered 'allies' to some degree but you aren't going to see the (Chinese) Red Army rolling through Russia into Europe, that's for sure.

Bear in mind these two countries are no longer ideological allies - the Russians aren't Communists and the Chinese are moving towards more of an open market system. The Chinese don't need to invade anywhere - their current dominance in manufacture of all sorts of stuff for the world is working out very nicely, thanks very much. One thing China is doing which is interesting is 'building' new islands in the South China seas with the apparent aim of expanding their territorial waters to claim energy reserves there. They've also bought an unfinished Soviet aircraft carrier and are currently outfitting this ready for service. Needless to say, lots of their neighbours are a bit worried about this. With all this stuff going on (not to mention the Chinese investment in Africa) I don't think they would really be too bothered about helping Russia invade Europe.

My point about EMP is that enough equipment related to the nuclear deterrent will be protected because this is how it is designed. The Russians know this so wouldn't be daft enough to attack with atomic weapons and the same logic stands the other way. The deterrent actually does deter. Actual direct conflict between any of the major powers remains incredibly unlikely as there is just too much to lose. We might see the odd small-scale proxy war amongst the client states but even this seems unlikely. The question is, despite the sabre-rattling of 'military manoeuvres' near the borders, would Putin be daft enough to actually start a conflict in any of the Baltic states? I'm guessing not, as he's coining it in back in Russia in any case.

Same situation with a deterrent exists in Israel as well. None of the Arab states are going to openly attack Israel because they all know that the Israelis have nuclear weapons as well as the complete backing of the Yanks. Further cross-border terrorist/rocket attacks? Sure, but then it will just be the poor Palestinians who get a kicking as usual and it's pretty obvious that nobody in the powers cares one jot about them.

Interesting discussion, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks the Russians are a military threat to the west, though they will continue to use their supply of energy reserves as political power over their neighbours. Of course, they are helped with this because Germany's "Energiewende" towards renewables is actually making them more reliant on external energy sources such as Russian gas.

They don't need to help Russia in such a military operation as you described, China owns a vast amount of the US debt.

Yep. And the US is also China's biggest market and the Dollar is the world's reserve currency. No chance of any conflict between the two biggest economies in the world though the usual cyber attacks will no doubt continue. Quite amusing really, as it has long been rumoured that the CIA and NSA have provided big US companies with inside information from other states which they have used to their benefit. The fact that the Chinese state itself is now carrying out similar stuff against the Yanks is quite pleasing to see.  :)

The fact that the US is in hock to China means that China is less likely to attack US interests militarily in any direct way. If they do they can kiss that money goodbye.

Logic says that Putin wouldn't invade the West (or even the former SU states in NATO). But there is a strong nationalist movement in Russia which does have some pretty crackpot ambitions. If anything Vlad is holding them back, but he's treading a narrow line. Even the Left's ambitions are not inimical to sabre rattling against the West.