Will you also donate my £1500 because I don't want to.
Poll: Do you believe the UK should have its own Nuclear Deterrent?
- Thread starter kitkat9933
- Start date
Will you also donate my £1500 because I don't want to.
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,503
- Location
- North West
Don't forget that the bomb used over Hiroshima was equivalent to 12-16 kilotons of TNT, but the weapons stockpiled by the USA today are typically 100-9,000 kilotons.
The former destroyed a city and vaporised 70,000 people, so a bomb which is 600 times more powerful is just...
Source. Another nice fact from wiki:
That's nothing, the Russians even drop tested a 57 MEGATON bomb (This is equivalent to 1,400 times the combined power of the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki,10 times the combined power of all the conventional explosives used in World War II), it was meant to be 100 MEGATONs but even they realised that was to OTT.
If this was in 1961 what could nations have in secret now?
From what I understand there isn't much interest in bigger and bigger yields. Instead the development focus switched to smaller tactical nuclear weapons.
But again, I'm no military buff.
I don't know why we need it either to be honest. If someone nukes the UK, I doubt that returning the favour would make me feel much better in my glowing / vapourised state.
The world is pretty settled for the most part ( we certainly are) and would have no problems with other countries if we didn't have any nukes. Thats why you have international friends. You don't have international relationships based entirely on weapons.
The BBC has been getting worse for years now. Non stories and sensationalist rubbish. This is one of their latest stories.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22025122
Girl attacked and beaten up by chavs and being the unique flower that she is, it must have been her looks / style. Most people are self centred and reading the comments on the BBC confirms that. Its all about themselves and what they want, not what the reality of the situation is.
The world is pretty settled for the most part ( we certainly are) and would have no problems with other countries if we didn't have any nukes. Thats why you have international friends. You don't have international relationships based entirely on weapons.
The BBC has been getting worse for years now. Non stories and sensationalist rubbish. This is one of their latest stories.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22025122
Girl attacked and beaten up by chavs and being the unique flower that she is, it must have been her looks / style. Most people are self centred and reading the comments on the BBC confirms that. Its all about themselves and what they want, not what the reality of the situation is.
I'm undecided on the issue.
On one hand as has been said we have no real threat from any other "country", the only threat seems to be from terrorist groups which a nuke can't do much about.
On the other hand, I don't have a crystal ball and in 15 -20 years time things could be very different. With the increasing cost of fossil fuels and the growing demand from emerging countries, things could turn nasty rather quickly.
You also have to remember that if the money goes into providing jobs in the UK and orders for UK companies, then the money isn't really spent. It all ends up back in the governments coffers eventually.
On one hand as has been said we have no real threat from any other "country", the only threat seems to be from terrorist groups which a nuke can't do much about.
On the other hand, I don't have a crystal ball and in 15 -20 years time things could be very different. With the increasing cost of fossil fuels and the growing demand from emerging countries, things could turn nasty rather quickly.
You also have to remember that if the money goes into providing jobs in the UK and orders for UK companies, then the money isn't really spent. It all ends up back in the governments coffers eventually.
It's not so much about having Trident (or a comparable nuclear deterrent) itself as much as what having it represents to us as a nation in the international community.
Not having Trident would mean we'd be taken far less seriously as a nation, particularly in NATO and the UN. We would almost certainly lose our seat on the 'permanent five' of the UN Security Council, and thereby our 'voice' in the international community would lose a great deal of its' power and importance. We'd become just another country in Europe and effectively be pushed down the road of combined European armed forces...
And another thing, as long as France have Nukes, we should have them too
Not having Trident would mean we'd be taken far less seriously as a nation, particularly in NATO and the UN. We would almost certainly lose our seat on the 'permanent five' of the UN Security Council, and thereby our 'voice' in the international community would lose a great deal of its' power and importance. We'd become just another country in Europe and effectively be pushed down the road of combined European armed forces...
And another thing, as long as France have Nukes, we should have them too
It's not so much about having Trident (or a comparable nuclear deterrent) itself as much as what having it represents to us as a nation in the international community.
Not having Trident would mean we'd be taken far less seriously as a nation, particularly in NATO and the UN. We would almost certainly lose our seat on the 'permanent five' of the UN Security Council, and thereby our 'voice' in the international community would lose a great deal of its' power and importance. We'd become just another country in Europe and effectively be pushed down the road of combined European armed forces...
And another thing, as long as France have Nukes, we should have them too
Aren't we still living in the past tho... Britain *is* just another country in Europe. And who really gives a toss what Britain thinks, anyhow? (I mean which other countries
)Aren't we still living in the past tho... Britain *is* just another country in Europe. And who really gives a toss what Britain thinks, anyhow? (I mean which other countries
I think we still have a certain standing in the international community based on our history, culture and tradition of democracy and rule of law. We have also acted as a useful check and balance against some of the excesses of the USA, thanks to our 'special relationship'. Trident has shown the we've been serious about maintaing that standing...
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,503
- Location
- North West
Like said in here by someone else, the money gets put ( to some extent) to UK Jobs and Industry which then gets put straight back into the government coffers cycle.
As OP can I make it into a Poll? Or does a mod have to do it?
As OP can I make it into a Poll? Or does a mod have to do it?
David Cameron trying to sell the idea of nuclear weapons of mass destruction to Scots was just absolutely bizarre and totally out of touch with reality.
“Mr Cameron insists the Trident programme offers good value – at an annual cost of 1.5 per cent of Britain’s benefits bill.”
Could he have made it any clearer? The savage, failing austerity and welfare 'reform' programme designed to annihilate the last remnants of civilised British society is explicitly contrasted with the “bargain” we’re getting by spending our money on a useless weapon system designed solely to murder millions in vengeance after we’re already dead.
Bravo.
“Mr Cameron insists the Trident programme offers good value – at an annual cost of 1.5 per cent of Britain’s benefits bill.”
Could he have made it any clearer? The savage, failing austerity and welfare 'reform' programme designed to annihilate the last remnants of civilised British society is explicitly contrasted with the “bargain” we’re getting by spending our money on a useless weapon system designed solely to murder millions in vengeance after we’re already dead.
Bravo.
There are two reasons I can think of to keep the UK nuclear arsenal. The first is our UNSC seat which would be under serious threat if we were no longer a nuclear power. It is quite useful having a veto for security council resolutions.
The second, somewhat more pragmatic, reason is that whilst our nuclear deterrent may seem somewhat outdated and useless at the moment we have no real idea what threats may develop. It seems unlikely that less nations will have nuclear weapons so keeping the deterrent is quite possibly a good idea.
The second, somewhat more pragmatic, reason is that whilst our nuclear deterrent may seem somewhat outdated and useless at the moment we have no real idea what threats may develop. It seems unlikely that less nations will have nuclear weapons so keeping the deterrent is quite possibly a good idea.
Much like the royal family I think trident adds more value to the UK then it costs.
As we are not really part of Europe and certainly aren't part of the US it makes sense that out island is protected by an independent nuclear capability.
As we are not really part of Europe and certainly aren't part of the US it makes sense that out island is protected by an independent nuclear capability.