pslewis

Speeding is BAD nowadays

If you have a fast car, its up to you to be skillful enough to drive it slower - if thats a problem then please hand your license into the Police Station!

Pete

DJ140

Speeding is great fun, I do it everywhere, except built up area's and, still no tickets or accidents in 23 years.

Bad driving is bad, speeding is cool.

johnskelley

If you find one open

unclebuck

What goes around comes around.

Butty

iTrader: (2)

But on MOD sites they can point large guns at you when pulled over, just so you get the message!!
I was barked at by a US grunt at Chicksands for going over the limit (by about 5 mph so he said) some years ago.
He may have been ugly and $hit thick, but he had a gun pointing in my general direction so I meekly took his advice

Neil Smalley

I still think Pete Drives the bus that takes visitors to and from site.

pslewis

If so ................ who is smart enough to do all the designing??

Pete

Vegescoob

What does this paragon of virtue claim to design?
While he advocates travelling in cars very slowly am I to understand that he designs or is involved in the production of weapons of extremely mass destructive power for power crazed politicians to have control over. Mixed up morality?

pslewis

Could you please enlighten me as to how many people have been killed by one of the UK Nuclear Missiles????

I would state that figure is a BIG FAT ZERO (just like you, maybe??)

How many have been killed by speeding motorists since 1950?

I would conservatively estimate 108,000 - and where does that leave your reasoning?? In tatters in the gutter?? Yes, I think so!!

Pete

Vegescoob

If we go back to the 1950s and include the testing, both known and secret, which exploited both civilians and servicemen and include the lasting effect of the worldwide increase in background radiation I would humbly suggest that many will have been killed.
Of course this will not have been as obvious as the USA bombs on Japan.
I also am sick of the current NL leaders, many of whom were in CND and went on CND marches, who now in power are quite happy to have their fingers "on the button".

pslewis

You get more backgroung radiation in Cornwall than from all the testing EVER carried out!

It pales into insignificance compared to the numbers murdered by speeding motorists!!

Pete

Vegescoob

Yes and look at precautions now taken in areas of high background radiation.
Can you quote any figures or measurements to back up your assertion ref testing? Shall we say from 1944, which I appreciate may be an estimate and from the late 1960s which iirc would include the bulk of atmospheric testing.

GC8

WHAT UK nuclear missiles? There are no 'UK nuclear missiles' are there? They are American nuclear missiles on British vessels; but we cant launch them unilaterally. I believe that thae most that we do is put the nuclear **** into them; at the AWE in Tadley; certainly this was the case.

Simon

pslewis

The Warheads are ours, whatever vehicle you use to deliver them is immaterial

Pete

GC8

Perhaps; but we cant launch them unilaterally can we? Unlike the French (whod make a damned fine target)

pslewis

Let me get this clear ...... are you saying we cannot launch if someone else says we can't??!!

Where the hell did you get that idea from?? Its an INDEPENDANT deterrent ............. look the word up in the dictionary.

Pete

GC8

No it isnt Pete; thats my point. Our nuclear deterrent is under American control.

pslewis

Care to offer some evidence?

I am REALLY intrigued

Pete

GC8

When I remember where I read this; you'll be the first to know old fella.

Simon

pslewis

Sun?

Star?

Sunday Sport maybe?

Pete

GC8

After a quick search Pete; I can only find references on MOD sites to the 'Dual-key arrangement' realting to Polaris and Chevaline but Im convinced that this is still the case with Trident.

Simon

GC8

Do I strike you as one of ScoobyNet's naive vocal right wingers who gets his opinions directly from the red-tops?

pslewis

I cannot believe that you believe that the UK would need anyones nod to launch if it got that bad!?

Certainly there would be negotiations ..... but seeking permission when we are under imminent attack is a ludicrous idea

Pete

popeye

So there's a "Nuclear Registered" site in the UK somewhere that employs this
idiot? Makes me glad I'm in Aus, I tell you.

What does "Nuclear Registered" mean anyway? Do you apply for a Nuclear licence at the Post Office or something?

pslewis

Since 1950 the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) has been central to the defence of the United Kingdom - providing and maintaining the warheads for the country's nuclear deterrent. We are proud of our role in helping to prevent global conflict for over half a century.

Uniquely among the nuclear powers, AWE covers the whole life-cycle of nuclear warheads, in a single organisation. This includes initial concept, research and design, through component manufacture and assembly, to in-service support and, finally, decommissioning and disposal.

The Government's Strategic Defence Review in 1998 emphasised the continuing importance of AWE to the nation. While highlighting the need for progress on arms control, it confirmed that the United Kingdom continues to require a credible and effective minimum nuclear deterrent.

It outlined AWE's tasks for the future:-

To maintain the warheads for the Trident nuclear deterrent safely and reliably in service.

To maintain a capability to design a new weapon, should it ever be required.

To complete the dismantling and disposal of redundant warheads replaced by Trident.

To develop the skills, technologies and techniques that could underpin future arms limitation treaties.

Trident, a submarine-launched ballistic nuclear weapons system, is currently the United Kingdom's sole nuclear deterrent in both the strategic and sub-strategic roles.

Pete

GC8

Plainly Pete; from what Ive posted already; it is obvious that this has been the case. Im sure that you know how to use a search engine; why not try it out for yourself. Let me suggest: "dual key america united kingdom nuclear missile" for starters.

Simon

GC8

".....the Americans emphasised, would cost Britain nothing except the funds necessary for site preparation, and to avoid political complications the weapons would be manned by the Royal Air Force, though the nuclear warheads would remain under American control"

This quote relates to an older system; but the principal remained with Chevaline and Polaris.....

pslewis

If we need to launch I would think argueing over what happens next or who pushes the button will be the least of our worries!

The idea of the deterrent is that it is NEVER used!

Pete

pslewis

We have possessed other nuclear systems in the past. But we only wish to maintain the minimum forces necessary to achieve the deterrence we need. Our needs have changed since 1992, taking account of the end of the Cold War, and we have therefore been able to give up:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

the nuclear Lance missile and artillery roles we undertook previously with US nuclear weapons held under dual-key arrangements;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our maritime tactical (short-range) nuclear capability. Royal Navy surface ships therefore no longer have any capability to carry or deploy nuclear weapons;

All of our air-launched nuclear weapons.

We are the only nuclear power that has so far been prepared to take such important steps on the route to nuclear disarmament.

Pete

Leslie

We had our own nuclear weapons in the RAF and needed no one's permission to use them, apart from our own safeguards. had we been atttacked.

Les