Quote by flower411
er.. come up with a country we're invading then
see, absolutely no idea have you flower.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
trident go or stay?
last reply
82 replies
2.9k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
Quote by __random_orbit__
so, you expect sense on the touchy subject of the Nuclear Deterrent huh?
I don't believe there is, or ever was in the very idea of a nuclear deterent.
However, we have one now, and as a result find ourselves in a rather tricky situation.
We have weaponised uranium in warheads fitted to a whole plethora of delivery devices.
And so do they.
But who are "they"?
Pandora's box is box is now open, and all sorts of states, countries, nations... what you will, have, profess to have, or would so vehemently denying having that we really should think they doo have nuclear weapons, or the capability to use nuclear technology.
It used to seem so simple (though I'm sure it wasn't) back in the good old Cold War, when anyone with the tiniest bit of sense lived in constant fear of either one side or the other pressing the Red Button in a moment of madness. Chilly, nuclear winters!
Now there little country's, unstable country's, country's unable to afford the safe upkeep of their crumbling nuclear defence as it rusts in silos and submarines.
There is the threat of Nuclear terrorism. How close that may be is anyones guess, but I wouldn't put it being too far away in the respect of using radio-active materials, rather than bombs.
But how would we (Great Britain) respond to any of these threats?
Korea might be a threat, but not to us directly... The States are more likely to take the payload than we are.
So, would we launch a few mega-tonnes of long-burning death on South east Asia in retaliation?
Surely it would be too late. Tit-for-Tat is madness when plaing with the big toys.
as of course Mutually Assured Destruction always was.
I believe that the Nuclear World is too fractured to maintain a worthy Nuclear deterrent. The target too small. If money needs to be spent in regard of the threat against us, spend it on the laser systems, and airborne platforms that would remove any air-threat, not on more, or maintaining the vast stupid arsenal we already have.
Did our system ever work anyway? Would we ever know?
If we did we would only have a very short period to bask in the glory of our deterrent as the flesh falls from the bones of our loved ones in front of our very eyes. "weren't we brilliant darling, look at the lovely sunset"... "ah yes, your eyes, well, I assure you, it's beautiful".
Nah, loose 'em.
lp
ahh ty lp you make a lot of sense that was wat i never got with it all what was the point as a deterant if we all launch um no bugger wins ya know wat i mean u put it so much better than i ever could
its very frustrating bein me i know wat i think but not how to put it i think i might just employe you to write my posts
Sex God
I guess having it or not having it will not prevent othewr launching theirs!
Having read all the above I still fall on the side of keeping
Having read all the above I still fall on the side of keeping
I think the best idea to have come up over recent years is the Star wars space system, that the USA was going to use.
Have satelites in space, ready to knock out any incoming nuclear rocket....now there is the best deterent. But I think the cost was huge for this and still am not sure if it has been shelved, or still going to go ahead at some point.
Interesting link.....
Have satelites in space, ready to knock out any incoming nuclear rocket....now there is the best deterent. But I think the cost was huge for this and still am not sure if it has been shelved, or still going to go ahead at some point.
Interesting link.....
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
I think the best idea to have come up over recent years is the Star wars space system, that the USA was going to use.
Have satelites in space, ready to knock out any incoming nuclear rocket....now there is the best deterent. But I think the cost was huge for this and still am not sure if it has been shelved, or still going to go ahead at some point.
Interesting link.....
Not sure how true it is, but I was listening to some one elses conversation the other day and there view was some of the anti missile technolagy is not what it has been cracked up to be?
Regarding the recent sub-thread concluding in "who is going to attack us?" I will set my view afresh as there are far too many QUOTES for this to make sense otherwise (a common problem with this Site as has been discussed elsewhere):
There is no one specific threat that I would quote at the moment, but if we have no capability to hit back, there is no deterrent for someone having a go at us in the future. Remember, if Iraq had longer range misiles than their "skuds" (ex WWII German V2s) they might have had a go at us in the first Iraq war when we supported Bush Snr's America - rightly or wrongly :sad: . Today their neigbours Iran are a cause for some concern.
Regarding us (UK) having the best armed forces in the world, I would be hesitant to agree with that totally - I think there are weaknesses in the higher levels of thinking, probably less so in the RAF than in the Army and Navy though - but that really is another story - especially the reduction of funds for essential equipment.
As global population expands and resources become more scarce and global warming increases, there will always be some who will emerge and amplify cultural and political differences for their own ends, and I for one would like to sleep a bit better at night knowing that I am still living within the relative security of a nuclear power.
