Tell me the point of nuking another country after you've been nuked?
I think you're attaching a degree of calm rationality that generally tends to be absent during a war involving the destruction of civilisation.
And you you've not addresed the issue of either pirates or aliens, so I'm afraid I can't take your opinions seriously
No, try reading all my post, rather than the bits that suit you.
And if we didn't have nukes, who is going to nuke us?
And if we didn't have nukes, who is going to nuke us?
Does it matter? With nukes nobody is doing any nuking.
Or they've found all your subs and destroyed them first. A kind of nuclear Maginot Line.
With[u]out[/u] nukes nobody is doing any nuking.
Correct
.
who is going to invade the UK should we disband most of our military? Nobody (well, apart from us) has invaded Ireland. Nobody invades Iceland.
It's the Scottish us English should be worried about 😉
Thing is we could give up nukes and we'd still have the ability to kill huge numbers of people via chemical and biological weapons. I'd rather we kept nukes though, and it doesn't look like the French are giving up theirs anytime soon, so why should we.
With nukes nobody is doing any nuking
So we agree they are expensive ornaments that no one will use. not made men, not dicators, not commies, not regan nor Bush
Non nuclear countries are not getting nuked either
All your subs are belong to us
Tell me the point of nuking another country after you've been nuked?
Er - that isn't the point.
The point is that another country might get nuked even AFTER it nukes us, because the subs are out at sea. So as to deter them from nuking us in the first place.
It's called a 'deterrent'.
It's called a 'deterrent'.
How about an ornamental deterrent as way of compromise?
Which to me seems very odd.
Spending 200bn on things that will never be used seems a bit odd to me.
Spending 200bn on things where if they were used they would kill half the population and doom the rest to eventually starving to death or dying of radiation poisoning seems even more odd.
I guess it's an odd world 🙂
I see no point in Trident as I cannot conceive of any situation where it can be used. Bin it and the submarines.
If situation requires in twenty years time that we have nuclear weapons, we could (a) build a small one in six months and (b) I'll volunteer to carry it to wherever it's needed and set it off. Solves all that faffing around in space and complicated ballistic trajectory maffs.
If Iran / Isreal or ****stan / India want to nuke each other let them get on with it. But if you think that nuclear weapons are the only thing keeping Putin in Moscow you're sadly misguided. We are not going to end up annexed like Crimea and it's not as if we'd stage a nuclear first strike on Russia if they invaded Finland (sorry, Finns...).
It's called a 'deterrent'.
But who are we deterring?
Russia? China? The USA??? Perhaps France - we've been at war with them more times than most other countries, and what with Brexit 'n' all...
And if you really think it would deter a terrorist organisation, you definitely need your head seeing to. If terrorists did manage to nuke us, who would our new Trident subs nuke back in this fabled second strike?
I think nukes are a deterrent. Would Iraq 1&2 have happened if Saddam had nukes? The UK has always had a deterrent and any government in power would baulk at getting rid.
Lets face it. Look at the people who are presently/or shortly could be in charge of the nuclear arsenal. The Poundland Thatcher, Donald Trumps hair, the homo-erotic shark wrestler, whichever islamist nutter is presently running ****stan, Le Pen....
Replacing trident is hypothetical. We're all bound to be dead long before its finished
[img] 
[/img]
I'm off to sit outside Greenham Common, link hands and sing kumbaya with Jezza 😥
If having nuclear weapons is a deterrent against attack why don't we make a lot more and share them around everyone.
World peace guaranteed.
I'm off to sit outside Greenham Common, link hands and sing kumbaya with Jezza
Ironically, that's the most sensible thing you've posted on this thread for quite some time
I think you'll find that both pirates and aliens are a genuine threat to the nation
I will take no pleasure in sitting back and saying I told you so as I watch you walking the plank with a cutless up your jacksie
If having nuclear weapons is a deterrent against attack why don't we make a lot more and share them around everyone.World peace guaranteed.
Steals argument for future use
But who are we deterring?Russia? China? The USA??? Perhaps France - we've been at war with them more times than most other countries
Not in the nuclear age we haven't.
We're not necessarily deterring people from waging war, we're deterring people form waging *nuclear* war.
If Iran / Isreal or ****stan / India want to nuke each other let them get on with it.
Ah, no. Don't. It'd be the biggest environmental catastrophe since Yellowstone.
molgrips - Member
Hmm.. those leadership testimonials posted by CaptJon are pretty damning.Any Corbyn supporters care to comment?
