Discussion:
OT Nuclear U-Boats; how do they condense the steam?
(too old to reply)
gareth evans
2021-09-16 13:49:28 UTC
Permalink
After following the Vigil TV series (with all its
reported errors) and also the prog on HMS Trenchard,
when a Brit U-boat is powered by nuclear fuels, how
do they condense the steam?

With sea water? If so, there must be difficulties
in sealing the intakes and outfalls from deep sea
pressures.

Perhaps the steam is heated to 200C and only cools to
100C through the turbines before recirculating
so no condensing is
required. This, of course, will be wasteful
of some thermodynamic energy, but there's so much
in reserve in the nuclear fual that perhaps it does not
matter.
Scott
2021-09-16 14:42:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:49:28 +0100, gareth evans
Post by gareth evans
After following the Vigil TV series (with all its
reported errors)
As an aside would you recommend Vigil? A friend of my said the
submarine looked like a free gift from a cornflakes packet.
gareth evans
2021-09-16 15:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:49:28 +0100, gareth evans
Post by gareth evans
After following the Vigil TV series (with all its
reported errors)
As an aside would you recommend Vigil? A friend of my said the
submarine looked like a free gift from a cornflakes packet.
very good thrilling plot (unlike Star Wars which I
got less than half way through before giving up on it)
newshound
2021-09-16 19:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:49:28 +0100, gareth evans
Post by gareth evans
After following the Vigil TV series (with all its
reported errors)
As an aside would you recommend Vigil? A friend of my said the
submarine looked like a free gift from a cornflakes packet.
Some of the CGI is very good, other stuff is pretty awful.
Brian Gaff (Sofa)
2021-09-17 07:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Maybe the same designers that made the old Blakes 7 series and Crossroads
built the models and sets?
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by Scott
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:49:28 +0100, gareth evans
Post by gareth evans
After following the Vigil TV series (with all its
reported errors)
As an aside would you recommend Vigil? A friend of my said the
submarine looked like a free gift from a cornflakes packet.
Martin Brown
2021-09-17 07:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:49:28 +0100, gareth evans
Post by gareth evans
After following the Vigil TV series (with all its
reported errors)
As an aside would you recommend Vigil? A friend of my said the
submarine looked like a free gift from a cornflakes packet.
It has *very* high ceilings for a submarine. Presumably needed for the
cameras to get the right angle but means it doesn't look realistically
claustrophobic like the reality would actually be.

It looks like it might be a half decent thriller but not realistic.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
nightjar
2021-09-16 14:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by gareth evans
After following the Vigil TV series (with all its
reported errors) and also the prog on HMS Trenchard,
when a Brit U-boat is powered by nuclear fuels, how
do they condense the steam?
Sea water heat exchanger
Post by gareth evans
With sea water? If so, there must be difficulties
in sealing the intakes and outfalls from deep sea
pressures.
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
Post by gareth evans
Perhaps the steam is heated to 200C and only cools to
100C through the turbines before recirculating
so no condensing is
required. This, of course, will be wasteful
of some thermodynamic energy, but there's so much
in reserve in the nuclear fual that perhaps it does not
matter.
--
Colin Bignell
GB
2021-09-16 15:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's a
tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
Spike
2021-09-16 15:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's a
tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_running_(submarine)
--
Spike
GB
2021-09-16 17:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's a
tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_running_(submarine)
Tell the authors, not me!
alan_m
2021-09-20 07:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's a
tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_running_(submarine)
Drill a few holes in the propeller....

https://www.maritime-executive.com/corporate/revolutionary-propeller-technology-reduces-underwater-radiated-noise
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
nightjar
2021-09-16 16:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's a
tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)

However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
--
Colin Bignell
GB
2021-09-16 17:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Scott
2021-09-16 17:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
GB
2021-09-16 17:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.

If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet of
new nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear war
we couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?
Steve Walker
2021-09-16 19:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Scott
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.
If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet of
new nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear war
we couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack. Hospitals are of no use if someone decides to obliterate your
country, knowing that there will be no response.

While it would be better if no countries had nuclear weapons, while some
potential enemies do, it makes sense to have your own response of last
resort.
Tim Streater
2021-09-16 20:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by GB
Post by Scott
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.
If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet of
new nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear war
we couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack. Hospitals are of no use if someone decides to obliterate your
country, knowing that there will be no response.
While it would be better if no countries had nuclear weapons, while some
potential enemies do, it makes sense to have your own response of last
resort.
Yes, I think GB is suffering from the "why have nuclear subs with missiles
when we aren't going to use them?" syndrome. He overlooks that they have been
in use, 24x7, for the last 50 years or whatever it is.
--
There's no obfuscated Perl contest because it's pointless.

- Jeff Polk
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-17 06:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Streater
Yes, I think GB is suffering from the "why have nuclear subs with missiles
when we aren't going to use them?" syndrome. He overlooks that they have been
in use, 24x7, for the last 50 years or whatever it is.
Why have crash barriers when the whole idea is not to crash?
--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
tony sayer
2021-09-16 20:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by GB
Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.
If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet of
new nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear war
we couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack. Hospitals are of no use if someone decides to obliterate your
country, knowing that there will be no response.
While it would be better if no countries had nuclear weapons, while some
potential enemies do, it makes sense to have your own response of last
resort.
The BIG issues for me about Nuclear conflict is it starting accidentally
someone getting a bit trigger happy almost happened in 1979 wasn't it?,
some Russian bloke queries odd radar returns instead of referring to
higher up the chain, which from what had happened would have provoked a
retaliatory strike!..

Nope 1983!, Stanislav Petrov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
GB
2021-09-16 21:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack.
The Argentinians attacked the Falklands, without us obliterating BA.
What better target to attack than one that cannot retaliate?

By not turning the whole of Argentine into radioactive glass, our
so-called nuclear deterrent lost all credibility. So, we might as well
scrap it. Clearly, if we won't nuke the Argies, we certainly won't nuke
the Ruskies.
newshound
2021-09-16 21:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Steve Walker
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack.
The Argentinians attacked the Falklands, without us obliterating BA.
What better target to attack than one that cannot retaliate?
A god-forsaken set of islands with 2000 inhabitants? Not exactly Pearl
Harbour, was it.
Post by GB
By not turning the whole of Argentine into radioactive glass, our
so-called nuclear deterrent lost all credibility.
FFS

So, we might as well
Post by GB
scrap it. Clearly, if we won't nuke the Argies, we certainly won't nuke
the Ruskies.
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 06:05:46 UTC
Permalink
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means that
no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory attack.
The Argentinians attacked the Falklands, without us obliterating BA. What
better target to attack than one that cannot retaliate?
By not turning the whole of Argentine into radioactive glass, our
so-called nuclear deterrent lost all credibility.
It wasn’t intended to deter that sort of action,
it was intended to deter a nuclear attack.
So, we might as well scrap it. Clearly, if we won't nuke the Argies, we
certainly won't nuke the Ruskies.
But might nuke the frogs if they had nuked the UK.
Peeler
2021-09-17 08:23:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:05:46 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: <pu07vj$s5$***@dont-email.me>
Pancho
2021-09-17 09:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by GB
Post by Steve Walker
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack.
The Argentinians attacked the Falklands, without us obliterating BA.
What better target to attack than one that cannot retaliate?
By not turning the whole of Argentine into radioactive glass, our
so-called nuclear deterrent lost all credibility.
It wasn’t intended to deter that sort of action,
it was intended to deter a nuclear attack.
I think you'll find the UK nuclear capability was intended to deter a
Soviet conventional invasion of Europe. That is why we retained a first
strike option.

