|
Post by ammodels on Jul 17, 2016 21:48:19 GMT
Needed or not?
I dont think we face the same type of threat we used to, no sane PM will use the nuclear option and even if we have an insane one at some point they will be under ultimate control of NATO/the US without whom we will not be able to launch them.
Why should we shoulder a £200billion cost for something the Americans can do for us for nothing?
|
|
|
Post by haulierp on Jul 17, 2016 21:54:59 GMT
I think the Americans,especially if Trump gets elected are no longer prepared to do it for nothing. As regards the perceived threat,some commentators are predicting a new cold war with Russia, who are I believe, concerned over deployment of American Missile Defence Systems within Europe
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Jul 17, 2016 22:03:09 GMT
Needed or not? I dont think we face the same type of threat we used to, no sane PM will use the nuclear option and even if we have an insane one at some point they will be under ultimate control of NATO/the US without whom we will not be able to launch them. Why should we shoulder a £200billion cost for something the Americans can do for us for nothing? Because those elites who control the military industrial complex need bigger yachts and more mansions and more billions to hoard. Imagine if that money were instead spent on housing and education and infrastructure and pensions. I don't know how many land based nukes the UK has, but as long as you have enough to remain in the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) club, that's surely all you need.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Jul 18, 2016 4:47:11 GMT
I don't know how many land based nukes the UK has, but as long as you have enough to remain in the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) club, that's surely all you need. I think you will find the UK has no land based nukes under its control. I think that Russia wise and maybe China things are worse than they were in the 60s/70s both countries appear to be wanting to push their borders. Just depends on how hungry they are,
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jul 18, 2016 7:08:22 GMT
Trident replacement is a question that is almost impossible to answer from outside the system, and those inside the system (for obvious reasons) 'aint going to tell the truth.
The answer is somewhere in the "how much longer can Polaris equipped submarines last as an effective weapon against newer technology" either from the expected service life of the vessels themselves or from "the vulnerability of the missiles to anti-missile technology".
Obviously we can't know those answers (if indeed anyone knows) So much as I hate to say it (given the lying twisted bastards that have been in those positions in the past) we have to trust those who do.
Without accurate knowledge you can only oppose replacement of nuclear weapons on moral grounds. If you do, you have to remember that moral people have a history of being trampled underfoot by aggressors.
|
|
|
Post by haulierp on Jul 18, 2016 7:14:42 GMT
Needed or not? I dont think we face the same type of threat we used to, no sane PM will use the nuclear option and even if we have an insane one at some point they will be under ultimate control of NATO/the US without whom we will not be able to launch them. Why should we shoulder a £200billion cost for something the Americans can do for us for nothing? Because those elites who control the military industrial complex need bigger yachts and more mansions and more billions to hoard. Imagine if that money were instead spent on housing and education and infrastructure and pensions. I don't know how many land based nukes the UK has, but as long as you have enough to remain in the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) club, that's surely all you need. Thats an old argument you advance there Paul,is argument the right word perhaps not.It certainly is a fair one nonetheless but can I ask do you believe that its only the concept of MAD that has kept us safe thus far.That and perhaps a modicum of luck.
|
|
|
Post by haulierp on Jul 18, 2016 7:18:25 GMT
Trident replacement is a question that is almost impossible to answer from outside the system, and those inside the system (for obvious reasons) 'aint going to tell the truth. The answer is somewhere in the "how much longer can Polaris equipped submarines last as an effective weapon against newer technology" either from the expected service life of the vessels themselves or from "the vulnerability of the missiles to anti-missile technology". Obviously we can't know those answers (if indeed anyone knows) So much as I hate to say it (given the lying twisted bastards that have been in those positions in the past) we have to trust those who do. Without accurate knowledge you can only oppose replacement of nuclear weapons on moral grounds. If you do, you have to remember that moral people have a history of being trampled underfoot by aggressors. A fair assessment John,as regards opposition on Moral Grounds I don't believe that argument can be made in the Present Climate if indeed it ever could and as you say History backs that up.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jul 18, 2016 8:05:48 GMT
We have them so we should maintain them is my thoughts, you never know when you will need that threat, after all it is that threat that has kept the peace all these years.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 18, 2016 9:43:50 GMT
Needed or not? I dont think we face the same type of threat we used to, no sane PM will use the nuclear option and even if we have an insane one at some point they will be under ultimate control of NATO/the US without whom we will not be able to launch them. Why should we shoulder a £200billion cost for something the Americans can do for us for nothing? Because those elites who control the military industrial complex need bigger yachts and more mansions and more billions to hoard. Imagine if that money were instead spent on housing and education and infrastructure and pensions. I don't know how many land based nukes the UK has, but as long as you have enough to remain in the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) club, that's surely all you need. you sound a bit like a communist Paul, is that allowed in America?
