Friday, 16 March 2007

Clarifying my last post...

In furtherance of yesterday’s post (and now I am feeling a lot more human), may I add just these two observations?

Nuclear warheads, unlike, say, castles, have a shortish lifespan. A lot of Russian nuclear warheads (and their delivery systems) are now reaching the end of their operational life. Check out the awesomely good blog, Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces: one of those staggeringly brilliant resources which, without the Internet, would be unavailable to most of us.

So while we see that the net warhead position plateaus out through 2008-2011, it is then going to resume a net reduction. So, maybe I should have finessed the writing in my post (but, you know, flu and all) by saying Russia needs more newer nukes: effective, scary ones to keep the balance of peace etc.

And, lest anyone thinks I am being cavalier about all this. This jaunty little YouTube video focuses the mind somewhat… and tells one why the thought of nuclear terrorism is, I think, the most frightening, yet inevitable, next step our society will have to face...

Footnote: the UK nuclear arsenal is, these days, all submarine based. Well, I say all - in fact, the UK of course only has four nuclear warhead-carrying subs; the Vanguard, the Victorious, the Vengence and the Vigilant... Usually there are three out there, in the deep, at anyone time. They carry about 40 nuclear missiles each, aparently, which is kind of creepy.

1 comment:

dcmasshole said...

I thought that is what you meant.

Why would having 160 nukes on 4 subs be creepy. It is the best way for Great Britian to deter any potential enemy with MAD. Even Israel is rumored to have the capability to launch an attack from the sea even if the tiny nation is destroyed. The problem with MAD is what happens when you have a society with different beliefs and attitud towards life. What happens if state does not respect life, but will carry out a nuclear attack to met their maker?