Militarily nukes are now virtually useless to the UK. As GB illustrates
we can't use them in normal conflicts. Nuclear weapons are mainly useful
for small, militarily weak, nations deterring conventional
attacks/intimidation by much more powerful nations. North Korea and Iran
being obvious examples where they have/would have utility. Obviously
giving nutters nukes is not a good idea. I'm just pointing out the way
things are, like it or not.

There is some benefit to a US deterrent against intimidation by other
nuclear powers and maybe we should contribute to that. However the
current US arsenal is ludicrously oversized.
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 10:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Rod Speed
Post by GB
Post by Steve Walker
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack.
The Argentinians attacked the Falklands, without us obliterating BA.
What better target to attack than one that cannot retaliate?
By not turning the whole of Argentine into radioactive glass, our
so-called nuclear deterrent lost all credibility.
It wasn’t intended to deter that sort of action,
it was intended to deter a nuclear attack.
I think you'll find the UK nuclear capability was intended to deter a
Soviet conventional invasion of Europe.
Nope, NATO would have done that fine.
Post by Pancho
That is why we retained a first strike option.
That wouldn’t have deterred a Soviet conventional invasion of Europe.
Post by Pancho
Militarily nukes are now virtually useless to the UK.
That’s not true or Trident with nuking by the frogs.
Post by Pancho
As GB illustrates we can't use them in normal conflicts.
Trident was never intended for use in normal conflicts,
they were always about deterring nuke strikes on the UK.
Post by Pancho
Nuclear weapons are mainly useful for small, militarily weak, nations
deterring conventional attacks/intimidation by much more powerful nations.
That was never what Trident was about.
Post by Pancho
North Korea and Iran being obvious examples where they have/would have
utility.
And Israel.
Post by Pancho
Obviously giving nutters nukes is not a good idea. I'm just pointing out
the way things are, like it or not.
But don’t have a clue what Trident was about.
Post by Pancho
There is some benefit to a US deterrent against intimidation by other
nuclear powers and maybe we should contribute to that. However the current
US arsenal is ludicrously oversized.
But Trident isn't, just irrelevant now and a waste of money.
Pancho
2021-09-17 11:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
North Korea and Iran being obvious examples where they have/would have
utility.
And Israel.
Maybe 50 years ago, maybe in the future, but at the moment they are the
dominant regional power. Additionally, they are protected against these
weaker enemies by US backing.

I think a lot of the reason Israel and the US suspect Iran of seeking
nuclear weapons is because it is what they would do in Iran's position.

Personally I'm not so sure. I think the Iranian leadership may think
differently.
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-17 12:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
North Korea and Iran being obvious examples where they have/would
have utility.
And Israel.
Maybe 50 years ago, maybe in the future, but at the moment they are the
dominant regional power. Additionally, they are protected against these
weaker enemies by US backing.
I think a lot of the reason Israel and the US suspect Iran of seeking
nuclear weapons is because it is what they would do in Iran's position.
Personally I'm not so sure. I think the Iranian leadership may think
differently.
Well I have quite a lot of interest in Iran - I have known many Iranians
for reasons I do not understand! - and where the regime is at is using
the West much as nicola sturgeon uses england, as a scapegoat for every
ill the regime has inflicted on the country.

This comes to a head with the 'Rothschild conspiracy' which maintains
that the Jewish Rothschilds, based in England, are the secret illuminati
that are running the world and pissing on Iran, specifically.

This is OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POLICY. And believed by the majority of Iranians


To that end it sponsors acts of terrorism to maintain enmity with the
UK, America and Israel in order to say 'look, they are waging war
against us'. It would love to have nuclear weapons to threaten Israel
with.

And to threaten Britain and the USA with in case we thought of doing a
Desert storm on them.

Now having nuclear weapons ourselves is no defence against Iran's
nuclear weapons. Any use of nuclear weapons against Iran would like
arouse sympathy across the islamic diaspora. Use of nuclear weapons by
Iran would receive tacit acclaim across the same diaspora. In fact the
only thing that works against Islamic militancy is total utter public
humiliation.
--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller
Pancho
2021-09-17 12:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
North Korea and Iran being obvious examples where they have/would
have utility.
And Israel.
Maybe 50 years ago, maybe in the future, but at the moment they are
the dominant regional power. Additionally, they are protected against
these weaker enemies by US backing.
I think a lot of the reason Israel and the US suspect Iran of seeking
nuclear weapons is because it is what they would do in Iran's position.
Personally I'm not so sure. I think the Iranian leadership may think
differently.
Well I have quite a lot of interest in Iran - I have known many Iranians
for reasons I do not understand!
There was the diaspora in 1979.

I was down the boozer with an Iranian mate a couple of weeks ago and he
was telling me with horror how his (English, Catholic) daughter was
embracing her Iranian heritage, wanting to wear a head scarf etc. Him
going, nooo, we never did that in Iran.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
- and where the regime is at is using
the West much as nicola sturgeon uses england, as a scapegoat for every
ill the regime has inflicted on the country.
This comes to a head with the 'Rothschild conspiracy' which maintains
that the Jewish Rothschilds, based in England, are the secret illuminati
that are running the world and pissing on Iran, specifically.
This is OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POLICY. And believed by the majority of Iranians
To that end it sponsors acts of terrorism to maintain enmity with the
UK, America and Israel in order to say 'look, they are waging war
against us'. It would love to have nuclear weapons to threaten Israel with.
I think that is pretty much true and Israel does a bit the same with
Iran, presenting them as an existential threat. I think in reality Iran
is much more interested in Saudi. Israel hate rhetoric, is just lip
service. Something that is free and pleases Muslims across the region.

I don't see how genuinely threatening Israel benefits Iran, Israel
doesn't have anything they want. Much better to be the unfairly abused
underdog, to have the bete noir to scare the local plebs into supporting
you.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And to threaten Britain and the USA with in case we thought of doing a
Desert  storm on them.
Exactly, but we won't, not after recent events. So they don't need them.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Now having nuclear weapons ourselves is no defence against Iran's
nuclear weapons. Any use of nuclear weapons against Iran would like
arouse sympathy across the islamic diaspora. Use of nuclear weapons by
Iran would receive tacit acclaim across the same diaspora. In fact the
only thing that works against Islamic militancy is total utter public
humiliation.
I thought total humiliation was the reason for Islamic militancy. They
couldn't win in real life so they invent a fairy tale where they are
superior.
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 19:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
North Korea and Iran being obvious examples where they have/would have
utility.
And Israel.
Maybe 50 years ago, maybe in the future, but at the moment they are the
dominant regional power.
But Israel's nukes ensure that no one like Iran will
actually be stupid enough to try nuking them.

