ChatterBank1 min ago
Defence Options
Here we are about to upgrade our nukes at an estimate of �40 billion and through the side door enters the lone terrorist with the capability to kill half the population. Because the lack of immigration controls where there is up to 1 million illegal immigrants in the country are we concentrating our defence spending in the wrong area?
nb. before someone suggests how would it be possible to kill half the population you only have to consider what would happen if that radioactive substance was put into the water supply.
nb. before someone suggests how would it be possible to kill half the population you only have to consider what would happen if that radioactive substance was put into the water supply.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kwicky. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think it an immigration issue,remember the 7/7 bombers were Yorkshire lads ...
But don't worry the Government will SELL you a plastic ID card which will toallly protect you from all forms of Terrorism and crime including identity theft,however foreign nationals visting us will not require one !!!
But don't worry the Government will SELL you a plastic ID card which will toallly protect you from all forms of Terrorism and crime including identity theft,however foreign nationals visting us will not require one !!!
Submarine launched weapons are hardly going to solve the problem,neither are ID cards.How can we spend that amount on something we don't need yet tell other states they cannot have Nuclear weapons ?
A fairer Foreign policy should start things off instaed of cowtowing to the Jewish influenced Americans..........
A fairer Foreign policy should start things off instaed of cowtowing to the Jewish influenced Americans..........
A very good point kwicky, which in my opinion should have been taken a little more serious than Zen appeared to do.
But I am afraid there is little that we mortals can do, we can only hope that the powers that be have taken all this onboard. Who knows? We will be the last to be informed.
But in the mean time we still need a nucular deterrent also. Just as it is no good just having an Army if you do not have an Airforce and Navy.
But I am afraid there is little that we mortals can do, we can only hope that the powers that be have taken all this onboard. Who knows? We will be the last to be informed.
But in the mean time we still need a nucular deterrent also. Just as it is no good just having an Army if you do not have an Airforce and Navy.
Immigration/customs cannot detect polonium materials. There is no detecter available commercially that casn do that. Its not like a ping will go off when the material is scanned. A swab has to be taken and analysed in a lab. How mant swabs will you take and off what.
But the Id card will definetly solve this. Because it contains a chip with your details, your iris scan and your fingerprints and you paid �300 for it, it removes the need for a swab as your backside has been so relentlessly shafted by this tax raising govt. that it is glowing red hot. Even a blind customs officer will feel the heat of that interaction.
But the Id card will definetly solve this. Because it contains a chip with your details, your iris scan and your fingerprints and you paid �300 for it, it removes the need for a swab as your backside has been so relentlessly shafted by this tax raising govt. that it is glowing red hot. Even a blind customs officer will feel the heat of that interaction.
There are many other substances out there that are not radioactive that would do a much more effective job of wiping out the population than polonium.
In another thread kwicky, you suggested that polonium was available for purchase over the internet... could you elaborate on that a bit? I would be quite amazed if this was the case.
In another thread kwicky, you suggested that polonium was available for purchase over the internet... could you elaborate on that a bit? I would be quite amazed if this was the case.
I can see the need for nuclear weapons, particularly medium range and tactical ones.
I totally fail to see the need for a fleet of submarines hiding at the bottom of the ocean with strategic nuclear weapons.
Who exactly are these detering? Al Qaeda? Is Syria going to back off it's behaviour in Lebanon because of Trident?
Even if we could use them without Bush's go ahead.
Nuclear weapons yes - Trident No!
Or perhaps somebody can give me a scenario I've overlooked where a UK submarine based nuclear deterrent would be the only answer
I totally fail to see the need for a fleet of submarines hiding at the bottom of the ocean with strategic nuclear weapons.
Who exactly are these detering? Al Qaeda? Is Syria going to back off it's behaviour in Lebanon because of Trident?
Even if we could use them without Bush's go ahead.
Nuclear weapons yes - Trident No!
Or perhaps somebody can give me a scenario I've overlooked where a UK submarine based nuclear deterrent would be the only answer
First we were told that we must have nuclear weapons because our enemies (the Russians) had them. Then there was 'Mutually Assured Destruction' . Our enemies would not nuke us because we could nuke them back.
But the world has changed and we don't have any enemies that have nuclear weapons. So in desperation, we are told it is to keep rogue nations in line.
