So.....are Trident a necessary deterrent?

[Aveacarlin']

Corbyns statement at the rally is deluded. Didn't he previously propose keeping Trident but removing the warheads?

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Yes, although nuclear weapons are abhorrent, they are the reason that we have not had a world war in the last 70 years. The aggressor will always know that he cannot win.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Why not spend money on developing anti-nuclear weapon devices? If we see an ICBM coming our way we can shoot it down instead of assuring both parties mutually destroy the world.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

With 500,000 enemy approaching our shores.....Turn back or else we "Blat you with our Nuclear Missiles from the Oceans" or "Corbyn etc has dumped our threat, so come on in we may resist slightly but our soldiers are reluctant to kill anyone due to Human rights laws etcetc " Laughing stock or what !!!

...o...k. So apparently they're 500,000 immigrants coming to get us and destroy Britain. Maybe try reading something that isn't the Daily Mail?

 

[drew]

Why not spend money on developing anti-nuclear weapon devices? If we see an ICBM coming our way we can shoot it down instead of assuring both parties mutually destroy the world.

Sounds like Regan's 'Star Wars' program.

 

[atomised]

Sounds like Regan's 'Star Wars' program.

Anti weapon devices are meaningless against the potential threat we face

 

[Diablo]

...o...k. So apparently they're 500,000 immigrants coming to get us and destroy Britain. Maybe try reading something that isn't the Daily Mail?

The only mail I read is that I get from postman...

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

The only mail I read is that I get from postman...

Fair enough to. I was just trying to make sense of your post and that's that conclusion I came to in regard to trying to decipher what you were actually getting at.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Yes, although nuclear weapons are abhorrent, they are the reason that we have not had a world war in the last 70 years. The aggressor will always know that he cannot win.

You think the only reason we haven't had a world war in the last 70 years is because, at any moment, a nuclear country can just say **** it and destroy the planet? Are you serious? Nuclear weapons are a pointless expense and we should use that money where it is required, the NHS for a start.

 

[KVLT]

Countries of the world with a nuclear arsenal = 9.

Countries of the world without a nuclear arsenal = 187.

Maybe we should arm the 187 so they have a deterrent too, then we can all be safer!

 

[Don Quixote]

Yes it is. We must not rely on others to keep us safe. It's not a lot of money if you consider the consequences of not having it.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Yes it is. We must not rely on others to keep us safe. It's not a lot of money if you consider the consequences of not having it.

Again, safe from what? All the Bond villains out there?

 

[Seagull27]

Yes , of course it is , with Russia throwing its weight about in Europe , China with its expansionist attitude in the Pacific , not to mention those level headed North Koreans , or what about about nuclear armed Pakistan , thats a nice stable country with no chance whatsoever of being taken over by a more radical islamic movement, yep, youre 100% right , we'd me absolutely mad to retain a deterrent

And I'm sure said Islamic radicalist leaders, should they get hold of nuclear weapons, would be deterred by the prospect of their jihadist, suicide bomber followers being blown up in retaliation [emoji38]ol:

If any radical group gets hold of nuclear weapons, we're screwed regardless. Much better to try and persuade all countries with nuclear weapons to disarm, so we don't face that possibility.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Safe from what exactly? What possible scenario would the use a nuclear warhead be justified?

Having nukes stops the crook in the kremlin using nuclear blackmail on us.

 

[Diablo]

Fair enough to. I was just trying to make sense of your post and that's that conclusion I came to in regard to trying to decipher what you were actually getting at.

Surely you must believe....A bully will not attack someone who will fight back and hurt him...A bully will attack someone who`s defences are week.

ps. It said that in the Telegraph.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Having nukes stops the crook in the kremlin using nuclear blackmail on us.

Ok so Putin decides to he wants to get rid of us. He bombs us. The USA the bombs Russia. The world ends. But thank god we spend billions on nuclear warheads right?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Ok so Putin decides to he wants to get rid of us. He bombs us. The USA the bombs Russia. The world ends. But thank god we spend billions on nuclear warheads right?

That's not quite the only scenario is it ?

Putin threatens us with the bomb. He gambles the US will not retaliate on our behalf. Game over.

 

[pastafarian]

hmmm
is it

are Trident a necessary deterrent?
or
Is Trident a necessary deterrent?

its questions like this that need solving first

 

[dangull]

So we could launch a counter strike and kill tens of thousands of innocent people!?
Do you really think the mad people that fired at us will give a single shit about that?

Yes. Because whatever aims that Russia wanted to achieve by military means will not be possible then.

 

[easynow]

Again, safe from what? All the Bond villains out there?

The point is not to use them. They are an asset to possess that let's all current and future states know that its a bad idea to drop nukes on the UK. Nobody can predict what the future will be like in 10 - 50 years, so I think it would be logically to keep them...at least until the aliens take them away from us haha