Israel's nukes ensure that even if Iran does end up
with nukes, that there will only ever be a standoff
like there is with India and Pakistan, both with nukes.
Post by Pancho
Additionally, they are protected against these weaker enemies by US
backing.
Only with conventional war. It is unlikely that the US
would nuke Iran if Iran was stupid enough to nuke Israel.
Post by Pancho
I think a lot of the reason Israel and the US suspect Iran of seeking
nuclear weapons is because it is what they would do in Iran's position.
Yes, but Israeli nukes do ensure that only the most stupid
nut case in Iran would be stupid enough nuke Israel.

And difficult to see that even the most stupid nut case would
anyway given all the palestinians so close and in Israel.
Post by Pancho
Personally I'm not so sure. I think the Iranian leadership may think
differently.
Nope, they think the same that having their own nukes
would ensure that Israel would never nuke them.

That’s why North Korea has nukes but wont be stupid enough to use them.
Peeler
2021-09-17 13:57:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 20:43:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 87-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
alan_m
2021-09-20 07:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
But might nuke the frogs if they had nuked the UK.
Don't we now need the nuclear deterrent more than ever? We are still in
danger of WW3 as predicted by the Brexit project fear campaign!
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Rod Speed
2021-09-20 10:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by alan_m
Post by Rod Speed
But might nuke the frogs if they had nuked the UK.
Don't we now need the nuclear deterrent more than ever?
Nope, there is no possibility of anyone nuking
the UK and even if some stupid frog chose to
do that, Trident wouldn’t stop them doing that.
Post by alan_m
We are still in danger of WW3
Nope.
Post by alan_m
as predicted by the Brexit project fear campaign!
That was always just another stupid lie.
Peeler
2021-09-20 11:07:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:02:37 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile pest's latest trollshit unread>
--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: <pu07vj$s5$***@dont-email.me>
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-17 06:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Steve Walker
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack.
The Argentinians attacked the Falklands, without us obliterating BA.
What better target to attack than one that cannot retaliate?
one that has nuclear weapons. There was no need to escalate a lttle s
american adventure beyond retaking te falklands and shooting d0own a few
plabes directly involved
Post by GB
By not turning the whole of Argentine into radioactive glass, our
so-called nuclear deterrent lost all credibility.
No, our credibility was enhanced, among sane people



So, we might as well
Post by GB
scrap it. Clearly, if we won't nuke the Argies, we certainly won't nuke
the Ruskies.
Usual emotionally loaded false logic.
--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
alan_m
2021-09-20 07:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by GB
Post by Steve Walker
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack.
The Argentinians attacked the Falklands, without us obliterating BA.
What better target to attack than one that cannot retaliate?
one that has nuclear weapons. There was no need to escalate a lttle s
american adventure beyond retaking te falklands and shooting d0own a few
plabes directly involved
and sinking a war ship that the Japanese had failed to do in Pearl harbour.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Pent
2021-09-16 22:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by GB
Post by Scott
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.
If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet of
new nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear war
we couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack.
Article 5 of NATO, an attack against one ally is considered as an attack
against all allies.
Steve Walker
2021-09-17 00:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pent
Post by Steve Walker
Post by GB
Post by Scott
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more
important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.
If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet
of new nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear
war we couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack.
Article 5 of NATO, an attack against one ally is considered as an attack
against all allies.
Yes, we know that, but if no-one in NATO, besides the USA, had nuclear
weapons, do you really think that we could all rely on the US and that
other countries would believe that the US would retaliate on our behalf?
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 06:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pent
Post by GB
Post by Scott
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.
If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet of
new nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear war
we couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means that
no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory attack.
Article 5 of NATO, an attack against one ally is considered as an attack
against all allies.
That’s the theory, anyway. It remains to be seen what happens in real life.
Peeler
2021-09-17 08:24:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:10:40 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <***@mid.individual.net>
Pancho
2021-09-17 00:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack. Hospitals are of no use if someone decides to obliterate your
country, knowing that there will be no response.
While it would be better if no countries had nuclear weapons, while some
potential enemies do, it makes sense to have your own response of last
resort.
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.
They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a
few minutes.

ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They can
be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much longer
from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to react to an
attack.

But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just
giving them nuclear powered subs.

I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 06:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means that
no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory attack.
Hospitals are of no use if someone decides to obliterate your country,
knowing that there will be no response.
While it would be better if no countries had nuclear weapons, while some
potential enemies do, it makes sense to have your own response of last
resort.
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.
Nope, they are the best deterrent because no one knows where
they are so can't eliminate your nukes in their first strike so you
cant strike back. And there is no need for an early detection
capability with short range attacks either.
Post by Pancho
They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a few
minutes.
In fact it isn't feasible to hide just offshore with many enemys.
Post by Pancho
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation,
Nope, because everyone knows where they are and can
nuke them in their first strike, particularly if they do the
first strike quite close to them, so you cant retaliate.
Post by Pancho
and much cheaper. They can be mobile and so hard to destroy.
But still much easier to find than a nuke missiled sub.
Post by Pancho
The problem is they take much longer from launch to arrival and give the
target nation time to react to an attack.
A nuke missiled sub does that in spades.
Post by Pancho
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just giving
them nuclear powered subs.
They aren't being given, they are being sold to us.
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Problem with those is do you trust a philippino crew to never
fuck up and ram another ship with undesirable consequences.
With non nuke powered container vessels the worst you risk
is a bad oil spill or a blocked canal or seaway for a while.
Peeler
2021-09-17 08:24:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:21:20 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
nightjar
2021-09-17 08:32:31 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Problem with those is do you trust a philippino crew to never
fuck up and ram another ship with undesirable consequences.
With non nuke powered container vessels the worst you risk
is a bad oil spill or a blocked canal or seaway for a while.
You don't need Filipinos to have a nuclear accident. There have been 32
known accidents involving nuclear weapons or nuclear powered vessels.
Six US nuclear weapons have been lost and never found again.
--
Colin Bignell
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 10:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Problem with those is do you trust a philippino crew to never
fuck up and ram another ship with undesirable consequences.
With non nuke powered container vessels the worst you risk
is a bad oil spill or a blocked canal or seaway for a while.
You don't need Filipinos to have a nuclear accident. There have been 32
known accidents involving nuclear weapons or nuclear powered vessels.
Six US nuclear weapons have been lost and never found again.
But those weren't nuke powered container ships tho
they might have used a few puerto ricans at times.
Peeler
2021-09-17 13:58:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 20:22:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <***@mid.individual.net>
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-17 06:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.
They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a
few minutes.
That tooo.
Post by Pancho
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They can
be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much longer
from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to react to an
attack.
The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to
prevent retaliation
Post by Pancho
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just
giving them nuclear powered subs.
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft - the chinese dont
want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Indeed.
--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher
72y33
2021-09-17 10:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon. They
can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a few
minutes.
That tooo.
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They can
be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much longer
from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to react to an
attack.
The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to
prevent retaliation
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just giving
them nuclear powered subs.
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft - the chinese dont
want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.

Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Indeed.
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-17 10:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.
They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a
few minutes.
That tooo.
Post by Pancho
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They
can be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much
longer from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to
react to an attack.
The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to
prevent retaliation
Post by Pancho
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just
giving them nuclear powered subs.
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft  - the chinese
dont want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.
Every possibility I would say - Australia is not very heavily populated.
And is not very defensible. And is full of pacifists who would probably
welcome them with open arms
Post by 72y33
Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Course it does.
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Indeed.
--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"
72y33
2021-09-17 10:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.
They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a
few minutes.
That tooo.
Post by Pancho
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They can
be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much longer
from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to react to an
attack.
The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to
prevent retaliation
Post by Pancho
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just
giving them nuclear powered subs.
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft - the chinese dont
want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.
Every possibility I would say
More fool you...

- Australia is not very heavily populated.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And is not very defensible.
That is mindless bullshit.

And is full of pacifists who would probably
Post by The Natural Philosopher
welcome them with open arms
More mindless bullshit.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Course it does.
Fraid not. No possibility of holding it.

They couldn’t even manage that with Afghanistan.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Indeed.
Fredxx
2021-09-17 11:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike
weapon. They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning
time to a few minutes.
That tooo.
Post by Pancho
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They
can be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much
longer from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to
react to an attack.
The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to
prevent retaliation
Post by Pancho
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just
giving them nuclear powered subs.
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft  - the chinese
dont want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.
Every possibility I would say
More fool you...
- Australia is not very heavily populated.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And is not very defensible.
That is mindless bullshit.
And is full of pacifists who would probably
Post by The Natural Philosopher
welcome them with open arms
More mindless bullshit.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Course it does.
Fraid not. No possibility of holding it.
They couldn’t even manage that with Afghanistan.
Is Australia equally corrupt and inhabited by religious freaks too
seemingly all too happy to commit suicide in human guided weapons?

I'm surprised you're willing to draw the comparison? But then you in
Australia and I don't.
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Indeed.
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 19:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.
They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a
few minutes.
That tooo.
Post by Pancho
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They
can be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much
longer from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to
react to an attack.
The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to
prevent retaliation
Post by Pancho
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just
giving them nuclear powered subs.
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft - the chinese
dont want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.
Every possibility I would say
More fool you...
- Australia is not very heavily populated.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And is not very defensible.
That is mindless bullshit.
And is full of pacifists who would probably
Post by The Natural Philosopher
welcome them with open arms
More mindless bullshit.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Course it does.
Fraid not. No possibility of holding it.
They couldn’t even manage that with Afghanistan.
Is Australia equally corrupt and inhabited by religious freaks too
seemingly all too happy to commit suicide in human guided weapons?
Nope, but doesn’t need to be to make it impossible for the yanks
to hold it if they were actually stupid enough to try invading.
Post by Fredxx
I'm surprised you're willing to draw the comparison?
There is no comparison.
Post by Fredxx
But then you in Australia and I don't.
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Indeed.
Peeler
2021-09-17 20:31:32 UTC
Permalink
"Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."

https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID: <***@mid.individual.net>
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-17 11:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike
weapon. They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning
time to a few minutes.
That tooo.
Post by Pancho
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They
can be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much
longer from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to
react to an attack.
The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to
prevent retaliation
Post by Pancho
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just
giving them nuclear powered subs.
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft  - the chinese
dont want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.
Every possibility I would say
More fool you...
wow. You START with an ad hominem!
Post by 72y33
- Australia is not very heavily populated.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And is not very defensible.
That is mindless bullshit.
And carry on with insults without addressing the basic point, that the
north of Australia is huge and empty, and there is nothing there to stop
chinese landing craft waltzing in, apart from submarines..
Post by 72y33
And is full of pacifists who would probably
Post by The Natural Philosopher
welcome them with open arms
More mindless bullshit.
More insults and ad hominems. And complete lack of rational arguments
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Course it does.
Fraid not. No possibility of holding it.
No possibility of retaking it. How many men did it take to

(a) take
(b) retake the falklands?
Post by 72y33
They couldn’t even manage that with Afghanistan.
They didn't even try

And the Afghans are far more likely to resist invasion than limp wristed
latte drinking urban hipster Australians
--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin
72y33
2021-09-17 19:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.
They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a
few minutes.
That tooo.
Post by Pancho
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They
can be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much
longer from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to
react to an attack.
The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to
prevent retaliation
Post by Pancho
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just
giving them nuclear powered subs.
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft - the chinese
dont want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.
Every possibility I would say
More fool you...
wow. You START with an ad hominem!
That’s not an ad hominem, it’s a turn of phrase.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
- Australia is not very heavily populated.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And is not very defensible.
That is mindless bullshit.
And carry on with insults without addressing the basic point,
I did address the basic point, at the bottom.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
that the north of Australia is huge and empty,
More mindless pig ignorant bullshit particularly
with the east and west coasts.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
and there is nothing there to stop chinese landing craft waltzing in,
apart from submarines..
More mindless pig ignorant bullshit with the airforce.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And is full of pacifists who would probably
welcome them with open arms
More mindless bullshit.
More insults and ad hominems.
Nope, statement of fact in that case.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And complete lack of rational arguments
And that is a bare faced lie with Afghanistan.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Course it does.
Fraid not. No possibility of holding it.
No possibility of retaking it. How many men did it take to
(a) take
(b) retake the falklands?
Pity about Afghanistan.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by 72y33
They couldn’t even manage that with Afghanistan.
They didn't even try
Bullshit. They would never stay forever.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
And the Afghans are far more likely to resist invasion than limp wristed
latte drinking urban hipster Australians
More mindless bullshit.
Peeler
2021-09-17 20:31:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 05:35:15 +1000, 72y33, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
Peeler
2021-09-17 13:59:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 20:58:05 +1000, 72y33, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rodent Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total bollocks most of it."
MID: <pj2b07$1rvs$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Peeler
2021-09-17 13:58:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 20:30:34 +1000, 72y33, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <***@haph.org>
newshound
2021-09-20 09:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft  - the chinese
dont want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.
Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Indeed.
I am sure the *point* of the new deal is that the Astute-like subs will
give Australia very much better intelligence capability on Chinese
activities in the South China Sea and elsewhere. Undoubtedly the
information will be shared completely with the USA and the UK. It also
means Australia and its regional friends will have more credibility in
protesting about Chinese activities to the UN, thus giving expansionist
Chinese more diplomatic headaches.

It's a bit like Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick".
Rod Speed
2021-09-20 17:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by 72y33
Post by The Natural Philosopher
I believe so.
They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft - the chinese dont
want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.
There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.
Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Indeed.
I am sure the *point* of the new deal is that the Astute-like subs will
give Australia very much better intelligence capability on Chinese
activities in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
There is no point in us having stupidly expensive subs for that.

The US is quite capable of proving that intelligence with what they already
have.
Post by newshound
Undoubtedly the information will be shared completely with the USA and the
UK.
Sure, but the USA doesn’t need it, they already have vastly better sources
of that.
Post by newshound
It also means Australia and its regional friends will have more
credibility in protesting about Chinese activities to the UN,
That’s bullshit too.
Post by newshound
thus giving expansionist Chinese more diplomatic headaches.
They don’t give a damn about what anyone thinks about
what they are doing there, or about the Uyghurs either.

