Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 1,124
Plenty of other threads for your BS posts to go in.
Tory dirty tricks & smears . . .
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
effective government ?
sorry this term is not something I understand
Me neither. I know that a Labour or Conservative government will be ineffective, maybe there is a true third way?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 937
- Location
- West Sussex
The Express would run that one!
The global/legal implications of launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack on a military installation would be very serious, which is why, of course, that we would only be able to do so if we were very sure that it was necessary.
The Trident system gives us the ability to neutralise a threat almost anywhere in the world within minutes. It's a "last resort" system, but the belief is that it can deploy a single warhead with a very low yield (1/40th of the Hiroshima blast) in order to minimise environmental effects and collateral damage.
The only real alternatives to a system like Trident are ICBM launchers on UK soil. The downside to this is they instantly become targets, which is the very reason we don't have any. Other systems such as cruise missile delivery, aircraft or giant cannons all suffer from a lack of flexibility, slow delivery times or being able to be easily countered.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Yeah Tory bashing is the new black. I'm tired of the election already.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
I get enough of the lib-dem BS on FaceBook, don't need it here too!
I'm pro-trident although open to viable alternatives. We would never use a nuke for a pre-emptive strike as we'd be nuked to hell in return by god knows how many countries.. It's there for political posturing, deterrence and retribution..
We're not going to get an intel report saying 'OMG North Korea are going to launch a nuke in 1 hour, we have access to their launch system, we know it's aimed at us and that it's locked in. We know 100% that this isn't a fake report just as we knew Saddam was ready to launch" then panic and press a button that triggers a nuclear war..
Exactly. Our intel would never be that precise or accurate. Even if you did see a nuclear weapon being fuelled from orbit, you'd never know what its intended would be.
But I'm not a military general. I don't have the knowledge and experience to give an opinion on what our nuclear deterrent should be. If the Lib Dems want to engage the armed forces in a discussion on our nuclear deterrent then that sounds like a sensible way forward.
Regardless, bogus expense claims are far worse, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
It was within parliamentary rules, declared in the register of member's interests, and used for the purpose it was meant for.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
As I understand it, Nick Clegg didn't break any rules did he?
I don't think that the excuse that "it was within the rules" is ever acceptable; I think that all politicians as with everyone else should apply the "reasonableness" test to all of their behaviour.
In Nick Clegg's case, I don't think that what he did was unreasonable or dishonest.
I believe that what Cashcroft and Hague did was completely unreasonable and thoroughly dishonest
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
Nah, it's cool, we'll give america a bell if we need a nuclear weapon. "Yo, Obama, quick question, the shops have closed, can we borrow some nukes mate?"
And he'll be all like "Yeah man, I still kind owe you for bushes **** ups, where do you want them?"
People are bricking it but there is basicaly no threat to the UK of nuclear arms either way. South africa downed arms, I say we should be next in line.
I'd rather the money be spent in other areas of the military to deal with more real modern day threats, if not spread out over public services.
Aside from that, we cannot afford it, it's just putting us deeper into debt.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I believe that in practice we couldn't launch any "independent" nuclear missiles without the approval of the Americans anyhow . . . something about "dual-key" . . .
Certainly, much of the money spent on replacing Trident would be likely to end up in America anyhow.
Too right we have to keep a viable deterrent
and if we get bored we could always practice on France
I'm voting for you! You speak more sense than those three.
Firstly, we wouldn't be nuked in return by god knows how many countries. There are only four with a delivery system able to launch an attack on the UK, two of which are close allies and could be in support of such a move. No country in the world would launch a nuclear attack on the UK in response to a nuclear attack on North Korea.
Secondly, change the hypothetical scenario to North Korea has launched a missile and intelligence shows they are preparing to launch more. It would be just action that Trident gives us the capability to perform.
As far as I've ever been able to find out, this isn't true. We may of course consult with them for any number of reasons, but they do not control the missiles that are in operation.I believe that in practice we couldn't launch any "independent" nuclear missiles without the approval of the Americans anyhow . . . something about "dual-key" . . .
This isn't what they are proposing. They will block a like-for-like replacement of Trident as an option and basically let them decide between one inadequate system or another. There's no point in a nuclear deterrent if you can't deliver it, and Trident is one of the best nuclear delivery systems in existence.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I'm missing where that qoute is from, and where the "smears" were untrue, or what makes it dirty tricks? They found out Clegg got payments into his private account, which is very strange, papers ask about it, it gets cleared up......... oooo how devestatingly terrible.
Seriously, wheres the bad part of this exactly?