Here's another, this time from Lilian Greenwood
Extract:
"HS2 has always been controversial, including in our Party, but it is something that I believe is vital for the future of our country. It has the support of all the rail unions. It has the support of Labour leaders in the great cities like Birmingham and Manchester and Leeds and Nottingham. It is important for jobs and skills in Derby and Doncaster and across the country and it is our official policy to support it, as agreed by the Shadow Cabinet and our National Policy Forum. I’ve been one of HS2’s strongest supporters, so I when I took up the job in Jeremy’s Shadow Cabinet I wanted to be absolutely sure we were on the same page.
I met his Director of Policy to talk it through. We talked about the most difficult parts of the project, the impact at Euston in London. I'd been working with Councillor Sarah Hayward and her colleagues at Camden for more than two years to try and help them get what they wanted for their local residents. It had been very difficult. I'd been to visit several times, meeting residents and businesses and dealing with some hostile media. But we secured real concessions – changes that will make a difference to local residents. It didn’t matter that it was in a nominally safe seat. It was the right thing to do.
Despite our agreed policy, despite Jeremy's Director of Policy and I agreeing our position, without saying anything to me, Jeremy gave a press interview in which he suggested he could drop Labour’s support for HS2 altogether. He told a journalist on a local Camden newspaper that perhaps the HS2 line shouldn’t go to Euston at all but stop at Old Oak Common in West London – but he never discussed any of this with the Shadow Cabinet, or me, beforehand. I felt totally undermined on a really difficult issue. And when two frontbenchers voted against the three-line whip at 3rd Reading in March he did nothing, telling one of them: “well I've done it enough times myself." Breaking the principles of collective responsibility and discipline without which effective Parliamentary opposition is not possible.
When I raised my concerns it was simply shrugged off. It undermined me in front of colleagues and made me look weak. It made me feel like I was wasting my time. That my opinion didn't matter. And it made me miserable."
Hmm.. those leadership testimonials posted by CaptJon are pretty damning.Any Corbyn supporters care to comment?
Yep pretty damning, cant help thinking he needs a better team. I thought that about Milliband aswell. Nevertheless I'll vote Corbyn over the other 2.
If Germany don't have nuclear weapons why do we need them?
Obama is making plenty - more than any US president I think I read somewhere.
These 'testimonials' are hilarious. 'Jeremy undermined me and made me feel unhappy'. Honestly they should get a grip. They're MPs not 1st year graduates in their fist job.
We're not necessarily deterring people from waging war, we're deterring people form waging *nuclear* war.
So if we didn't have nukes, we'd have been nuked by France?
Grow up.
They're not toys, it's not monopoly money that pays for them, and hundreds of thousands of people die if they're used.
How has us having nukes stopped us from being nuked by anyone else? Why haven't non-nuclear nations been nuked? Who will we nuke with our second strike if ISIS manage to sneak one into London?
'Jeremy undermined me and made me feel unhappy'. Honestly they should get a grip. They're MPs not 1st year graduates in their fist job.
kinder gentler politics
So if we didn't have nukes, we'd have been nuked by France?
Well given that the French are on our side no. Ruasins, maybe.
And I would suggest that you grow up. I would prefer a mature intelligent discussion about nuclear deterrent and MAD to a slanging match. You being facetious doesn't really do anything for that. It's not a new concept, there isa lot of history here.
it's not monopoly money that pays for them
The money spent - where does it go?
there isa lot of history here.
There is. And the wars and threats the world now faces show us that it's just that. History.
By far the biggest threat the UK faces is from stateless terrorism. How do you deter that with nukes?
I'm not being facetious. Answer that question. Tell me how renewing Trident reduces the current and future credible threats to the safety of the British people. Then tell me why Australia, New Zealand, Canada, most of Europe, in fact most of the rest of the world, are at threat from nuclear war.
That's not facetiousness. It's a pertinent question that surely you must be able to answer, seeing as you're advocating spending over 200 bn on one of the most horrific weapons ever invented.
The money spent - where does it go?
Weapons manufacturers. I'd prefer to see it go to the NHS, schools, universities, the needy, nation-building infrastructure, and the wider economy in the form of a tax cut. It seems we have different priorities.
Heck, we could spend a chunk of it on foreign aid and more effectually prevent conflicts before they start 💡
dazh - Member
These 'testimonials' are hilarious. 'Jeremy undermined me and made me feel unhappy'. Honestly they should get a grip. They're MPs not 1st year graduates in their fist job.
Seriously, that is your response?
An agreement is made on how to handle HS2, but without warning or consultation Corbyn suggests something different. That isn't how any organisation should operate, and it shouldn't matter who is undermined, it is impossible to do you job if you think the plan is 'A' but the boss says it's 'B'.
And if you sack someone, it is usually a good idea to tell them.
Binners as a bloke you'd have been quite unpopular outside Greenham back in the day. The camp and the cruise missiles are long gone now of course so you'd be a bit lonely and your protest would be even more pointless.
Intersting points made today about how unrepresentative of Scottish public opinion are their MPs as public opinion is fairly even on Nuclear weapons pro/con but the MPs are very one sided in a show of political expediency rather than democracy.
Tell me how renewing Trident reduces the current and future credible threats to the safety of the British people
Well, I'm far from an expert in global politics, but the issue is that a nuclear programme cannot simply be stopped and re-started later if it DOES become an issue. If us and our allies all scrapped nukes, and say Russia and China did not, then the balance of power would shift hugely. If in the future there were to be a new cold war, we'd be pretty vulnerable to any kind of gunboat diplomacy even if there were no outright thread of conflict.
That's not facetiousness. It's a pertinent question that surely you must be able to answer, seeing as you're advocating spending over 200 bn on one of the most horrific weapons ever invented.
I'm presenting the other side of the argument, for the sake of discussion. I'm actually undecided myself about Trident. I'd love a nuclear free world, however us scrapping Trident won't achieve that.
And for clarification, I was referring to the quip about France being facetious. We clearly don't keep a deterrent against our allies.
Then tell me why Australia, New Zealand, Canada, most of Europe, in fact most of the rest of the world, are at threat from nuclear war.
Well they probably aren't, but maybe that's because most of them are allied with nuclear powers...?
A question for you then - what do you think would stop North Korea from using a nuke if they develop one?
A question for you then - what do you think would stop North Korea from using a nuke if they develop one?
Frankly, sweet FA.
With intergenerational national brainwashing and a million-strong fiercely loyal standing army, I don't think they'd be deterred by all the tea (or nukes) in China.
We clearly don't keep a deterrent against our allies.
Russia were our allies less than a century ago. Allegiances change. Still doesn't mean they'll nuke us if we disarm.
Feel free to quote my specific post today on this thread which is factually inocrrect.
subs without weapons
You're welcome.
With intergenerational national brainwashing and a million-strong fiercely loyal standing army, I don't think they'd be deterred by al the tea (or nukes) in China.
Yet they haven't invaded the South. Weird coincidence I guess.
It seems to me if we don't have nukes, then we are in danger of being invaded despite the valiant efforts of the RN to hold back the invaders with our fleet air arm flying from our aircraft carriers (I'm sure we'd be able to afford a few kamikaze hang-gliders even if we can't afford real planes).
Now who would invade us is what puzzles me.
However assuming we're conquered, how long is it before life returns to normal? Take Germany as an example.
If we have nukes and have to use them, then the response will be nationwide devastation and the deaths of most of the population. It won't be like Japan recovering because only 2 nukes were used there and they were tiny compared to modern nukes. Welcome to country where most of it is a glowing no go zone, and our surviving descendants are cancer ridden mutants.
The money would be better spent on conventional forces.
Yet they haven't invaded the South.
Correct. Thank goodness Trident has prevented that. I assume the moment Corbyn becomes PM it'll all kick off?
they have themwhat do you think would stop North Korea from using a nuke if they develop one?
We did not invade when they did not, they have not invaded since they have them we have not used them and they have not used them
What are you are arguing nukes do exactly?
What are you are arguing nukes do exactly?
Put people off using them.
We could scrap Trident and then just pretend that we haven't. That would still work. Or.. maybe we already have.. makes you think, doesn't it?
Thank goodness Trident has prevented that. I assume the moment Corbyn becomes PM it'll all kick off?
Sarcasm isn't any better.
If Germany don't have nuclear weapons why do we need them?
Can we nip this one in the bud, (1) They aren't allowed them under there own control (2) they have through NATO weapons sharing access to US nuclear weapons which they can deploy from their own planes.
What are you are arguing nukes do exactly?
Put people off using them.
But we didn't nuke them before they had nukes, we haven't since. I fail to see your point.
Sarcasm isn't any better.
It's significantly better than supporting the purchase of a 200bn weapons system capable of erasing most of the life on the planet.
You still haven't told me how it will prevent the only credible threat we face right now (ISIS and similar stateless terrorists), and you haven't told me which credible threats it would deter in the future. Try answering the central question to your argument, and perhaps I won't have to treat your non-answers with quite so much disdain.
P.S. Have you worked out how to overtake cars without nuclear weapons yet?
they have through NATO weapons sharing access to US nuclear weapons which they can deploy from their own planes.
Which would be shot down before they got close to their target
The money would be better spent on conventional forces.
So, you think a 6% bigger conventional armed forces would make a huge difference to a potential aggressor?
With regard to all these nukes supposedly preventing their actual use because the consequences would be self-defeating...
Erm, they haven't ever been used.
Funny, that.
