UK Nuclear Deterrent

[MRWALKER500000]

On the UK, the first missile salvos will be launched from submarines who's job will be to attack time critical and C2 facilities to create maximum confusion, next will be the ICBM and Bomber salvo which would be used against Cities and Defense/Industrial facilities

ICBM Warning times:

U.S DSP satellite IR warning- 15mins

BMEWS- 4-5mins

[986lee]

Excellent video and music,god forbid we ever use them.If the end was coming id want our enemy to be hit with everything we had.Long live Great Britain.

[BuggyJumper]

Whats misleading about the RAF launching their finest fighter jets if there was a nuclear attack!! Nothing, good work on the video.

[chizz32]

@BuggyJumper Thanks!

[AntarcticAdventureUK]

Good effort. I think the video of the Typhoon scrambling is somewhat misleading but otherwise very nice. What is the name of the classical hymn at the end by the way?

[chizz32]

@AntarcticAdventureUK Thanks for the comment, I added the typhoon scramble as in a nuclear attack- ALL available aircraft would be scrambled to intercept and shoot down bombers- so i feel it is relevant

[snakeplissken83]

@chizz32 correct mate. excellent video. fitting that our nuclear capability rests with the navy, the most historically significant and powerful navy in the world.

[camelsac]

@chizz32 Bombers are so 80's.....

[glennmillerboy]

@AntarcticAdventureUK The hymn at the end is a very slow version of For those in peril on the seas I think.

[E421UGE]

And where is it all kept?

As far away from England as possible......

[PatrioticAnarchist93]

before we went into iraq the pm said that if the taliban used gas on our soldiers then he would give the order to use tactical nuclear weapons

[DDFF232]

We in the UK are all hyprocrites.

If we can have nuclear bombs then every country should have them.

[AntarcticAdventureUK]

Perhaps but every country having them would be incredibly dangerous. We need to gradually work towards de-armament over a long period of time. The UK has relatively few warheads in reality.

[kayman92]

i' in mixed feelings towards nukes

they may have stopped the cold war escalating

and on iran and north korea, the reason we don't want them to have nukes is because we know they're nutjob's and we think they might actually use them

[Apachecatdog]

This is really a misleading video, the Air Force doesn't have free-fall nuclear weapons so the Typhoons were irrelevent, and it shows Minuteman missiles from silo's in California among other things.

[chizz32]

thats correct, WE117s were withdrawn in 1998, is showing what would happen if nuclear weapons were ever used

[camelsac]

@chizz32 WE177

[29Gixxer]

Sub launched Tridents are all we need mate. This is the reson why we have been able to live in peace.

The new versions we are developing with the Yanks should be called Peacekeeper.

[545Soldier]

I think the typhoons are demonstrative of a QRA with the russian BEAR.

[hgmjbtl]

what music is this

[anisocoro]

I think that having "nuclear warheads" is not bad, but willing to use them for first does be! I do not know . And I am afraid that the "need" for rapid responses decreases security against an un-want launch

[robking001]

the combined strategic power of the us, uk, and french nuclear fleet alone can -

1. overwhelm anything enemy defence force's have.

2. bring about incomprehensible destruction.

and that's just the sub's not the land based force's

[robking001]

and i understand the anti nuclear movement may be annoyed that nobody listen's to them and when the world end's they can say "i told you so".

but it's no good saying ban the bomb and let's be friend's (sound's jolly nice doesnt it) atleast in this country.

but ivan wont. infact russia is overhauling it's entire nuclear armement. and i cant even imagine what suprises china can come up with now they have some cash.

so i hope you dont mind but id rather keep the bomb to fuck the other guy back.

[robking001]

the japanese government the underestimated destruction they faced after hiroshima.

and then nagasaki disappeared with around 75'000 dead.

underestimating 4 big shiny boomers (even though only 1 is out there at any given time and gordon brown is in charge) would be a monumental mistake for any nation that doesnt want to glow in the dark.

[truebot]

There is no better deterrent! Just 4 subs and noone wants to fu*k with you.

[KhazarLivesInC]

lol

[GeorgeLynch1985]

just subs = no damage limitation capability

[truebot]

Damage limitation??!! Do I think the kind of counrtries that would attack us would be worried about damage limitaion.

WW2 quote = "They will reap the whirlwind".

[chizz32]

the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 12-15 megatons, out warheads are up to 100 megatons, so 200 targets, imagine the damage! and anyway our nuclear sub patrols are co-ordinated with yours to ensure that the US and the UK are protected. we even share nuclear weapons!

[GeorgeLynch1985]

your warheads are based on Trident II DF-5 SLBMs that can be fitted with either the W76 or the W88 warhead - that means 100 kilotons or 475 kilotons, not megatons. You would need the 475 for a reliable hard target kill capability. That means reducing the number of warheads per missile.

The United Kingdom has never pursued a meaningful damage limitation capability against the USSR. It never deployed enough weapons to achieve this.

[chizz32]

yeah ok lol i made a mistake should be kt, but i think you are underestimating the UKs nuclear capability

[chizz32]

The warheads have variable yeilds, so they could if need be, be used on smaller targets causing less damage, but that scenario is unlikely. More probable would be an huge attack from another country, which would mean launching everything to wipe out the other country.

[GeorgeLynch1985]

It's hard to say what's probable. I think general nuclear war is extremely improbable at this point in history. More likely (but still very unlikely) is limited first use, which is partly why U.S. national missile defense is so irksome to China and Russia (NMD would preclude single use). Also, smaller warheads would not be effective for counterforce. You need high yield weapons to dig up hardened silo targets and C2 facilities.

[GeorgeLynch1985]

Also, 200 UK warheads is nowhere near enough for a meaningful damage limitation capability against Russia. That is where we (the U.S.) come in.

[chizz32]

I would disagree with that! you may want to look into that further! We may not be able to completely destroy Russia, but would inflict enough damage to the major cities ect to bring the country to its knees!

[saccerzd]

what film are the scenes from 6:00 onwards from? cheers

[chizz32]

The film is called the day after, and is on you tube

[saccerzd]

thanks!

[daniel2006dee]

nice video.. rule britania

[Firefighternorway]

Amen Eisenhower!

[FREDBOB888]

cracking video mate very strong

[chizz32]

Thanks m8

[McAinsh999]

Nice video

[fire199202]

nice vid, quite hard hitting