Trident.......yes or no

[Diego Napier]

That would be the Sanctions we currently are taking against Russia?

and all the while the economic ties continue.....

 

[alfredmizen]

There will come a time when the west gets its comeuppance....Its as if the rest of the world are being bullied into westernisation and like it or lump it
Russia as a country are probably sick and tired of the likes of us and the USA etc dictating what the world should be like.Lets be frank russia is the only real threat on this planet when it comes nuclear weapons etc...Every country is entitled to be diffrent and if they want to flex their muscles against us or the USA then so be it as they're probably Facked off with all these countries ganging up like little bullies to defeat them and Nick their fossil fuels etc.

We whizz into Afghanistan and Iraq for what?
As far as I'm concerned I wish the Russians well as its all rather tedious at times...They have one of the biggest army's and the most nuclear weapons by a country mile...If they blow up our little country the its been a long time coming as we've done nothing but kill innocent civilians and engaged in pointless wars that seem to be about oil.

From Russia with love
Im no tree hugger type either

what about china ?? they will kick off over taiwan.

 

[sparkie]

We need to keep Trident or it's replacement until anti missile technology is good enough, and one day it will be, with scalar/energy weapons able to knock out thouands of incoming warheads, or produce energy fields to contain nuclear blasts.

It is the new aircraft carriers I have issue with. I think the days of surface navys are limited, and we should be investing in submarines, that can launch conventional missiles.

Keep the F35s for the carriers ( when they arrive), make them land based, and build up our levels of Typhoon fighters. Strengthen the army, increase the levels of anti terrorist spooks.

Defence of the Realm, done.

 

[Greyrun]

No country with nuclear weapons has been invaded.

 

[maltaseagull]

I have just realised, if you live in Prague and nuclear war breaks out and we get hit, you might be the only Englishman alive and therefor King of England ....................................mind you it will be a bit of a dustbowl

Errr excuse me!

No bombs will hit Malta ! it's too small!

 

[Camicus]

what about china ?? they will kick off over taiwan.

Or Korea or Mongolia Or or or. If China does kick off we are ****ed Trident or no

 

[maltaseagull]

There will come a time when the west gets its comeuppance....Its as if the rest of the world are being bullied into westernisation and like it or lump it
Russia as a country are probably sick and tired of the likes of us and the USA etc dictating what the world should be like.Lets be frank russia is the only real threat on this planet when it comes nuclear weapons etc...Every country is entitled to be diffrent and if they want to flex their muscles against us or the USA then so be it as they're probably Facked off with all these countries ganging up like little bullies to defeat them and Nick their fossil fuels etc.

We whizz into Afghanistan and Iraq for what?
As far as I'm concerned I wish the Russians well as its all rather tedious at times...They have one of the biggest army's and the most nuclear weapons by a country mile...If they blow up our little country the its been a long time coming as we've done nothing but kill innocent civilians and engaged in pointless wars that seem to be about oil.

From Russia with love
Im no tree hugger type either

And Russia (USSR) didn't ever get involved in Europe and the Middle East or arm rebels in Africa did it?

Hardly a good example. (Actually they tried to conquer Afghanistan in the 80s and failed badly.)

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Those who are against a nuclear deterrent need to read up on the Cuban Missile crisis. Yes, dear sweet butter wouldn't melt in their mouths Russians, had nuclear weapons in Cuba, pointing directly at American cities.

 

[melias shoes]

Yes. We need it. End Of.

 

[wigman]

simple question do we need a nuclear deterent


IMHO why do we need a deterent to protect America because it certainly will not protect us, its just their early warning system ..........if they want this they they should pay for it.

just think of all the things we could use that money on?

Yes, we should have it.

 

[glasfryn]

Errr excuse me!

No bombs will hit Malta ! it's too small!

OK you can be king of Malta and it could be digital warfare so they will probably miss anyway

 

[Chicken Run]

by the time we let our missiles go from submarines nearly everybody here will be dead or well on the way, and if not this and we are the first to strike within hours we will all be dead or well on the way
in this case its a no win situation

And the above is quite simply why the deterrent is essential, our ability to retaliate gives our aggressor pause for thought, the last authorised use of nuclear weapons was in the 1940's and long will that be the last because of it.

 

[Dandyman]

And here are the views of some pinko subversives in a well known commie rag...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-defence-completely-useless-says-general.html

 

[jimbob5]

No. We're all going to peg it soon so why waste money on something that won't happen and won't help even if it did happen? Yo've got more chance of being burgled after spending say 50% of your income on house security.

 

[simmo]

With the go ahead from the queen surely?

Nope, seen various TV programs about our submarines that carrier the nuclear warheads.

The captain was interviewed and basically he says he has an unopened hand written letter from the PM and in the event of war and all communication with the chain of command being lost i.e the UK being wiped out (and the PM being dead) as a last resort he is to open the letter and he is to follow the instructions (which I presume would say nuke or don't nuke our enemies, or it might even say it is up to you!).

Apparently it is one of the very first things (on the first day) a new PM does is to write that letter. I think I have seen an interview with Tony Blair (maybe Gordon Brown?) saying this too and he pretty much says when he was writing that letter, it brought home to him the gravity of the role he was now in.

 

[Hastings gull]

No. We're all going to peg it soon so why waste money on something that won't happen and won't help even if it did happen? Yo've got more chance of being burgled after spending say 50% of your income on house security.

I am sure that you are right in your statistical assertion but this is precisely because we do have the capability to strike back. It just makes potential aggressors think twice, and with an increasing amount of uncertainty as unstable regimes gather the technology to produce nuclear weapons, having a deterrent might not be such a bad thing.
During times of relative peace, it is customary to reduce military spending as the Forces are seen more as an unnecessary luxury and fair game for cuts. But is just as well that spending on spitfires was not cancelled prior to 1939! Of course, we can argue that the money could be better spent elsewhere, as there is no present and immediate definite threat over the Channel, but then we could argue equally that the welfare budget could be cut, as it is clear that not all outgoings are needed, or a thorough and tough reduction on spending on the NHS to really cut out fraud and waste.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Yes Yes Yes.... It is a deterent to any aggressor ....yes if used we are probably all dead..but aggressor less likely to challenge us if we are strong....A bully like Putin happy to invade Georgia/Crimea/Ukraine...He wouldn`t if they had(perish the thought) Nuclear capability.

Tell that to Islamic State. Or Al Qaeda. Didn't work back in 1982 on Gen Galtieri either.

Maybe this 'deterrent' only works on countries that are similarly armed..... In which case the argument to get rid of them is compelling.

 

[Hastings gull]

Tell that to Islamic State. Or Al Qaeda. Didn't work back in 1982 on Gen Galtieri either.

Maybe this 'deterrent' only works on countries that are similarly armed..... In which case the argument to get rid of them is compelling.

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?

 

[Charlies Shinpad]

People seem to forget we have cruise missiles on boats now as well which played a big part in recent conflicts although not Nuclear they can still be launched from a lot of places in our seas

 

[Hampster Gull]

Nope, seen various TV programs about our submarines that carrier the nuclear warheads.

The captain was interviewed and basically he says he has an unopened hand written letter from the PM and in the event of war and all communication with the chain of command being lost i.e the UK being wiped out (and the PM being dead) as a last resort he is to open the letter and he is to follow the instructions (which I presume would say nuke or don't nuke our enemies, or it might even say it is up to you!).

Apparently it is one of the very first things (on the first day) a new PM does is to write that letter. I think I have seen an interview with Tony Blair (maybe Gordon Brown?) saying this too and he pretty much says when he was writing that letter, it brought home to him the gravity of the role he was now in.

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