Respectfully submitted.
Plim
There is no one specific threat that I would quote at the moment, but if we have no capability to hit back, there is no deterrent for someone having a go at us in the future. Remember, if Iraq had longer range misiles than their "skuds" (ex WWII German V2s) they might have had a go at us in the first Iraq war when we supported Bush Snr's America - rightly or wrongly :sad: . Today their neigbours Iran are a cause for some concern.
Regarding us (UK) having the best armed forces in the world, I would be hesitant to agree with that totally - I think there are weaknesses in the higher levels of thinking, probably less so in the RAF than in the Army and Navy though - but that really is another story - especially the reduction of funds for essential equipment.
As global population expands and resources become more scarce and global warming increases, there will always be some who will emerge and amplify cultural and political differences for their own ends, and I for one would like to sleep a bit better at night knowing that I am still living within the relative security of a nuclear power.
Respectfully submitted.
Plim
It's impossible to predict the state of the world from now until 2050 which is when the Trident replacement will itself become obsolete. Who knows what rogue states will acquire nuclear technology in that time?
The only way to mitigate against the potential threat is by a positive projection of military force and if Clegg and Cable think they could negotiate their way out of a war with the likes of North Korea, Iran or possibly Pakistan then they are even bigger fools then they appear over their hand-wringing policy of appeasement.
As an aside, the cost of son-of-Trident works out at less than a billion pounds a year over the project's lifecycle, peanuts in the grand scheme of things and will keep many people employed.
However I fear the real problem over the coming years and decades will be trying to protect major cities against a nuclear attack by terrorists, the so-called "weapon of mass disruption". There's a hell of a lot of missing uranium especially since the USSR broke up and it's not beyond the wit of man to predict what a major coup to the likes of Bin Laden achieving something like this in Tel Aviv, Washington or London would be.
The only way to mitigate against the potential threat is by a positive projection of military force and if Clegg and Cable think they could negotiate their way out of a war with the likes of North Korea, Iran or possibly Pakistan then they are even bigger fools then they appear over their hand-wringing policy of appeasement.
As an aside, the cost of son-of-Trident works out at less than a billion pounds a year over the project's lifecycle, peanuts in the grand scheme of things and will keep many people employed.
However I fear the real problem over the coming years and decades will be trying to protect major cities against a nuclear attack by terrorists, the so-called "weapon of mass disruption". There's a hell of a lot of missing uranium especially since the USSR broke up and it's not beyond the wit of man to predict what a major coup to the likes of Bin Laden achieving something like this in Tel Aviv, Washington or London would be.
What I would say is had Iraq had nuclear capabilities, I am sure in my own mind Saddam would have used them against Israel at the very least.
The weapons inspectors were lead a merry dance by him, when in the end he was toppled because of it. Luckily enough for us he ended up having nothing, but maybe next time a crackpot like him, and there are a few out there, will have them and use them.
There are a few unstable countries out there, the main one being possibly Iran. Nobody has addressed my comment about the Iranian leader saying what he did about Israel.
There is a famous saying..." attack is the best form of defense " which is exactly what we had to do with Iraq. Lets hope we do not have to do the same thing with Iran.
I think it a bit hypocritical of the USA to say others cannot have nuclear weapons but they can.
The only way forward for countries to offset each other is to have the same capabilities, and Britain must be at the front of this.
A scary thought for all of us to think that Iran could possibly be less than a year away from having theirs. Israel must be thinking will they attack us, and if that could be their thinking will they attack first?
Scary times ahead I feel.
The weapons inspectors were lead a merry dance by him, when in the end he was toppled because of it. Luckily enough for us he ended up having nothing, but maybe next time a crackpot like him, and there are a few out there, will have them and use them.
There are a few unstable countries out there, the main one being possibly Iran. Nobody has addressed my comment about the Iranian leader saying what he did about Israel.
There is a famous saying..." attack is the best form of defense " which is exactly what we had to do with Iraq. Lets hope we do not have to do the same thing with Iran.
I think it a bit hypocritical of the USA to say others cannot have nuclear weapons but they can.
The only way forward for countries to offset each other is to have the same capabilities, and Britain must be at the front of this.
A scary thought for all of us to think that Iran could possibly be less than a year away from having theirs. Israel must be thinking will they attack us, and if that could be their thinking will they attack first?
Scary times ahead I feel.
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
Hmmm yeah ...End Of Days....
Who`s to say that it would be a bad thing ?
The question is would the survivors have learnt anything?
