HomeA senior Army official was on the news today and he said the cost to the UK for continuing with our nuclear programme would roughly be the equivalent of every household paying for buildings and contents insurance. A small price to pay for our safety in my opinion. Heaven forbid we would ever have to use it but at least it has kept us safe in my lifetime. Whatever people may think, the 2nd World war gives us an insight into the benefits of having nuclear capability. After the Japs invaded Pearl Harbour, Uncle Sam unleashed Enola Gay and the rest is history.
Trident, yay or nay?
+8
Boggersbelief
Bollotom2014
xmiles
okocha
Copper Dragon
wanderlust
Natasha Whittam
scottjames30
12 posters
Go to page : 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Trident?
Message [Page 3 of 5]
43 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Mon Jul 18 2016, 23:08
Guest
Guest
I don't understand your World War 2 reference to be honest.
It's widely accepted by historians that the Japanese were close to collapse and the war could have been won without the need for such destruction and massacre of innocent lives. But the US wanted to send a signal of strength to Moscow.
A nuclear deterrent doesn't protect this country from the real threats it faces from small terrorist cells. Should we be threatened with invasion maybe that would be different.
Anyway I've said more than enough and parliament have made their decision. Some interesting views on here anyway.
It's widely accepted by historians that the Japanese were close to collapse and the war could have been won without the need for such destruction and massacre of innocent lives. But the US wanted to send a signal of strength to Moscow.
A nuclear deterrent doesn't protect this country from the real threats it faces from small terrorist cells. Should we be threatened with invasion maybe that would be different.
Anyway I've said more than enough and parliament have made their decision. Some interesting views on here anyway.
44 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Mon Jul 18 2016, 23:33
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
bwfc1874 wrote:I don't understand your World War 2 reference to be honest.
It's widely accepted by historians that the Japanese were close to collapse and the war could have been won without the need for such destruction and massacre of innocent lives. But the US wanted to send a signal of strength to Moscow.
A nuclear deterrent doesn't protect this country from the real threats it faces from small terrorist cells. Should we be threatened with invasion maybe that would be different.
Anyway I've said more than enough and parliament have made their decision. Some interesting views on here anyway.
I know where you are coming from but in the 2nd World War Hitler invaded France before us. The French capitulated pretty quickly but at least it gave us time to set our stall and mount our defences. A ' boots on the ground' war doesn't cut the mustard with a country that has nuclear capability. It's a last resort to launch a nuclear strike but it's a bloody good one. It sends out a message. If we are going to go, then at least we are taking you buggers with us.
If France had the H Bomb during the 2nd World War then I'm pretty certain Adolf would have given them the swerve. Nowadays, the French are a nuclear super power and nobody is asking them to call it a day and dispense with them. Ask yourself, why is that?
The importance of history is that past events can alter the present and shape the future.
45 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Mon Jul 18 2016, 23:42
Guest
Guest
Fair enough RT, I just don't see the world in the same way as it was before the Second World War, I think that both wars were a hangover of an imperialism which does not exist in the same way anymore. For two 'major powers' to actually go to war directly would take a huge shift in the geopolitical landscape which i personally don't think is feasible enough to justify our weapons.
Plus, that Sting song was an insult to my ears
Plus, that Sting song was an insult to my ears
46 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 09:03
Soul Kitchen
Ivan Campo
RT spot on there.
How ironic that a bloke that is supposed to represent the workforce is willing to put thousands on the dole because of his own lust for power by keeping the £3 tree huggers on side!? And here's me thinking only tories looked after themselves?
How ironic that a bloke that is supposed to represent the workforce is willing to put thousands on the dole because of his own lust for power by keeping the £3 tree huggers on side!? And here's me thinking only tories looked after themselves?
47 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 09:27
Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Final vote wasn't even close. Sense was seen in the end.
48 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 09:33
gloswhite
Guðni Bergsson
Bollotom is spot on. I have also served in places where sensitive material is used, and I can tell you that the Russian threat never really went away. Putin is a dangerous and ruthless man, and if anyone is naïve enough to believe there is no threat from him then they just aren't reading the situation properly. He is the current threat, and you can't have a more clear example than his land grab of the Crimea. Ever wondered why he didn't go further ?
