8 ms·

The title "Cold war files show UK fear of US H-bomb" is quite misleading. The UK feard that the Russians would attack them with hydrogen bombs. Can't see where

by runarb 11y ago

The title "Cold war files show UK fear of US H-bomb" is quite misleading. The UK feard that the Russians would attack them with hydrogen bombs. Can't see where the US fit into this, except for pioneering the hydrogen bomb, but that doesn't make all hydrogen bombs US bombs. When we are on the topic of the UK and atomic bombs. This is a great article from the archive: "British nukes were protected by bike locks" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm

mcintyre1994 11y ago
There's some interesting claims about the current trident system too : https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/ https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/
arethuza 11y ago
The UK was worried that the US was escalating the Cold War conflict and that we'd be more at risk rather than safer as a result. Given that this was exactly what happened in the late 50s and early 60s (US over estimates Soviet threat for internal political reasons, builds huge arsenals, Soviets scramble to catch up) this is pretty much what happened so their worries were justified.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "US over estimates Soviet threat for internal political reasons" "Over-estimated" how? I mean, there really was about a 2:1 Warsaw Pact tank advantage, and nuclear deterrence really was the only realistic way of countering it. Can you be more specific about how this threat was "over-estimated"?
  - arethuza 11y ago
    It's pretty clear that the existence of nuclear weapons deterred political leaders from contemplating war. However, the actual number of weapons in place spiraled vastly beyond what was actually required for deterrence - largely, it has to be said, due to internal US political reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap NB I'm in no way defending the Soviets, who were a deeply unpleasant bunch, but I think it's pretty clear that a lot of unnecessary risks were run during the Cold War and the UK would have been one of the worst victims.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - CapitalistCartr 11y ago
    Nuclear wasn't the only way. We built the A-10 Warthog specifically to counter the tank problem and it filled its role brilliantly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thun...
    - dingaling 11y ago
      The A-10 program only survived the 1970s as an anti-tank respin of a Vietnam counter-insurgency specification. The gun was only effective against certain aspects of T-64 armour and only after US Army Cobras had eliminated or reduced ZSU and Gaskin vehicles to allow the A-10 to approach to gun range. What it does very effectively today in close-support was for what it was originally intended, not tank-busting.
      - CapitalistCartr 11y ago
        The GAU-8 cannon was designed specifically for the anti-tank role using APDU. The A-10 was designed solely for close air support, including attacking tanks as the link I provided mentions. All close air support requires control of the air space.
      - ckozlowski 11y ago
        While the gun had been viewed as effective and economical, by the 80's there were real question as to how realistic the A-10s survivability would be. I apologise for not having a link on hand that discusses this, but the standoff requirement to survive in the environment shifted the A-10's primary anti-tank weapon to the AGM-65 Maverick, and not the cannon, soon after it was introduced.
      - hga 11y ago
        The gun was only effective against certain aspects of T-64 armour Would these be the sides and top? Which an aircraft is in a much better position to attack than troops on the ground facing it's forward armor.
    - ckozlowski 11y ago
  - mannykannot 11y ago
    >"Over-estimated" how? Kennedy's missile gap, for one. The existence of a threat does not mean that it cannot be over-estimated.
- gopowerranger 11y ago
  You are ignoring the fact that the USSR built up their atomic weaponry, moved in on other countries, and made threats to the US. Your statement is one-sided.
arethuza 11y ago
Well, the bike locks might have been more secure than the launch code for US Minuteman missiles - which was up until 1977: 00000000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link Also worth noting that UK Trident nukes don't have PALs - each crew already has all the information it needs to launch.

by runarb 11y ago

mcintyre1994 11y ago

There's some interesting claims about the current trident system too : https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/ https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/

arethuza 11y ago

The UK was worried that the US was escalating the Cold War conflict and that we'd be more at risk rather than safer as a result. Given that this was exactly what happened in the late 50s and early 60s (US over estimates Soviet threat for internal political reasons, builds huge arsenals, Soviets scramble to catch up) this is pretty much what happened so their worries were justified.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
"US over estimates Soviet threat for internal political reasons" "Over-estimated" how? I mean, there really was about a 2:1 Warsaw Pact tank advantage, and nuclear deterrence really was the only realistic way of countering it. Can you be more specific about how this threat was "over-estimated"?
- arethuza 11y ago
  It's pretty clear that the existence of nuclear weapons deterred political leaders from contemplating war. However, the actual number of weapons in place spiraled vastly beyond what was actually required for deterrence - largely, it has to be said, due to internal US political reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap NB I'm in no way defending the Soviets, who were a deeply unpleasant bunch, but I think it's pretty clear that a lot of unnecessary risks were run during the Cold War and the UK would have been one of the worst victims.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- CapitalistCartr 11y ago
  Nuclear wasn't the only way. We built the A-10 Warthog specifically to counter the tank problem and it filled its role brilliantly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thun...
  - dingaling 11y ago
    The A-10 program only survived the 1970s as an anti-tank respin of a Vietnam counter-insurgency specification. The gun was only effective against certain aspects of T-64 armour and only after US Army Cobras had eliminated or reduced ZSU and Gaskin vehicles to allow the A-10 to approach to gun range. What it does very effectively today in close-support was for what it was originally intended, not tank-busting.
    - CapitalistCartr 11y ago
      The GAU-8 cannon was designed specifically for the anti-tank role using APDU. The A-10 was designed solely for close air support, including attacking tanks as the link I provided mentions. All close air support requires control of the air space.
    - ckozlowski 11y ago
      While the gun had been viewed as effective and economical, by the 80's there were real question as to how realistic the A-10s survivability would be. I apologise for not having a link on hand that discusses this, but the standoff requirement to survive in the environment shifted the A-10's primary anti-tank weapon to the AGM-65 Maverick, and not the cannon, soon after it was introduced.
    - hga 11y ago
      The gun was only effective against certain aspects of T-64 armour Would these be the sides and top? Which an aircraft is in a much better position to attack than troops on the ground facing it's forward armor.
  - ckozlowski 11y ago
- mannykannot 11y ago
  >"Over-estimated" how? Kennedy's missile gap, for one. The existence of a threat does not mean that it cannot be over-estimated.
gopowerranger 11y ago
You are ignoring the fact that the USSR built up their atomic weaponry, moved in on other countries, and made threats to the US. Your statement is one-sided.

arethuza 11y ago

Well, the bike locks might have been more secure than the launch code for US Minuteman missiles - which was up until 1977: 00000000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link Also worth noting that UK Trident nukes don't have PALs - each crew already has all the information it needs to launch.