We`ve been fighting wars and torturing and maiming in the name of Christ ever since we murdered him !!!
Well the endtimes believers would claim u could only learn about christ or face damnation,but what do you expect from a theory invented by a welsh snake oil salesman!
ok too much rose very puzzled face here :eeek:
Sex God
although rose or no rose i am enjoying reading all opinions on this ty
Quote by flower411
Hmmm yeah ...End Of Days....
Who`s to say that it would be a bad thing ?
The question is would the survivors have learnt anything?
We`ve been fighting wars and torturing and maiming in the name of Christ ever since we murdered him !!!
We have also been torturing and maiming for thousands of years before Christ.
It has gone on from the cavemen to now, and way beyond our years.
It is called being human beings.....it's what we do.
Quote by Kaznkev
Hmmm yeah ...End Of Days....
Who`s to say that it would be a bad thing ?
The question is would the survivors have learnt anything?
We`ve been fighting wars and torturing and maiming in the name of Christ ever since we murdered him !!!
We have also been torturing and maiming for thousands of years before Christ.
It has gone on from the cavemen to now, and way beyond our years.
It is called being human beings.....it's what we do.
what a frightening view of humanity to have!
I say keep it.
It has kept the French and Americans from our door for along time.
we have had a few big wars;
Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815)
WW1 (1914-1918)
WW2 (1939-1945)
Alot of death, but now if the other guy just may wipe you out; will you take the chance. I know we have had some small wars, but none like the three world wars.
Sexpert
We should have a submarine based strategic nuclear deterrent.
Ideally, we would have no need of armed forces and there would never be any conflict - but that's not the real world, nor is it likely to be any time soon.
The insane but effective mutually assured destruction scenario has successfully prevented any large scale war between major world powers, Europe in particular, since the end of WW2.
WW2 in particular and legions of examples in history, tell us that appeasement and negotiation from a position of weakness never work.
Having a submarine based element to our strategic defences ensures that it is almost impossible for an enemy to wipe us out without incurring unacceptable losses themselves, thus preserving the balance of terror. It's not so we can go around being a global bully, but so we can rest easier in our beds at night.
I'm not up on the figures, but typically an extension to an existing programme such as Trident would be more cost effective than a replacement.
Clegg is saying he would replace it with something more appropriate to the times etc etc, but is not being specific, and thus no analysis on fitness for purpose or cost effectiveness can be carried out. Any deterrent on land, air, or sea surface only, would not in my view, be fit for purpose and would be a cosmetic waste of money. A completely new submarine based replacement for Trident would be eye wateringly expensive.
Of course we need to be vigilant on several fronts, as indeed we are. Of course terrorists are not deterred by nuclear weapons, nor are they deterred by tanks, ships, armies etc, this is a different problem.
The alternative would be to bow out of the world stage, declare ourselves neutral, scrap all but an effective force for protection of our borders, and trust the rest of the world to leave us alone - but that's not a route I would wish us to go down.
Having always voted liberal/soc dem etc, I now find that I may change my vote due to this one issue alone.
Ideally, we would have no need of armed forces and there would never be any conflict - but that's not the real world, nor is it likely to be any time soon.
The insane but effective mutually assured destruction scenario has successfully prevented any large scale war between major world powers, Europe in particular, since the end of WW2.
WW2 in particular and legions of examples in history, tell us that appeasement and negotiation from a position of weakness never work.
Having a submarine based element to our strategic defences ensures that it is almost impossible for an enemy to wipe us out without incurring unacceptable losses themselves, thus preserving the balance of terror. It's not so we can go around being a global bully, but so we can rest easier in our beds at night.
I'm not up on the figures, but typically an extension to an existing programme such as Trident would be more cost effective than a replacement.
Clegg is saying he would replace it with something more appropriate to the times etc etc, but is not being specific, and thus no analysis on fitness for purpose or cost effectiveness can be carried out. Any deterrent on land, air, or sea surface only, would not in my view, be fit for purpose and would be a cosmetic waste of money. A completely new submarine based replacement for Trident would be eye wateringly expensive.
Of course we need to be vigilant on several fronts, as indeed we are. Of course terrorists are not deterred by nuclear weapons, nor are they deterred by tanks, ships, armies etc, this is a different problem.
The alternative would be to bow out of the world stage, declare ourselves neutral, scrap all but an effective force for protection of our borders, and trust the rest of the world to leave us alone - but that's not a route I would wish us to go down.
Having always voted liberal/soc dem etc, I now find that I may change my vote due to this one issue alone.