49 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 09:34
whatsgoingon
Frank Worthington
Boggersbelief wrote:Topless for me. Six pack glistens in the sun
50 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 09:56
xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Soul Kitchen wrote:RT spot on there.
How ironic that a bloke that is supposed to represent the workforce is willing to put thousands on the dole because of his own lust for power by keeping the £3 tree huggers on side!? And here's me thinking only tories looked after themselves?
So using your logic we would still build everything by hand and have fox hunting to avoid putting people on the dole.
51 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 09:57
xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
gloswhite wrote:Bollotom is spot on. I have also served in places where sensitive material is used, and I can tell you that the Russian threat never really went away. Putin is a dangerous and ruthless man, and if anyone is naïve enough to believe there is no threat from him then they just aren't reading the situation properly. He is the current threat, and you can't have a more clear example than his land grab of the Crimea. Ever wondered why he didn't go further ?
You seriously think us having Trident is what stopped Putin going further?
52 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 10:00
Reebok Trotter
Nat Lofthouse
Soul Kitchen wrote: that fat bastard from Korea,
I couldn't agree more. Psy and his Gangnam Style deserves a good slap.
53 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 10:48
whatsgoingon
Frank Worthington
I believe we should keep it as well, when the numbers are stated they look astronomical to the public but when put into perspective (nice analogy on the Home insurance). The point of a deterrent is to deter so while nothing happens the tangible benefit of whether that's the reason or not is impossible to gauge.
At the moment the main threat is Russia who are currently being led by a guy who has a dangerous disregard for anybody or anything and as a small isolated island a powerful deterrent is a useful thing to have in your armoury.
Going back to the home insurance analogy, you pay that in the hope you never have to use it and the same applies to this, hopefully we'll never get to see the value of it.
At the moment the main threat is Russia who are currently being led by a guy who has a dangerous disregard for anybody or anything and as a small isolated island a powerful deterrent is a useful thing to have in your armoury.
Going back to the home insurance analogy, you pay that in the hope you never have to use it and the same applies to this, hopefully we'll never get to see the value of it.
54 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 14:15
Guest
Guest
“Strategic nuclear weapons have no military use. It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident simply to remain a nuclear power.”
55 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 14:18
whatsgoingon
Frank Worthington
If only they knew as much as you, I'm very surprised you're not running the country with your clearly superior knowledge.bwfc1874 wrote:“Strategic nuclear weapons have no military use. It would seem the government wishes to replace Trident simply to remain a nuclear power.”
What is it you do?
56 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 14:21
Guest
Guest
I didn't say that, hence the quotation marks.
57 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 14:28
whatsgoingon
Frank Worthington
You posted it quotations or not,
58 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 14:31
Guest
Guest
Yes but quotations are used to denote a quoted passage.
That was a quote.
Hence the quotation marks.
That was a quote.
Hence the quotation marks.
59 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 14:36
whatsgoingon
Frank Worthington
It was a selected quote I assume rather than just a random quote, I don't copy and paste quotes unless they:bwfc1874 wrote:Yes but quotations are used to denote a quoted passage.
That was a quote.
Hence the quotation marks.
a) represent what I think and back up what I'm saying, or
b) are completely ridiculous and worthy of mocking.
60 Re: Trident, yay or nay? Tue Jul 19 2016, 14:44
Soul Kitchen
Ivan Campo
xmiles wrote:Soul Kitchen wrote:RT spot on there.
How ironic that a bloke that is supposed to represent the workforce is willing to put thousands on the dole because of his own lust for power by keeping the £3 tree huggers on side!? And here's me thinking only tories looked after themselves?
So using your logic we would still build everything by hand and have fox hunting to avoid putting people on the dole.
?
The guy even voted against the party policy/manifesto, can't ever remember a party leader doing that?
He's the tories best friend and his single minded principles don't allow him to see it?
Can't see out but a tory government for the next 10 to 15 years.
Message [Page 3 of 5]
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum