Trident.......yes or no

[simmo]

Let's hope the PM has very clear handwriting and not one like a doctors then!

I know Gordon Brown's was appalling.....do you remember he wrote a hand written letter to the parents of a deceased servicemen from Afghanistan and the mother complained she could hardly read it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8351883.stm

Thank goodness the subs captain didn't have to open up his letter, he would have probably taken too long try to decipher what Brown was instructing him to do

The Guardian are probably going to very soon print a lot of personal but political letters of Prince Charles as they have just won a court case in respect of this, apparently his handwriting is atrocious too.

 

[The Spanish]

Yes, fair point about 1982, but then Galtieri calculated that we would hardly nuke Argentina, as GB wasn't being threatened. But I don't see the logic of your final assertion - if it "works" against those similarly armed, why is the case to get rid compelling?

Indeed. And Adams knew we were never going to nuke the falls road. It doesn't deter against aggression full stop, just as being a big lump doesn't stop someone telling you to F off.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

Most certainly yes.

Costs a fraction of the NHS and SS spend and gives us peace of mind and a hell of a lot of security. Oh and more chance of World peace!

TNBA

TTF

 

[Hastings gull]

Indeed. And Adams knew we were never going to nuke the falls road. It doesn't deter against aggression full stop, just as being a big lump doesn't stop someone telling you to F off.

It would deter if the big lump had got hold of you and if the circumstances were likely to turn violent, as you well know. You are conveniently talking about localised conflicts, rather than the likelihood of European war, which the balance of power did much to deter. I don't know how you can say it doesn't with any degree of certainty, any more that I could say the opposite - it is the insurance policy that successive governments have decided have served them well. But perhaps you know better? . .

 

[The Spanish]

It would deter if the big lump had got hold of you and if the circumstances were likely to turn violent, as you well know. You are conveniently talking about localised conflicts, rather than the likelihood of European war, which the balance of power did much to deter. I don't know how you can say it doesn't with any degree of certainty, any more that I could say the opposite - it is the insurance policy that successive governments have decided have served them well. But perhaps you know better? . .

where in my post do i say that? No wonder you dont know how i can say it, if i didnt. your post is a bit of a muddle. you seem in a bit of hurry to take a contradictory position to one you are only assuming exists.

 

[Hastings gull]

where in my post do i say that? No wonder you dont know how i can say it, if i didnt. your post is a bit of a muddle. you seem in a bit of hurry to take a contradictory position to one you are only assuming exists.

Have you been drinking? You refer to my post being a muddle and then post this! You asked where you said that nuclear weapons do not deter and so I have quoted your post: "it doesn't deter against aggression full stop, just as being a big lump doesn't stop someone telling you to F off." What could be clearer than this? As an aside, I always wonder about folk who make their point and then feel that they have to add "full stop" - it smacks of arrogance; this is my point and everything else is nonsense. So please go back to your post -see that you were quite specific and then ask yourself why you need to question my response.

 

[The Spanish]

Have you been drinking? You refer to my post being a muddle and then post this! You asked where you said that nuclear weapons do not deter and so I have quoted your post: "it doesn't deter against aggression full stop, just as being a big lump doesn't stop someone telling you to F off." What could be clearer than this? As an aside, I always wonder about folk who make their point and then feel that they have to add "full stop" - it smacks of arrogance; this is my point and everything else is nonsense. So please go back to your post -see that you were quite specific and then ask yourself why you need to question my response.

no and no

 

[The Spanish]

Have you been drinking? You refer to my post being a muddle and then post this! You asked where you said that nuclear weapons do not deter and so I have quoted your post: "it doesn't deter against aggression full stop, just as being a big lump doesn't stop someone telling you to F off." What could be clearer than this? As an aside, I always wonder about folk who make their point and then feel that they have to add "full stop" - it smacks of arrogance; this is my point and everything else is nonsense. So please go back to your post -see that you were quite specific and then ask yourself why you need to question my response.

ker-lassic.

 

[The Spanish]

Have you been drinking? You refer to my post being a muddle and then post this! You asked where you said that nuclear weapons do not deter and so I have quoted your post: "it doesn't deter against aggression full stop, just as being a big lump doesn't stop someone telling you to F off." What could be clearer than this? As an aside, I always wonder about folk who make their point and then feel that they have to add "full stop" - it smacks of arrogance; this is my point and everything else is nonsense. So please go back to your post -see that you were quite specific and then ask yourself why you need to question my response.

Means it doesnt totally necessarily deter against any form of agression at all, not that it fails completely to deter. You have failed to grasp this, then go into a rant about people using the term 'full stop', interpreting it as meaning my statement is definitive, rather than its common usage to describe a totality. You are confusing this with phrases like 'end of thread' and other internet inanities.