And those subs are a stupidly expensive way to do that anyway.
FAR better things to spend that sort of money on.
Post by newshound
It's a bit like Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick".
It isn't a big stick in our case. It isn't even a twig.
Peeler
2021-09-20 17:52:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 03:08:59 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

Get the fuck out of European newsgroups, you subnormal senile pig from Oz!
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 87-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Steve Walker
2021-09-17 10:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Steve Walker
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means
that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory
attack. Hospitals are of no use if someone decides to obliterate your
country, knowing that there will be no response.
While it would be better if no countries had nuclear weapons, while
some potential enemies do, it makes sense to have your own response of
last resort.
I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.
They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a
few minutes.
No, although they can be used that way, that is not the purpose of them.
The idea is that once out at sea, no-one knows where they are, so they
cannot be targetted to be knocked out before an attack on their home
country and will remain available to respond.

Indeed, they may not even respond - each Prime Minister gives a letter
to the sub commanders, to be opened *after* an attack on the UK. That
letter tells them whether to fire back or not in such an event. The idea
being that an enemy won't know whether we would respond or not, but the
PM has that control.
Post by Pancho
ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They can
be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much longer
from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to react to an
attack.
But subs hide much better. Time taken to arrive is not a problem for a
retaliatory weapon though.
Post by Pancho
But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just
giving them nuclear powered subs.
Agreed.
Post by Pancho
I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.
Although not used much, there have been commercial nuclear ships before
- and a number of icebreakers.
Pancho
2021-09-17 11:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
But subs hide much better. Time taken to arrive is not a problem for a
retaliatory weapon though.
Do they? With modern equipment. I actually suspect subs are more
vulnerable to being taken out in a pre-emptive strike. I think the UK
often has just one operational trident sub.

Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.

Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes. Trains,
lorries, multiple geographically distance launch sites. More weapons for
your money. These are countries which are most likely to face a first
strike.
Steve Walker
2021-09-17 12:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Steve Walker
But subs hide much better. Time taken to arrive is not a problem for a
retaliatory weapon though.
Do they? With modern equipment. I actually suspect subs are more
vulnerable to being taken out in a pre-emptive strike. I think the UK
often has just one operational trident sub.
Subs are far more hidden than any land-based system. At times of high
tension, they will usually arrange for more than one to be at sea at the
same time - indeed this was one of the arguments against the Lib-Dem
proposal to save money by buying fewer.
Post by Pancho
Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.
Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes. Trains,
lorries, multiple geographically distance launch sites. More weapons for
your money. These are countries which are most likely to face a first
strike.
More weapons, but easier to wipe-out pre-emptively.
Pancho
2021-09-17 13:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Pancho
Post by Steve Walker
But subs hide much better. Time taken to arrive is not a problem for
a retaliatory weapon though.
Do they? With modern equipment. I actually suspect subs are more
vulnerable to being taken out in a pre-emptive strike. I think the UK
often has just one operational trident sub.
Subs are far more hidden than any land-based system.
Are they? It seems quite possible advance sub tracking could exist now,
or in the near future.


At times of high
Post by Steve Walker
tension, they will usually arrange for more than one to be at sea at the
same time - indeed this was one of the arguments against the Lib-Dem
proposal to save money by buying fewer.
Post by Pancho
Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.
Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes.
Trains, lorries, multiple geographically distance launch sites. More
weapons for your money. These are countries which are most likely to
face a first strike.
More weapons, but easier to wipe-out pre-emptively.
Are they? Subs in the open ocean vs a missile launcher vehicle in the
interior of a country. Possibly with lots of missile launcher decoys.
Sub decoys aren't so cheap..
Rod Speed
2021-09-18 01:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Pancho
Post by Steve Walker
But subs hide much better. Time taken to arrive is not a problem for a
retaliatory weapon though.
Do they? With modern equipment. I actually suspect subs are more
vulnerable to being taken out in a pre-emptive strike. I think the UK
often has just one operational trident sub.
Subs are far more hidden than any land-based system.
Are they?
Yep.
Post by Pancho
It seems quite possible advance sub tracking could exist now, or in the
near future.
Nope, how do you propose that would be done ?

It just isn't feasible to do it with a huge raft of audio
signature recording devices and trivial to keep track
of them notifying home when they see your sub go by.

Not feasible to detect the magnetic anomaly going
by with a satellite either. If that was possible, no one
would be bothering with the very high cost of nuke
firing subs.
Post by Pancho
At times of high
Post by Steve Walker
tension, they will usually arrange for more than one to be at sea at the
same time - indeed this was one of the arguments against the Lib-Dem
proposal to save money by buying fewer.
Post by Pancho
Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.
Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes. Trains,
lorries, multiple geographically distance launch sites. More weapons for
your money. These are countries which are most likely to face a first
strike.
More weapons, but easier to wipe-out pre-emptively.
Are they?
Yep, because its easy to work out where they are.
Post by Pancho
Subs in the open ocean vs a missile launcher vehicle in the interior of a
country. Possibly with lots of missile launcher decoys.
How odd that we haven't seen anyone doing that and
they aren't a useful decoy if they haven't been seen.
Post by Pancho
Sub decoys aren't so cheap..
But are much harder to keep track of.
Peeler
2021-09-18 08:38:52 UTC
Permalink
<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-17 12:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Steve Walker
But subs hide much better. Time taken to arrive is not a problem for a
retaliatory weapon though.
Do they? With modern equipment. I actually suspect subs are more
vulnerable to being taken out in a pre-emptive strike. I think the UK
often has just one operational trident sub.
No, they are not.
Post by Pancho
Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.
"I think the UK often has just one operational trident sub."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Governments lie about the real facts to placate the public.
Post by Pancho
Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes.
There are no cash poor nuclear powers.

You need to be pretty well heeled to build a bomb

Wiki:

Contents

1 Statistics and force configuration
2 Recognized nuclear-weapon states
2.1 United States
2.2 Russia (successor to the Soviet Union)
2.3 United Kingdom
2.4 France
2.5 China
3 States declaring possession of nuclear weapons
3.1 India
3.2 Pakistan
3.3 North Korea
4 States indicated to possess nuclear weapons
4.1 Israel
5 Launch authority
6 Nuclear weapons sharing
7 States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
7.1 South Africa
7.2 Former Soviet Republics

None of those are 'cash poor'
None of them lack at the very least a functional air force and some
missile capability