The truth is that we have always been conned about the need for nuclear weapons. The reason we have wanted them is more do do with our desire to be still be perceived as a world power. Something we ceased to be about 50 years ago.
But the world has changed and we don't have any enemies that have nuclear weapons. So in desperation, we are told it is to keep rogue nations in line.
The truth is that we have always been conned about the need for nuclear weapons. The reason we have wanted them is more do do with our desire to be still be perceived as a world power. Something we ceased to be about 50 years ago.
I'm not sure that's entirely true, grommit.
Say you had a smallish force somewhere like Iraq with a large neighbour like Iran who for some reason decided to take advantage of the confusion and invade, out-flanking your troops.
The posession of battlefield nuclear weapons in that sort of scenario would allow a smaller force to repell a much larger one - or preferably stop such an invasion in the first place.
I'm not saying that's likely to happen in the middle East right now but it's the sort of thing you could easily envisage.
It does not however require a large white elephant skulking at the bottom of the Atlantic to accomplish
Say you had a smallish force somewhere like Iraq with a large neighbour like Iran who for some reason decided to take advantage of the confusion and invade, out-flanking your troops.
The posession of battlefield nuclear weapons in that sort of scenario would allow a smaller force to repell a much larger one - or preferably stop such an invasion in the first place.
I'm not saying that's likely to happen in the middle East right now but it's the sort of thing you could easily envisage.
It does not however require a large white elephant skulking at the bottom of the Atlantic to accomplish
jake-the-peg,
We could never use nuclear weapons in that way. We could only have them to act as a deterent in the first place. Much better to save the �40 billion and retain and deploy an Army of a size to do the job properly in the first place. The mess that is Iraq today is because the Americans underdeployed ground troops and were then not able to secure Iraqs borders. That alowed Sadams men to escape to neighbouring countries, and to fight another day (now).
We could never use nuclear weapons in that way. We could only have them to act as a deterent in the first place. Much better to save the �40 billion and retain and deploy an Army of a size to do the job properly in the first place. The mess that is Iraq today is because the Americans underdeployed ground troops and were then not able to secure Iraqs borders. That alowed Sadams men to escape to neighbouring countries, and to fight another day (now).
Lazyguns point about buying Polonium on the internet. This was red hot news by a woman TV reporter shortly after the discovery of the fatal substance and there was a debate of how it might have entered the country. Whether it was retracted I don't know as I've heard nothing since. A price of about �65 was mentioned for it at the time.
Thanks for the clarification kwicky. I did a bit of research on it, and to date I can only find one website, based in the US, which will sell nuclear isotopes to anyone provided they are over 18 and based in the US. They charge $69 and it is shipped via the US Postal Service, as far as I can determine.
I am amazed! :)
I am amazed! :)
Yes I also tried to look it up on the internet. Polonium is widely used in this country for various applications including the printing industry so I suppose they have to get it from somewhere.
But it seems where the system breaks down is within the black market where this product can be bought quite freely.
I notice the frequent government COBRA meetings only go to show that our defences have been crudely broken into and there a need to prevent copycat occurrences.
But it seems where the system breaks down is within the black market where this product can be bought quite freely.
I notice the frequent government COBRA meetings only go to show that our defences have been crudely broken into and there a need to prevent copycat occurrences.
jake-the-peg
It would be madness to take tactical nuclear weapons into a place such as Iraq. They are difficult to safeguard and the danger of their loss, capture and subsequent use by the enemy or even terrorists would not be an acceptable risk.
Having said that, there is evidence that Israel used 'Bunker Busting' nuclear bombs in Lebanon earlier this year
It would be madness to take tactical nuclear weapons into a place such as Iraq. They are difficult to safeguard and the danger of their loss, capture and subsequent use by the enemy or even terrorists would not be an acceptable risk.
Having said that, there is evidence that Israel used 'Bunker Busting' nuclear bombs in Lebanon earlier this year
jake-the-peg
It was reported on the BBC at the time but quickly dropped. Here is a link with most of the details
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context =viewArticle&code=20061111&articleId=3813
It was reported on the BBC at the time but quickly dropped. Here is a link with most of the details
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context =viewArticle&code=20061111&articleId=3813
Buying polonium 210 online:
I suppose it is no longer newsworthy:
http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm
I suppose it is no longer newsworthy:
http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm
1 to 19 of 19
