Caroline Lucas MEP

[Wozza]

caroline lucas is f***ing amazing

so are the greens

Well that's convinced me.

 

[Gwylan]

What's their Defence policy?

We all shout "BOO" in a very loud voice.

 

[Chicken Run]

This was a question put to her.

Would you cut military expenditure?

The defence budget needs to be sufficient in order to ensure security. This would mean, dismantling our nuclear weapons, reducing our forces and cutting subsidies to the arms industry. However, the British should be well equipped for policing and defensive operations.

Quite trendy isn't she, they'l love that up in Hanover lol

 

[ROKERITE]

Hard left nutter with a bit of extra car hate thrown in for good measure.
If anyone truly believes voting Green is the answer I fear for their sanity!

I have to agree with you.

 

[Hotchilidog]

The defence budget needs to be sufficient in order to ensure security. This would mean, dismantling our nuclear weapons, reducing our forces and cutting subsidies to the arms industry. However, the British should be well equipped for policing and defensive operations./QUOTE]

Sounds like a good policy to me. Better than the current one of fighting costly and ill thought out wars just so we can pretend to be big players on the world stage.

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

Personally I would'n't want the Greens to run the country, but I'd be delighted if the Greens had ONE seat in Parliament. What harm could that do?

I'd begrudgingly say the same about the BNP and UKIP - three parties representing 10% of the electorate that remain unheard.

Yes, I'd agree with all of that.

 

[Chicken Run]

The defence budget needs to be sufficient in order to ensure security. This would mean, dismantling our nuclear weapons, reducing our forces and cutting subsidies to the arms industry. However, the British should be well equipped for policing and defensive operations./QUOTE]

Sounds like a good policy to me. Better than the current one of fighting costly and ill thought out wars just so we can pretend to be big players on the world stage.

So seeing that she could be MY MP, ill debate this with you, if she says that the budget needs to be sufficient to ensure security, why then dismantle our only credible form of defence?

 

[Captain Haddock]

that's actually a photo

 

[Dave the OAP]

So seeing that she could be MY MP, ill debate this with you, if she says that the budget needs to be sufficient to ensure security, why then dismantle our only credible form of defence?

defence against who exactly?

 

[keaton]

defence against who exactly?

Yeah, i'm not sure Nuclear Weapons would be a fantastic defence against suicide bombers or terrorists. If anything we'd probably be helping them if we launched trident against a bloke with a rucksack on the tube

 

[Dandyman]

So seeing that she could be MY MP, ill debate this with you, if she says that the budget needs to be sufficient to ensure security, why then dismantle our only credible form of defence?

Renewing Trident at enormous cost does nothing for our security. Mobile swift insertion forces at far lower cost would do.



Britain's 'completely useless' Trident nuclear deterrent will be a £20bn waste of money, say retired generals
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 7:38 PM on 16th January 2009
Comments (5)
Add to My Stories


Former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall
Britain's nuclear missile submarines have become ' irrelevant' in the modern world and should be scrapped, a group of retired senior military commanders have claimed.
The Government is to spend at least £20billion replacing the Royal Navy's Vanguard submarines and their long-range Trident missiles with a new fleet set to enter service in the 2020s - patrolling the waters to deter a nuclear attack on the UK.
But according to three former defence chiefs the massively expensive system will be pointless, as it will not deter terrorists or nuclear blackmailers and will make it far harder for Britain to encourage nuclear disarmament around the globe.
The warnings came in a letter to The Times from former Chief of the Defence Staff Field Marshal Lord Bramall, and Generals Lord Ramsbotham, former Adjutant General, and Sir Hugh Beach, former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of UK Land Forces.
They argue that the huge cost of replacing Trident would be better spent on improving conventional forces.
And they dismiss the idea that nuclear weapons are needed to boost Britain's influence in the world, claiming that would be done far better by having more well-equipped troops with hi-tech weapons ready to intervene around the globe.
'Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism,' the letter stated.
'Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant, expect in the context of domestic politics.'
Retired Army General Lord Ramsbotham, who also signed the letter, said he wanted to restart the debate over the renewal of Trident, which was approved by the House of Commons in March 2007, despite a large rebellion by Labour MPs.
Lord Ramsbotham told BBC2's Newsnight: 'I think it needs to be questioned. We want to have a proper argument about this.

More...
EDWARD HEATHCOAT-AMORY: How can we spend £20billion on Trident when our troops are so badly equipped?
'We come to the question of affordability. There are two definitions of affordability - can you afford it and can you afford to give up what you have got to give up to afford it?
'We argue that it is conventional weapons we now need. Their pin-point accuracy, their ability to help our forces in the sort of conflicts that are taking place is something which means you have to question the huge expense of Trident, which is limiting what we can do.'
Lord Ramsbotham said he no longer believes Britain's nuclear deterrent is truly independent.

Useless: Test firing of a Trident missile
'We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States,' he said.
And he added: 'The fact is that Trident is an inappropriate weapons system. You can't see Trident being used against something like nuclear blackmail by international terrorism.
'It is a Cold War weapon. It is not a weapon for the situation where we are now.'
Lord Ramsbotham said he was 'quite certain' that his doubts are shared by some serving members of the military.
And he suggested that the decision to renew Trident was driven more by political considerations than by the true requirements of national defence.
He said: 'The question of whether or not we buy something of this sort is not a military argument, it is a political argument.'


Read more: Trident nuclear defence system was 'completely useless', says top general | Mail Online

 

[Chicken Run]

defence against who exactly?