Sexpert
Quote by flower411
Well....I certainly don`t sleep easier in my bed knowing that our "big stick" policy of bullying other countries leaves them no option but to come and try to blow me up while I`m out doing my shopping.
Head to head with our armed forces they can only hope for stalemate but when they are blowing us up on the bus, in the tunnel or on a train they know that we have the power to vote to stop attacking them. Having a couple of submarines cruising around the oceans carrying weapons that could ultimately go towards destroying all life on Earth does not make me feel secure.
Do you really think we have a big stick policy of bullying other countries?
"they" always have the option of not trying to blow us up...
Do you really think that islamic fundamentalists target us because we have a nuclear strategic deterrent? No, they target us because we're allies of the US, we don't believe in clitorectomy and wrapping up females in small tents with a viewing slit, we don't believe in killing people just because they don't believe in our god, or who are agnostic, and for a whole host of other reasons that have nothing at all to do nuclear deterrents.
I would certainly sleep easier if there were no nuclear (or conventional) weapons, but that's not the real world.
I have always advocated multilateral disarmament, but until we can achieve that, I sleep easier knowing that we have a second strike capability, as it acts as a credible deterrent to anyone hoping to wipe us out with a first strike - that's just how the lunacy of deterrents works.
Quote by Kaznkev
Hmmm yeah ...End Of Days....
Who`s to say that it would be a bad thing ?
The question is would the survivors have learnt anything?
We`ve been fighting wars and torturing and maiming in the name of Christ ever since we murdered him !!!
We have also been torturing and maiming for thousands of years before Christ.
It has gone on from the cavemen to now, and way beyond our years.
It is called being human beings.....it's what we do.
what a frightening view of humanity to have!
Why??
As you like a good Google have a look at the wars world wide since time began.
Have you any idea how many people were killed in the first and second world wars alone? That is in my parents lifetime and they remember it vividly.
I really cannot understand your comment above....even from you!
I have been thing about what happened in Iraq. When Iraq had weapons of mass destruction we stopped at the broader. We freed Kuwait and then stopped. Who know what would have happened if we went any further?
Before the 2nd Iraq War American spent a lot of time and money making sure the Iraq had conformed to the UN order to dismantle the weapons. American knew the weapon existed, they had sold Iraq the means to make them and the Bio-toxins. UN inspection teams, mostly made up of Americans searched Iraq for anything that could endanger troops in large number. Only when America was sure it was safe to invade did they do so.
Just goes to prove how effective WMs are.
Iran and other nations have learnt the lesson! They keep the weapons or at least leave a very big ? over the whole thing.
WMs work, be it Chemical, Bio or Nuclear.
Before the 2nd Iraq War American spent a lot of time and money making sure the Iraq had conformed to the UN order to dismantle the weapons. American knew the weapon existed, they had sold Iraq the means to make them and the Bio-toxins. UN inspection teams, mostly made up of Americans searched Iraq for anything that could endanger troops in large number. Only when America was sure it was safe to invade did they do so.
Just goes to prove how effective WMs are.
Iran and other nations have learnt the lesson! They keep the weapons or at least leave a very big ? over the whole thing.
WMs work, be it Chemical, Bio or Nuclear.
OMG!!! I just heard from some shady sources that a number of countries around the world have started to amass an army to invade England after hearing that the Lib/Dems are gaining popularity and are trying to get rid of our nuclear weapons!
In South America that nutter Chavez from Venezuela already bought millions of dollars worth of weapons from Russia. The Argies are thinking of joining him in revenge for the Belgrano and the Falklands (they are calling it the revenge of the hand of god!). In Africa, Swaziland, Benin and Burkina Faso have joined forces with Zimbabwe egged on by that weirdo Mugabe to invade us.
In the Middle East, Iraq says they really are now going to get their WDM from hiding and get them ready in 44 (not 45!) but 44 minutes to shoot us all the way from there!
The greasy South Americans said they are tired of sunshine and hot weather and can't wait to come to cooler more rainy and cloudy areas like the UK. They have vowed to ban Morris dancing and force us all to dance Salsa instead!
I think we should all rally and sign a petition to buy more nuclear weapons! We can blast them on their way here – although that might be a problem if they are coming via continental Europe. If we blast them in France, the French might retaliate and nuke us too. So it's probably best to wait until they get to Dover then we nuke them there! We might lose the whole of Kent but I guess that's a small price to pay to stop the invasion! If the South Americans arrive by boat we can nuke them when they get to Plymouth!