Trains,
Post by Pancho
lorries, multiple geographically distance launch sites. More weapons for
your money. These are countries which are most likely to face a first
strike.
You are making this up, completely. Talking out of your arse really.
--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"
Pancho
2021-09-17 13:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes.
There are no cash poor nuclear powers.
You need to be pretty well heeled to build a bomb
Contents
    1 Statistics and force configuration
    2 Recognized nuclear-weapon states
        2.1 United States
        2.2 Russia (successor to the Soviet Union)
        2.3 United Kingdom
        2.4 France
        2.5 China
    3 States declaring possession of nuclear weapons
        3.1 India
        3.2 Pakistan
        3.3 North Korea
    4 States indicated to possess nuclear weapons
        4.1 Israel
    5 Launch authority
    6 Nuclear weapons sharing
    7 States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
        7.1 South Africa
        7.2 Former Soviet Republics
None of those are 'cash poor'
None of them lack at the very least a functional air force and some
missile capability
North Korea.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Trains,
Post by Pancho
lorries, multiple geographically distance launch sites. More weapons
for your money. These are countries which are most likely to face a
first strike.
You are making this up, completely. Talking out of your arse really.
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-09-17/north-korea-s-train-missile-launch-video>
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-17 14:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes.
There are no cash poor nuclear powers.
You need to be pretty well heeled to build a bomb
Contents
     1 Statistics and force configuration
     2 Recognized nuclear-weapon states
         2.1 United States
         2.2 Russia (successor to the Soviet Union)
         2.3 United Kingdom
         2.4 France
         2.5 China
     3 States declaring possession of nuclear weapons
         3.1 India
         3.2 Pakistan
         3.3 North Korea
     4 States indicated to possess nuclear weapons
         4.1 Israel
     5 Launch authority
     6 Nuclear weapons sharing
     7 States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
         7.1 South Africa
         7.2 Former Soviet Republics
None of those are 'cash poor'
None of them lack at the very least a functional air force and some
missile capability
North Korea.
doesn't have nuclear weapons. just *says* it has
Post by Pancho
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Trains,
Post by Pancho
lorries, multiple geographically distance launch sites. More weapons
for your money. These are countries which are most likely to face a
first strike.
You are making this up, completely. Talking out of your arse really.
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-09-17/north-korea-s-train-missile-launch-video>
So not a train - a missile.
--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
72y33
2021-09-18 01:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes.
There are no cash poor nuclear powers.
You need to be pretty well heeled to build a bomb
Contents
1 Statistics and force configuration
2 Recognized nuclear-weapon states
2.1 United States
2.2 Russia (successor to the Soviet Union)
2.3 United Kingdom
2.4 France
2.5 China
3 States declaring possession of nuclear weapons
3.1 India
3.2 Pakistan
3.3 North Korea
4 States indicated to possess nuclear weapons
4.1 Israel
5 Launch authority
6 Nuclear weapons sharing
7 States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
7.1 South Africa
7.2 Former Soviet Republics
None of those are 'cash poor'
None of them lack at the very least a functional air force and some
missile capability
North Korea.
doesn't have nuclear weapons.
We know it has because we have seen them test
those and we know that’s where Pakistan got theirs.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
just *says* it has
Wrong.
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Trains,
Post by Pancho
lorries, multiple geographically distance launch sites. More weapons
for your money. These are countries which are most likely to face a
first strike.
You are making this up, completely. Talking out of your arse really.
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-09-17/north-korea-s-train-missile-launch-video>
So not a train - a missile.
Peeler
2021-09-18 08:39:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 11:51:29 +1000, 72y33, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
newshound
2021-09-20 09:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.
"I think the UK  often has just one operational trident sub."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Governments lie about the real facts to placate the public.
Not just the public. Having four (with two at sea much of the time, even
if only one is notionally on service duty) gives an aggressor who has
spotted one the Dirty Harry dilemma "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
Pancho
2021-09-20 09:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by Pancho
Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.
"I think the UK  often has just one operational trident sub."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Governments lie about the real facts to placate the public.
Not just the public. Having four (with two at sea much of the time, even
if only one is notionally on service duty) gives an aggressor who has
spotted one the Dirty Harry dilemma "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
Yeah right! Good point. An aggressor on the USA can be asked: "Can you
destroy only 2,800 of my possibly deployed nuclear weapons or can you
get all 2,821." 21 missed would be enough to devastate and nation.

There is no need for nuclear deployed missiles on subs. It makes no
discernable difference to the viability of detering a first strike
against the US.

Subs do give the USA a better chance of launching a first strike against
somewhere like North Korea.

Why somewhere like the UK would want to put all its eggs in one basket
(or maybe two baskets) is also a puzzle.
newshound
2021-09-20 11:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by newshound
Post by Pancho
Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.
"I think the UK  often has just one operational trident sub."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Governments lie about the real facts to placate the public.
Not just the public. Having four (with two at sea much of the time,
even if only one is notionally on service duty) gives an aggressor who
has spotted one the Dirty Harry dilemma "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
Yeah right! Good point. An aggressor on the USA can be asked: "Can you
destroy only 2,800 of my possibly deployed nuclear weapons or can you
get all 2,821." 21 missed would be enough to devastate and nation.
There is no need for nuclear deployed missiles on subs. It makes no
discernable difference to the viability of detering a first strike
against the US.
Subs do give the USA a better chance of launching a first strike against
somewhere like North Korea.
Why somewhere like the UK would want to put all its eggs in one basket
(or maybe two baskets) is also a puzzle.
Not to me. Look up why Atlee's inner cabinet started the independent
weapons programme. And hardly one basket, as Galtieri found to his cost.
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-20 18:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
There is no need for nuclear deployed missiles on subs. It makes no
discernable difference to the viability of detering a first strike
against the US.
Bollocks

You may THINK you will get most of the silos, you KNOW you wont get any
of the subs
--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)
Pancho
2021-09-21 08:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
There is no need for nuclear deployed missiles on subs. It makes no
discernable difference to the viability of detering a first strike
against the US.
Bollocks
You may THINK you will get most of the silos, you KNOW you wont get any
of the subs
I don't see why you would say that. Subs can be tracked. The idea that a
technology/technique will emerge that can be used to effectively locate
all submarines is not that fanciful.

Audio. A network of listening devices. Some other property, I don't know
what it is, but with advances in technology I wouldn't rule it out.

The problem is similar to computer security, if you give an opponent a
clear attack vector they can hone their techniques.
Rod Speed
2021-09-21 09:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
There is no need for nuclear deployed missiles on subs. It makes no
discernable difference to the viability of detering a first strike
against the US.
Bollocks
You may THINK you will get most of the silos, you KNOW you wont get any
of the subs
I don't see why you would say that.
Because its true. Novel concept I realise.
Post by Pancho
Subs can be tracked.
No they cant when out in the open ocean. That’s the whole point of them.
Post by Pancho
The idea that a technology/technique will emerge that can be used to
effectively locate all submarines is not that fanciful.
Fraid so.
Post by Pancho
Audio. A network of listening devices.
Not feasible over the entire oceans and no way to be sure
it’s a sub with nukes in it either. Easy to fake audio signatures.
Post by Pancho
Some other property, I don't know what it is, but with advances in
technology I wouldn't rule it out.
Clearly not there now.
Post by Pancho
The problem is similar to computer security,
Nope, nothing like that.
Post by Pancho
if you give an opponent a clear attack vector they can hone their
techniques.
How odd that no one has done that with nuke missile subs.
Pancho
2021-09-21 09:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
Subs can be tracked.
No they cant when out in the open ocean. That’s the whole point of them.
Of course they can. They can be followed from base.

