right thanks to the live debate i am left wondering do we really need trident
now on another thread both too hot and kenty have argued the pros for it but would still love to hear more from them here as i'm still undecided and i would also love to hear arguments for getting rid of too so i can make a balanced and informed decision as to my view on the matter
god i love stuff like this i learn loads
thankyou all in advance and wait with baited refresh button for replies
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.
What I want to know is how the f*ck are weapons like trident which can destroy thousands if not tens of thousands of people in an instant almost anywhere in the globe when launched from submarines be out of freaking date! It's like saying we can kill someone but with a new weapon we can kill that someone to a worse state of dead. It doesn't work to me. OK have your nukes if you must, we certainly make no statement by not having them, but for gawds sake if it aint broke dont fix it. especially if its going to cost billions and billions we aint really got.
its all bollocks. i'd like to see how the liberals are going to get rid of trident. what are they going to do? send a bunch of beardy ramblers to swim out and grab a fully loaded polaris submarine?
But he neds it!
"there was a guy,
an underwater guy who controled the sea.
Got killed by ten million pouns of sludge
from New York and New Jersey," -the Pixies
but then again, maybe not.
lp
Who is going to invade us?
I think I prefered Patrick.
lp
I'll be back in a bit, have no fear.
27
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 ok ty :lol: 