 

[gregbrighton]

The decision to renew will just make some defence contractors even richer. That's the point of renewing. Greasing the wheels. It's nothing to do with national defence.

I agree. It's a con. Governments full well know that nuclear warfare would destroy the planet and mankind.

Why doesn't the UK just get rid of it's nuclear arsenal and become nuclear-free. No-one is going bomb us with them just because we don't have any. Spend the cash on something else.

 

[Hastings gull]

Means it doesnt totally necessarily deter against any form of agression at all, not that it fails completely to deter. You have failed to grasp this, then go into a rant about people using the term 'full stop', interpreting it as meaning my statement is definitive, rather than its common usage to describe a totality. You are confusing this with phrases like 'end of thread' and other internet inanities.

Thank you. This is now a great deal clearer, and if you had been that specific originally, that would have helped rather than the simplistic version, so it was not a question of failing to grasp etc. I agree that the term "full stop" can be misleading, though one might argue that in practice definitive and totality mean much the same thing. Apologies if you were not meaning to be definitive, or was it totality . . .

 

[Hastings gull]

I agree. It's a con. Governments full well know that nuclear warfare would destroy the planet and mankind.Why doesn't the UK just get rid of it's nuclear arsenal and become nuclear-free. No-one is going bomb us with them just because we don't have any. Spend the cash on something else.

This is why governments draw back from the abyss. The Putins of this world might not want to bomb us, but they may well use the threat of their advantage to get what they want.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I agree. It's a con. Governments full well know that nuclear warfare would destroy the planet and mankind.

Why doesn't the UK just get rid of it's nuclear arsenal and become nuclear-free. No-one is going bomb us with them just because we don't have any. Spend the cash on something else.

Some people just cannot learn the lessons of history,both World wars we were caught underarmed,underequipped.
We might never use the deterrent,but it will make aggression less likely knowing that a sub can wipe you out from over 200 miles away.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

The only people who gain any benefit from the existence of nuclear weapons are those controlling the world's multi-trillion dollar armaments industry. Senior military figures have regularly admitted that the actual deployment of nuclear bombs can confer no strategic military advantage. What army would want to occupy territory that they've flattened, to remain irradiated for thousands of years? What resources can they plunder from a country that's suddenly become a permanently toxic nuclear wasteland?

Look at the Middle East. How could Israel ever selectively deploy its fearsome nuclear arsenal against neighbours that are clustered around its borders? In that event, Israel itself would incur enormous casualties and become uninhabitable.

Some might see justification in Israel's hostile neighbours individually acquiring independent nuclear arsenals, in order to keep the peace. Extending that logic, every country, from Sudan to Switzerland, should immediately do what Britain has done so courageously, and invest billions and billions in nuclear weapons to guarantee a safer future. Without that, how can those Japanese, Swiss and New Zealanders sleep safely at night?

But it's not actually necessary for every kid in this primary school playground to have a gun in order to feel safe. How about throwing all the guns away? Brazil and South Africa, a few years ago, abandoned their own nuclear weapons programmes and are not expecting to be vaporised by the Russians any time soon. As said before, possession of nukes somewhat inconveniently fails to deter a nation's real (rather than imagined Cold War II) enemies. Galtieri, Al Qaeda and Islamic State carried on regardless. No, nukes only 'deter' other similarly armed countries - all of whom know there will be no point in actually using them, because there's nothing to be gained if they did.

A practical point: the theory of deterrence hangs entirely on one's nuclear-armed opponents actually believing that their adversary really would press that nuclear button. Our last two prime ministers have both professed their Christian faith. So, step into the mind of David Cameron or, especially, Tony Blair. Confronted with the certainty of being brought to his God and having to account for his decision to slaughter countless millions of innocent men, women and children, is he really prepared to press that button? Putin is unlikely to think that Blair really would.

Nuclear weapons represent an absurd waste of human intellect, endeavour and precious resources. And the only escape from this criminal lunacy is one of negotiated, progressive and mutual disarmament. There's still time.

 

[jimbob5]

why blow all that money? We're all going to die anyway. There's no point in being alive if you've blown your money on stuff which gives no pleasure or benefit.
On top of that, surely being nuked by Russia is a better way to go than being tortured in a care home.

 

[Algernon]

Yes.
We need to be "Nuclear War Ready".

 

[glasfryn]

Yes.
We need to be "Nuclear War Ready".

but don't let Barber anywhere near the red button

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Yes.
We need to be "Nuclear War Ready".

Why? Who on EARTH would you use it on?

 

[gregbrighton]

Why? Who on EARTH would you use it on?

Palarse.