[snip]
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
if you give an opponent a clear attack vector they can hone their
techniques.
How odd that no one has done that with nuke missile subs.
How would you know if they had done it?
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-21 11:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
Subs can be tracked.
No they cant when out in the open ocean. That’s the whole point of them.
Of course they can. They can be followed from base.
No, they cant. If they could be there would be no point in having them
Post by Pancho
[snip]
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
if you give an opponent a clear attack vector they can hone their
techniques.
How odd that no one has done that with nuke missile subs.
How would you know if they had done it?
How do *you* know they *have*?

This is all hand waving hypotheses in the face of in your case almost
complete ignorance,

As I said, I was working on military electronics back in the cold war
days, and sub detection was really hard even with the class of noisy
subs we had then, If you suspected a sub you would drop a few hundred
sonobuoys and hope that you could pick up prop noise, but it didn't go
very far, and they were expensive things to simply waste - because you
never picked them up again.


We use submarines because they are much harder to detect than anything
else except maybe stealth aircraft. Aircraft and aircraft carriers
proved to obsolete battleships almost completely in WWII. All the rest
of the capital ships served as anti-aircraft protection for the aircraft
carriers - missile launchers and flak ships. The one thing large capital
ships are vulnerable to is submarines and torpedo attack - surface to
surface missiles are something we developed technology to mostly beat
back in the 60s and 70s. Yes we have AS helicopters and so on, but they
are not infallible.

The danger from China is interdiction and blockading of trade routes,
and use of capital ships to protect landing forces onto some of the
islands they lay claim to. If submarines can effectively strike against
these, it nullifies the risk. Australia having nuclear subs and more
importantly, US nuclear subs being able to use Australia as a military
base, is a clear and simple warning to China that says 'don't try it, mate'.

If you read the geopolitical news, it appears china is in danger of an
internal coup by sharp elbows in the CCP that want what Xi Jinping has:
In essence belligerence and stirring up 'foreign enemies' is what every
regime under threat does - look at Iran, Look at the EU. look at the
SNP, look at Argentina...

So until things settle down and China goes back to world domination by
trade, buying up Western politicians, and inserting spyware in
everything and hacking the internet, a few billion tossed at nuclear
powered submarines is in order.

What people like you fail to realise is that perpetual war is the
natural state of man in an overcrowded resource limited world. The fact
that conflicts are few,far between and limited in scope, is not because
we don't have super weapons, it is because we do. There is not much
upside in invading a country if your own becomes a nuclear wasteland. Or
trying to invade across an ocean littered with undetectable hunter
killer submarines.

To date china has proxied wars in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea,
Pakistan versus India, and has annexed two countries, since WWII.

We don't know how much they are behind Islamic fundamentalism and jihad.

We don't know how many Western politicians they have in their pockets

We do know that when you give them mining rights, a barbed wire fence
and armed guards go in to protect the installation and woe betide any
locals.

China is tougher and meaner than Britain ever was in terms of developing
it's Empire.

It behoves us to not fondly imagine they wouldn't start a war in an
instant if they felt they could get away with it. Our job is to make
sure they can't.

US involvement in Vietnam was curtailed by democracy and public opinion.
China has no democracy and public opinion is no match for automatic
weapons, education camps and quietly vanishing into a hole in the
ground. What the EU would like to do, in terms of mass population
control, has already been done by China.



“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker
Rod Speed
2021-09-21 18:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
Subs can be tracked.
No they cant when out in the open ocean. That’s the whole point of them.
Of course they can. They can be followed from base.
Nope, no way to do that. All you know is that they have left the base.
Post by Pancho
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pancho
if you give an opponent a clear attack vector they can hone their
techniques.
How odd that no one has done that with nuke missile subs.
How would you know if they had done it?
The operation that can do that would stop building any more of them.
Peeler
2021-09-21 18:18:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 04:02:24 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
Peeler
2021-09-21 12:00:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:30:54 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-21 10:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Pancho
There is no need for nuclear deployed missiles on subs. It makes no
discernable difference to the viability of detering a first strike
against the US.
Bollocks
You may THINK you will get most of the silos, you KNOW you wont get
any of the subs
I don't see why you would say that. Subs can be tracked. The idea that a
technology/technique will emerge that can be used to effectively locate
all submarines is not that fanciful.
If it were that easy we wouldnyt bother with subs at all.
Post by Pancho
Audio. A network of listening devices. Some other property, I don't know
what it is, but with advances in technology I wouldn't rule it out.
Its been done. In fact I worked on it back in the 1970s. rubber coated
hulls, very slow propellors, down deep. Totally undetectable.

Same goes for thermal signature. You cant 'see' it through a lot of
layers of water . And teh sub can run on batteries even if its a nuke,
Post by Pancho
The problem is similar to computer security, if you give an opponent a
clear attack vector they can hone their techniques.
I can assure you, they do, but I can also assure you, that a sub sitting
at depth with engines off is almost impossible to detect. And there are
limits to how much of the sea you can litter with sonobuoys.
--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 19:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Steve Walker
But subs hide much better. Time taken to arrive is not a problem for a
retaliatory weapon though.
Do they?
Yep.
Post by Pancho
With modern equipment. I actually suspect subs are more vulnerable to
being taken out in a pre-emptive strike.
You're wrong. There is no way to work out where a sub with
nukes is once its out in the open ocean submerged and they
can stay that way for very long times with nuke powered subs.
Post by Pancho
I think the UK often has just one operational trident sub.
Yes, but that is still one hell of a deterrent because that one
sub is plenty to ensure that only the most stupid would try
nuking the UK.
Post by Pancho
Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.
Doesn’t matter what they say, they aren't for a first strike.
Post by Pancho
Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes.
Which are much easier to work out where they are than nuke subs.
Post by Pancho
Trains, lorries,
Much easier to find those than a nuke sub.
Post by Pancho
multiple geographically distance launch sites.
Trivial to keep a list of those and take those out.
Post by Pancho
More weapons for your money.
But far more likely to be useless.
Post by Pancho
These are countries which are most likely to face a first strike.
That’s bullshit. Even Trump wouldn’t be that stupid and the US
military wouldn’t do it even if he was stupid enough to order one.
Peeler
2021-09-17 20:34:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 05:24:18 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff-8cc0-***@googlegroups.com>
nightjar
2021-09-17 10:50:48 UTC
Permalink
On 17/09/2021 11:33, Steve Walker wrote:
...
Post by Steve Walker
Although not used much, there have been commercial nuclear ships before
- and a number of icebreakers.
One of which had to jettison its reactor after what is thought to have
been a partial meltdown. At it was a Soviet vessel, details are not
available.
--
Colin Bignell
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 05:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Scott
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.
If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet of
new nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear war we
couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?
The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means that
no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory attack.
Hospitals are of no use if someone decides to obliterate your country,
knowing that there will be no response.
While it would be better if no countries had nuclear weapons, while some
potential enemies do, it makes sense to have your own response of last
resort.
Not really if there is no chance that anyone will be silly enough to nuke
your country.
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 05:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Scott
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's
a tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or
spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.
If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet of new
nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear war we
couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?
Nope, and we have just stupidly decided to have a fleet of new nuclear
submarines
and have told the frogs to take theirs and shove them where the sun don’t
shine.
alan_m
2021-09-20 07:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Could they not just alter one of the components, preferably the
noisiest one?
or adopt WW2 acoustic mine sweeping technology by fitting a Kango
vibrating hammer to the hull of the ship ;)