Someone should tell the Daily Mail quick! We are in great danger! We need more nuclear weapons!
In South America that nutter Chavez from Venezuela already bought millions of dollars worth of weapons from Russia. The Argies are thinking of joining him in revenge for the Belgrano and the Falklands (they are calling it the revenge of the hand of god!). In Africa, Swaziland, Benin and Burkina Faso have joined forces with Zimbabwe egged on by that weirdo Mugabe to invade us.
In the Middle East, Iraq says they really are now going to get their WDM from hiding and get them ready in 44 (not 45!) but 44 minutes to shoot us all the way from there!
The greasy South Americans said they are tired of sunshine and hot weather and can't wait to come to cooler more rainy and cloudy areas like the UK. They have vowed to ban Morris dancing and force us all to dance Salsa instead!
I think we should all rally and sign a petition to buy more nuclear weapons! We can blast them on their way here – although that might be a problem if they are coming via continental Europe. If we blast them in France, the French might retaliate and nuke us too. So it's probably best to wait until they get to Dover then we nuke them there! We might lose the whole of Kent but I guess that's a small price to pay to stop the invasion! If the South Americans arrive by boat we can nuke them when they get to Plymouth!
Someone should tell the Daily Mail quick! We are in great danger! We need more nuclear weapons!
Quote by awol
OMG!!! I just heard from some shady sources that a number of countries around the world have started to amass an army to invade England after hearing that the Lib/Dems are gaining popularity and are trying to get rid of our nuclear weapons!
In South America that nutter Chavez from Venezuela already bought millions of dollars worth of weapons from Russia. The Argies are thinking of joining him in revenge for the Belgrano and the Falklands (they are calling it the revenge of the hand of god!). In Africa, Swaziland, Benin and Burkina Faso have joined forces with Zimbabwe egged on by that weirdo Mugabe to invade us.
In the Middle East, Iraq says they really are now going to get their WDM from hiding and get them ready in 44 (not 45!) but 44 minutes to shoot us all the way from there!
The greasy South Americans said they are tired of sunshine and hot weather and can't wait to come to cooler more rainy and cloudy areas like the UK. They have vowed to ban Morris dancing and force us all to dance Salsa instead!
I think we should all rally and sign a petition to buy more nuclear weapons! We can blast them on their way here – although that might be a problem if they are coming via continental Europe. If we blast them in France, the French might retaliate and nuke us too. So it's probably best to wait until they get to Dover then we nuke them there! We might lose the whole of Kent but I guess that's a small price to pay to stop the invasion! If the South Americans arrive by boat we can nuke them when they get to Plymouth!
Someone should tell the Daily Mail quick! We are in great danger! We need more nuclear weapons!
Already been on the phone to the Editor.
Watch out on page two tom.
Quote by brucie
I think myself and Hot have pretty much summed up why we need a deterrent in these very dangerous times.
We have to be able to defend ourselves from attack, and the ones with the biggest guns usually win.
Pakistan is another region that is in turmoil and they DO have nuclear weapons.
It is only a matter of time before Iran do too, and the President of Iran has already said that " he would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth ".....a worrying statement from a leader of a country not far away from having their own weapons.
I would much prefer for the UK to be able to defend itself properly, against a threat from any other country, should the need ever arise.
If we do not have a proper form of defence from attack, then we may just as well have no Army either......dangerous people out there in this world with a ever growing threat of attack by any one of them with a nutter in charge like Iran.
i agree with everything you say there kentychops, but i have one question (and i really have no idea about this). is it sensible to have the uk fund its own nuclear deterant or would it make more sense to spread the costs and have a european wide programme? or perhaps rely on the yanks? and israelis?
Did the US do anything when the Falklands was invaded?
We need our own!
Travis
Quote by Kaznkev
I think myself and Hot have pretty much summed up why we need a deterrent in these very dangerous times.
We have to be able to defend ourselves from attack, and the ones with the biggest guns usually win.
Pakistan is another region that is in turmoil and they DO have nuclear weapons.
It is only a matter of time before Iran do too, and the President of Iran has already said that " he would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth ".....a worrying statement from a leader of a country not far away from having their own weapons.
I would much prefer for the UK to be able to defend itself properly, against a threat from any other country, should the need ever arise.
If we do not have a proper form of defence from attack, then we may just as well have no Army either......dangerous people out there in this world with a ever growing threat of attack by any one of them with a nutter in charge like Iran.
i agree with everything you say there kentychops, but i have one question (and i really have no idea about this). is it sensible to have the uk fund its own nuclear deterant or would it make more sense to spread the costs and have a european wide programme? or perhaps rely on the yanks? and israelis?
Did the US do anything when the Falklands was invaded?
We need our own!
Travis
Did the us need to do anything when we fought in the falklands?
No but they did try to, how shall we say, persuade us to do nothing. the US would never have helped. They will never protect Britain if it is not in US interests to do so.
Quote by easyrider_xxx
We should have a submarine based strategic nuclear deterrent.
Ideally, we would have no need of armed forces and there would never be any conflict - but that's not the real world, nor is it likely to be any time soon.
The insane but effective mutually assured destruction scenario has successfully prevented any large scale war between major world powers, Europe in particular, since the end of WW2.
WW2 in particular and legions of examples in history, tell us that appeasement and negotiation from a position of weakness never work.
Having a submarine based element to our strategic defences ensures that it is almost impossible for an enemy to wipe us out without incurring unacceptable losses themselves, thus preserving the balance of terror. It's not so we can go around being a global bully, but so we can rest easier in our beds at night.
I'm not up on the figures, but typically an extension to an existing programme such as Trident would be more cost effective than a replacement.
Clegg is saying he would replace it with something more appropriate to the times etc etc, but is not being specific, and thus no analysis on fitness for purpose or cost effectiveness can be carried out. Any deterrent on land, air, or sea surface only, would not in my view, be fit for purpose and would be a cosmetic waste of money. A completely new submarine based replacement for Trident would be eye wateringly expensive.
Of course we need to be vigilant on several fronts, as indeed we are. Of course terrorists are not deterred by nuclear weapons, nor are they deterred by tanks, ships, armies etc, this is a different problem.
The alternative would be to bow out of the world stage, declare ourselves neutral, scrap all but an effective force for protection of our borders, and trust the rest of the world to leave us alone - but that's not a route I would wish us to go down.
Having always voted liberal/soc dem etc, I now find that I may change my vote due to this one issue alone.
Why do other comparably sized nations not need a nuclear deterrent but manage to sleep safely in their beds?
Quote by
I think myself and Hot have pretty much summed up why we need a deterrent in these very dangerous times.
We have to be able to defend ourselves from attack, and the ones with the biggest guns usually win.
Pakistan is another region that is in turmoil and they DO have nuclear weapons.
It is only a matter of time before Iran do too, and the President of Iran has already said that " he would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth ".....a worrying statement from a leader of a country not far away from having their own weapons.
I would much prefer for the UK to be able to defend itself properly, against a threat from any other country, should the need ever arise.
If we do not have a proper form of defence from attack, then we may just as well have no Army either......dangerous people out there in this world with a ever growing threat of attack by any one of them with a nutter in charge like Iran.
i agree with everything you say there kentychops, but i have one question (and i really have no idea about this). is it sensible to have the uk fund its own nuclear deterant or would it make more sense to spread the costs and have a european wide programme? or perhaps rely on the yanks? and israelis?
Did the US do anything when the Falklands was invaded?
We need our own!
Travis
The weird thing about this argument is that, of course, the nuclear deterrent didn't deter Argentina. Half a dozen Buccaneers based at Port Stanley with a couple of frigates in the harbour would have done.
Quote by awayman
I think myself and Hot have pretty much summed up why we need a deterrent in these very dangerous times.
We have to be able to defend ourselves from attack, and the ones with the biggest guns usually win.
Pakistan is another region that is in turmoil and they DO have nuclear weapons.
It is only a matter of time before Iran do too, and the President of Iran has already said that " he would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth ".....a worrying statement from a leader of a country not far away from having their own weapons.
I would much prefer for the UK to be able to defend itself properly, against a threat from any other country, should the need ever arise.
If we do not have a proper form of defence from attack, then we may just as well have no Army either......dangerous people out there in this world with a ever growing threat of attack by any one of them with a nutter in charge like Iran.
i agree with everything you say there kentychops, but i have one question (and i really have no idea about this). is it sensible to have the uk fund its own nuclear deterant or would it make more sense to spread the costs and have a european wide programme? or perhaps rely on the yanks? and israelis?
Did the US do anything when the Falklands was invaded?
We need our own!
Travis
The weird thing about this argument is that, of course, the nuclear deterrent didn't deter Argentina. Half a dozen Buccaneers based at Port Stanley with a couple of frigates in the harbour would have done.
Just call me the thread killer.
Sex God
do you take a stick to a gunfight 
