I think that has a lot to do with the age demographics of the user base on here, talk to folks my age and you will find very few in favour of giving up a nuclear detterent just as I know next to no one of my age group who has much of a problem with the priciples of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
Poll: Do you believe the UK should have its own Nuclear Deterrent?
- Thread starter kitkat9933
- Start date
I think that has a lot to do with the age demographics of the user base on here, talk to folks my age and you will find very few in favour of giving up a nuclear detterent just as I know next to no one of my age group who has much of a problem with the priciples of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,499
- Location
- North West
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=24063218#post24063218
Thread for ppl please
EDIT: Il Merge them.
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,499
- Location
- North West
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 4,499
- Location
- North West
I am quite surprised. The Poll currently is looking to favour the yes vote, while the general consensus in this thread so far has been towards No.
Maybe all the lefties are in bed now
Maybe all the lefties are in bed now
That's only your own anecdotal evidence though as I am your age demographic and would say the opposite for all the people I know. Birds of a feather and all that
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 2,729
- Location
- Oxford/Bristol
It's a difficult decision. On balance I'd say the scales are tipped *just* in favour of renewing Trident.
For those in the no camp I'm interested to know what you would do with the £40bn. I think I'd re-equip and restructure our conventional forces to better deal with asymmetric threats outside of Northern Europe and invest heavily in a cyber capability.
Second priority might be to spend on infrastructure, housing or energy security.
The last thing I would do is continue to pour money into the seemingly bottomless inefficiency of the NHS or welfare state.
For those in the no camp I'm interested to know what you would do with the £40bn. I think I'd re-equip and restructure our conventional forces to better deal with asymmetric threats outside of Northern Europe and invest heavily in a cyber capability.
Second priority might be to spend on infrastructure, housing or energy security.
The last thing I would do is continue to pour money into the seemingly bottomless inefficiency of the NHS or welfare state.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Unfortunately from a pragmatic point of view I believe we do currently need them hence I've voted yes on the poll. It doesn't stop me bewildering at how we got into such an interesting state of affairs in the first place though. The competitive and aggressive needs of the few for overall control, power and wealth, clearly. Does the human race really have time to **** about with all this? We are a strange species, for sure - unable to overcome our blind ignorance and stubborn mindsets unless it affects our individual short sightedly perceived (largely economic) wellbeing.
Last edited:
Even with my "leftist" mindset, pumping money into a public institute has always been a fail it seems, at least recently.
Pump it into R&D or try and use it to make our nation more friendly toward companies to make their own R&D departments...We are at the forefront of Graphene technology and its just being taken from us, South Korea alone has like 2000 patents, mostly by Samsung who has a massive R&D arm...
If we ever want growth again, we need to stop being the worlds lapdog.
Real lifetime costs are closer to £120bn.
I'd pay off some debt, or invest the money in an industry that will benefit the UK much more effectively. At the moment our 'independent' deterrent is little more than a kickback to the Americans.
Good god yes, it is a massive defence, the whole you'll never use it argument is retarded.
You can not make these weapons quickly. Who knows what the word wil be like in 10,20 or even 30years time, just because there's no immediate threat, doesn't mean that will always be the case.
I think the financial crisis is the biggest reason for keeping it. It may all end up pretty and back to boom, it could so easily go the other way though.
115bn over 30 years is sod all. Unions also reckon it emplupys 13000 people, although I take what unions say with a bucket of salt. Lots of people see the figure and don't realise it's over such a long time.
You can not make these weapons quickly. Who knows what the word wil be like in 10,20 or even 30years time, just because there's no immediate threat, doesn't mean that will always be the case.
I think the financial crisis is the biggest reason for keeping it. It may all end up pretty and back to boom, it could so easily go the other way though.
115bn over 30 years is sod all. Unions also reckon it emplupys 13000 people, although I take what unions say with a bucket of salt. Lots of people see the figure and don't realise it's over such a long time.
Last edited:
Problem is especially in this country those who have little experience outside of the last 20-30 decades have only really experienced a very stable, fairly safe life and can't see it any other way. The fact it could all be very different in 20-30 years time is almost if not inconceivable to them.
As I've said a few times before tho until the very nature of humanity changes the weak will always be preyed on by the unscrupulous as a country we should present a strong image so we aren't taken advantage of (more than we already are) and should things change in the future we have a chance to defend ourselves.
It offers no defence to the more potent and real threats this country faces. The idea that nuclear weapons will be used could be argued as equally 'retarded', as is MAD doctrine as a small two-bit player. Our arsenal could disapear tomorrow and it would make little difference.
Let others carry that burden if they must.
Firstly I would point out that regarding the public finances, it seems to have the opposite effect with regards to public support than this statement. Secondly, I think it a bit disturbing that you can, quite so casually, correlate the use of weapons of mass destruction in a situation of continetnal or global economic meltdown.
Nuclear meltdown and the needless slaughter of hundreds of millions seems slightly over the top, and also somewhat unnecessary.
I keep seeing these comments about some of the more real and pressing threats this country faces - no one defence platform can defend against all threats and some are more relevant than others, that doesn't make any one defensive platform any less important in the bigger picture.
Appeasement does not bring peace - its been proved time and time again in history.
Appeasement does not bring peace - its been proved time and time again in history.
Did I say use?
Nukes do not need to be used. They are defence, by having them, you insure safety. Do you think NK would get away with what they have, without nukes? Off course not. Nukes are insurance, even with out MAD, they don't have enough to wipe out anyway, but one is enough.
So you whole point is silly and not what I said at all. You are one of these people who thinks they have to be used. Not even conventional military has to be used, show of a strong arm, is often enough.
It also has other benefits, permanent seat on the security council amongst others.
Why let others carry the burden? Who says they'll protect us or even be our allies? That makes no sense at all.
So just another person who misunderstands nukes and conventional military.
Just as I was talking about in that post you quoted.
Nukes do not need to be used. They are defence, by having them, you insure safety. Do you think NK would get away with what they have, without nukes? Off course not. Nukes are insurance, even with out MAD, they don't have enough to wipe out anyway, but one is enough.
So you whole point is silly and not what I said at all. You are one of these people who thinks they have to be used. Not even conventional military has to be used, show of a strong arm, is often enough.
It also has other benefits, permanent seat on the security council amongst others.
Why let others carry the burden? Who says they'll protect us or even be our allies? That makes no sense at all.
So just another person who misunderstands nukes and conventional military.
Just as I was talking about in that post you quoted.
Last edited:
Nuclear weapons provides saftey from nothing, if anything it probably increases the risk both externally and domestically.
Terrorism, economic attacks and crime are far more damaging to this country than a non-existant threat.
I would rather spending the entirety of the money on being able to police our borders properly and offer as best mitigation against freight terrorism and crime, for example.
Roff said:
Appeasing who? It's more about facing the harsh reality, and when we can ill afford conventional projection nuclear re-armament should be out of the question.
If we decide to not replace, there is no boogey man around the corner waiting to pounce. If anything, we'll have reduced our risk by removing ourself from the game in play.