From
https://www.vernonlink.uk/wwii

"
In late October the recovery and exploitation of an acoustic mine –
found ashore in the mouth of the River Ogmore near Porthcawl - allowed
a more effective sweep to be developed. This was the Kango vibrating
hammer – known as the ‘SA’ (Sweep Acoustic) that was being widely fitted
before the end of the year and was to see significant success fitted
either in the bows of a vessel or streamed outboard. The risks remained
significant though; the minesweeping trawler RADNOR CASTLE had to be
beached off Plymouth following a too-close detonation and in December HM
Trawler COURTIER detonated 4 acoustics in swift succession, the last one
breaking the legs of 4 crew members and putting the trawler in dock for
several months. A less conventional minesweeper also incurred damage in
late December 1940; the fast Isle of Man Steam Packet SS VICTORIA had
already set off 8 or 9 mines during her transits back and forth to
Liverpool, but on the 27th the detonation just off the Douglas Bar Light
was a little too close and she had to be towed back to port although, in
this instance, no casualties were reported.
"
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Rod Speed
2021-09-17 05:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by GB
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
That doesn't seem to be an issue, judging by the Vigil films. There's a
tannoy system that must be audible miles away, and the crew seem to
shout at each other the whole time. What difference would a little
gurgling from the reactor make?
I'm talking about real life :-)
:)
Post by nightjar
However, there is a high power setting fro the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important than
stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any spy or spy
ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that once?
Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be quite an
expensive mistake.
Rather unlikely any spy or spy ship bothers to monitor each
one leaving port in the hope that there might be a mistake.
Peeler
2021-09-17 08:25:21 UTC
Permalink
"Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."

https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID: <***@mid.individual.net>
nightjar
2021-09-17 08:39:50 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by GB
However, there is a high power setting for the coolant pumps, which is
relatively noisy. That is used when maximum power is more important
than stealth. It is also used when leaving port, as it prevents any
spy or spy ship from listening for the boat's silent running signature.
That's interesting. I wonder what happens if they forget to do that
once? Do they scrap the fleet and buy a new one? If so, it would be
quite an expensive mistake.
I would be most surprised if a nuclear sub put to sea relying on the
memory of the crew, rather than on comprehensive check lists, to ensure
that everything is done right.
--
Colin Bignell
newshound
2021-09-16 20:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by gareth evans
After following the Vigil TV series (with all its
reported errors) and also the prog on HMS Trenchard,
when a Brit U-boat is powered by nuclear fuels, how
do they condense the steam?
Sea water heat exchanger
I'm guessing these will be conceptually similar to those used by
conventional power plant, which has an array of tubes about 3 inches in
diameter (with similar spacing) through which the seawater passes. In
the old days these would have been a copper alloy (good for
anti-fouling), now I expect they will be titanium for better corrosion
resistance.
Post by nightjar
Post by gareth evans
With sea water? If so, there must be difficulties
in sealing the intakes and outfalls from deep sea
pressures.
1000 feet is about 30 bar / 450 psi, a relatively modest figure for
unfired pressure vessels. Obviously, the tube-plates have to be properly
designed.
Post by nightjar
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making
detectable noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
Post by gareth evans
Perhaps the steam is heated to 200C and only cools to
100C through the turbines before recirculating
so no condensing is
required. This, of course, will be wasteful
of some thermodynamic energy, but there's so much
in reserve in the nuclear fual that perhaps it does not
matter.
The steam temperature in a commercial PWR is a bit over 300 deg C and I
expect the submarine figure is comparable. They will probably be aiming
for a condenser temperature around 30 deg C, giving a pretty good vacuum
(about 30 torr). A surprising proportion of the energy in a steam
turbine is delivered by the Low Pressure rotor(s).
The Natural Philosopher
2021-09-17 06:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by newshound
The steam temperature in a commercial PWR is a bit over 300 deg C and I
expect the submarine figure is comparable. They will probably be aiming
for a condenser temperature around 30 deg C, giving a pretty good vacuum
(about 30 torr). A surprising proportion of the energy in a steam
turbine is delivered by the Low Pressure rotor(s)
With nuclear power, given that they are practically fuelled for life,
there is no especial demand for efficiency.
There is a demand for compactness however. They may not have a low
pressure rotor!
--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.
Brian Gaff (Sofa)
2021-09-17 07:28:30 UTC
Permalink
I would have thought that using sea water would be very difficult, due to
the corrosion it might create in the heat exchanger, or whatever they use to
cool the water. Besides, if heat from water changed as the sub moved, surely
it would be detectable quit easily by the other side.
There have been some terrible depictions of nuclear reactors in films and
TV shows over the years. The one in The world is not Enough is pretty stupid
in my view. I cannot see it of course but the audio describer explained the
end scene and he sounded almost embarrassed at the situation.

I would have thought that many reactors these days that needed to be small
may well use some other material to get the heat away to do the work. Sodium
perhaps, though let that come in contact with water and you have a very bad
day.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by nightjar
Post by gareth evans
After following the Vigil TV series (with all its
reported errors) and also the prog on HMS Trenchard,
when a Brit U-boat is powered by nuclear fuels, how
do they condense the steam?
Sea water heat exchanger
Post by gareth evans
With sea water? If so, there must be difficulties
in sealing the intakes and outfalls from deep sea
pressures.
The main engineering problem seems to be keeping it from making detectable
noise while the boat is running in quiet mode.
Post by gareth evans
Perhaps the steam is heated to 200C and only cools to
100C through the turbines before recirculating
so no condensing is
required. This, of course, will be wasteful
of some thermodynamic energy, but there's so much
in reserve in the nuclear fual that perhaps it does not
matter.
--
Colin Bignell
newshound
2021-09-18 16:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
I would have thought that using sea water would be very difficult, due to
the corrosion it might create in the heat exchanger, or whatever they use to
cool the water. Besides, if heat from water changed as the sub moved, surely
it would be detectable quit easily by the other side.
There have been some terrible depictions of nuclear reactors in films and
TV shows over the years. The one in The world is not Enough is pretty stupid
in my view. I cannot see it of course but the audio describer explained the
end scene and he sounded almost embarrassed at the situation.
I would have thought that many reactors these days that needed to be small
may well use some other material to get the heat away to do the work. Sodium
perhaps, though let that come in contact with water and you have a very bad
day.
Brian
Two points. You have to dump "low temperature" heat somewhere to have a
thermodynamic cycle from which you extract energy. In a sub, the only
place is the sea.

IIRC the Soviets have used fast reactors in subs, I think with lead or
lead/bismuth cooling rather than sodium. I think everyone else uses
pressurised water reactors.

While mixing sodium and water is bad news, the death knell for the
Dounreay Prototype Fast Reactor was corrosion, more accurately stress
corrosion cracking, on the *water* side of the sodium to water heat
exchanger where the steam is raised. This is hot, very pure water which
poses more materials challenges than the the cold seawater-to-steam
condenser.
Loading...