Well 20 years ago during the height of the cold war no one new we would be fighting Islamic extremests, middle eastern dictators I mean the only bomber we new was Irish, in another 20 years we could have issues with North Korea, China, Iran and even the Ruskies could be back, still we can send in our rapid response force to sort em out, and for the Nuclear bit, our friends across the pond, can help, Oh.

 

[Chicken Run]

Renewing Trident at enormous cost does nothing for our security. Mobile swift insertion forces at far lower cost would do.



Britain's 'completely useless' Trident nuclear deterrent will be a £20bn waste of money, say retired generals
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 7:38 PM on 16th January 2009
Comments (5)
Add to My Stories


Former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall
Britain's nuclear missile submarines have become ' irrelevant' in the modern world and should be scrapped, a group of retired senior military commanders have claimed.
The Government is to spend at least £20billion replacing the Royal Navy's Vanguard submarines and their long-range Trident missiles with a new fleet set to enter service in the 2020s - patrolling the waters to deter a nuclear attack on the UK.
But according to three former defence chiefs the massively expensive system will be pointless, as it will not deter terrorists or nuclear blackmailers and will make it far harder for Britain to encourage nuclear disarmament around the globe.
The warnings came in a letter to The Times from former Chief of the Defence Staff Field Marshal Lord Bramall, and Generals Lord Ramsbotham, former Adjutant General, and Sir Hugh Beach, former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of UK Land Forces.
They argue that the huge cost of replacing Trident would be better spent on improving conventional forces.
And they dismiss the idea that nuclear weapons are needed to boost Britain's influence in the world, claiming that would be done far better by having more well-equipped troops with hi-tech weapons ready to intervene around the globe.
'Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism,' the letter stated.
'Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant, expect in the context of domestic politics.'
Retired Army General Lord Ramsbotham, who also signed the letter, said he wanted to restart the debate over the renewal of Trident, which was approved by the House of Commons in March 2007, despite a large rebellion by Labour MPs.
Lord Ramsbotham told BBC2's Newsnight: 'I think it needs to be questioned. We want to have a proper argument about this.

More...
EDWARD HEATHCOAT-AMORY: How can we spend £20billion on Trident when our troops are so badly equipped?
'We come to the question of affordability. There are two definitions of affordability - can you afford it and can you afford to give up what you have got to give up to afford it?
'We argue that it is conventional weapons we now need. Their pin-point accuracy, their ability to help our forces in the sort of conflicts that are taking place is something which means you have to question the huge expense of Trident, which is limiting what we can do.'
Lord Ramsbotham said he no longer believes Britain's nuclear deterrent is truly independent.

Useless: Test firing of a Trident missile
'We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States,' he said.
And he added: 'The fact is that Trident is an inappropriate weapons system. You can't see Trident being used against something like nuclear blackmail by international terrorism.
'It is a Cold War weapon. It is not a weapon for the situation where we are now.'
Lord Ramsbotham said he was 'quite certain' that his doubts are shared by some serving members of the military.
And he suggested that the decision to renew Trident was driven more by political considerations than by the true requirements of national defence.
He said: 'The question of whether or not we buy something of this sort is not a military argument, it is a political argument.'


Read more: Trident nuclear defence system was 'completely useless', says top general | Mail Online

Typical thinking from ex Army types, I remember the Air Force kicking off when the Vulcan Bombers were scrapped in Favour of the Submarine platform!
Just knowing that a country has the capability to park an SSBN off the shore without them even detecting it will give any dictator pause for thought.

 

[Storer68]

What's their Defence policy?

Pretty orthodox . two centre halves usually in a flat back four. Doesn't like the sweeper system of five at the back . possibly worries that Elphick is up to the mark but would certainly play Painter and Calderon.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

This was a question put to her.

Would you cut military expenditure?

Why are you interested in your MP having an opinion about military expenditure? It's not an issue that affects Brightonians.

What so that she can spend the afternoon standing up and sitting down, popping her vote on issues that don't affect Brightonians?

 

[Pantani]

Well 20 years ago during the height of the cold war no one new we would be fighting Islamic extremests, middle eastern dictators I mean the only bomber we new was Irish, in another 20 years we could have issues with North Korea, China, Iran and even the Ruskies could be back, still we can send in our rapid response force to sort em out, and for the Nuclear bit, our friends across the pond, can help, Oh.

You are aware that if we start lobbing nuclear weapons around the world is finished. We should not have them and neither should anyone else.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

all the NICE people are gonna vote green and all the HORRID ROTTERS aren't

 

[Dave the OAP]

You are aware that if we start lobbing nuclear weapons around the world is finished. We should not have them and neither should anyone else.

I dindt post that in the original quote!!!

 

[Paskman]

You are aware that if we start lobbing nuclear weapons around the world is finished. We should not have them and neither should anyone else.

Yes, but the important point in this image obsessed World is would you vote for someone with an ear growing out of the back of their neck...... perhaps this could lead to a debate on the Greens health policy; would they agree to cosmetic surgery on the NHS?

 

[beorhthelm]

Just knowing that a country has the capability to park an SSBN off the shore without them even detecting it will give any dictator pause for thought.

yeah, for about a minute until someone points out we'd never launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. meanwhile, an aircraft carrier group with 2000 marines, a half dozen Apaches and tomahawks might focus the mind a little more.

the validity of the nuclear deterent in its current format seems to be irrelevent. im not say simply scrap it, but there has to be some review. there was a recent idea about sharing military costs with european partners, and while we dont want to share with France, it might be usful to develop a new platform with them that doesnt rely on US. whats more important strategically is that we retain the knowledge and expertise to create nuclear devices and delivery systems in the future should they be needed. We have the materials and some knowledge, but it seems we currently rely on US wholy for the actual machinery.