|
|
|
Post by quaysider on Jul 18, 2016 20:09:09 GMT
The thought of us not having "any" is genuinely scary - it's all well and good saying that in 2016, no one would ever use them... but it only takes 1 nut job in charge (n-Korea springs to mind) and piff paff poff!
As distatful and in some regards wasteful the whole tridant replacement may be... it's (imo) a necessary evil.
I've always maintained my car well but have never been without breakdown cover...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2016 21:53:32 GMT
Anyway it's sorted, as the Brexiters say, time to move on.
(Good to hear May unequivocally stating in the commons she would be prepared to push the button)
Meanwhile Corbyn confirmed he would not........
|
|
|
Post by ammodels on Jul 18, 2016 22:17:46 GMT
The thought of us not having "any" is genuinely scary - it's all well and good saying that in 2016, no one would ever use them... but it only takes 1 nut job in charge (n-Korea springs to mind) and piff paff poff! As distatful and in some regards wasteful the whole tridant replacement may be... it's (imo) a necessary evil. I've always maintained my car well but have never been without breakdown cover... see I dont get that, why would any 'nut job' worry about reprisals, to my mind you have to be a few sandwiches short of a sandwich to press the button, the other side having them is neither here nor there. Oh and its just confirmed what I thought of May.
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Jul 18, 2016 22:41:01 GMT
I regard nukes as akin to a big stick. If everybody knows I've got a big stick they are less likely to hit me with their big stick in case I hit them back. Phil
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2016 22:47:25 GMT
The thought of us not having "any" is genuinely scary - it's all well and good saying that in 2016, no one would ever use them... but it only takes 1 nut job in charge (n-Korea springs to mind) and piff paff poff! As distatful and in some regards wasteful the whole tridant replacement may be... it's (imo) a necessary evil. I've always maintained my car well but have never been without breakdown cover... see I dont get that, why would any 'nut job' worry about reprisals, to my mind you have to be a few sandwiches short of a sandwich to press the button, the other side having them is neither here nor there. Oh and its just confirmed what I thought of May. Last time this came up on CWDF I got some jip for saying I would be prepared to push the button. what is the point of them if you don't make it clear you would? Good on May. Meanwhile Corbyn wimps out, good job he's not PM nor hopefully will he ever be.
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Jul 18, 2016 23:13:43 GMT
see I dont get that, why would any 'nut job' worry about reprisals, to my mind you have to be a few sandwiches short of a sandwich to press the button, the other side having them is neither here nor there. Oh and its just confirmed what I thought of May. Last time this came up on CWDF I got some jip for saying I would be prepared to push the button. what is the point of them if you don't make it clear you would? Good on May. Meanwhile Corbyn wimps out, good job he's not PM nor hopefully will he ever be. Even if a leader never really would push the button, it's pretty much imperative that they say they are willing to do so. What's the point of having the weapons otherwise? It's the whole MAD concept that keeps the nukes from being used in any event. Quite frankly, I think it is insane for the UK to go along with the US and EU sanctions against Russia. Now that Brexit has been approved, one of the first things the UK should do is mend their fences with Russia. Russians love Western made products and it's a natural market for "Made in the UK" goods. Russia and the UK should be good buddies and trading partners, not adversaries. I don't understand how your leaders have lost sight of the fact that both Russia and the UK were at war with/invaded by the same European powers not that long ago and that both countries would be better off as allies than as adversaries.
|
|