To deter the escalation of force?
The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
To deter the escalation of force?
PR, mostly. Some people might be fooled into thinking Britain is still a major world power
What we could possibly do with a couple nukes and one operational sub is anybody's guess.
I think it's a waste of money. The real deterrent is the US and their bazillion nukes. And let's be honest, we're never going to be on the opposite side of any war to the US. Mostly because they tell us which side we're on
This is a dangerous and flippant viewpoint of many. What scares me the most is that people in a position power can have these views and act on them.
It's fine to even admit that Trident has no use today. We have absolutely no idea if it will have use in the future. We have no idea what may happen in the future and it would be reckless to put ourselves in a position of powerlessness.
how long do you think it would take to restart from scratch though perma?
say we ditch it now.
in 20 years time things start getting mroe colkd war esque and we decide we need them again, how many years before we're ready?
how long to design, get the tooling made, get the missiles made, get the subs made?
so exactly what i just said that there was a conspiracy to frame Osama bin laden....
if Iraq had nuclear weapons and a way to get them here would it have stopped us?
No, that's not what he said at all. Read it again.
corbyn said that the governments and media and corporations conspired to blame Osama bin laden
also hes one of the NWO guys....
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
That's not what you said though - you said he'd said 9/11 was a conspiracy:-
That's not the same as saying there was a conspiracy post 9/11 to frame Osama - which is what he actually said, which isn't an unjustifiable statement imho.
Evidence?
Problem is if you suddenly start scrambling to build nukes during a tense period this could be seen as a sign of aggression and escalate a situation.
America, like any other country, will look after itself first.
If its bad for them to help us they would drop us like a stone.
We don't require America's permission. That's complete nonsense. How do you imagine it would work in practice anyway? How would the US stop us?
I'd prefer us to keep a nuclear deterrent but I don't see much point in maintaining a Trident level system regardless of current threat levels and I don't much care either way. We're not going to use it and it costs a lot of money.
No, Yes, Yes.
Israel's status derives from it's US backing and first world military capability rather than simply whether it has the biggest boommakers. Our position on the UNSC comes from a post-war settlement not from our possession of nukes and our political strength comes from our historical global influence, the current reach of our foreign office, our economy and our conventional military.
Nukes aside we're still the 6th biggest economy in the world and the 5th or 6th greatest military power as well as the 2nd biggest economy in the EU.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
You want our nation to be entirely dependent on the Americans for our defence?
I'm not going to mince my words here: Anyone who opposes the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent is a Grade A moron. There is no rational argument in favour of disarmament.
It's a deterant. It's in use, as a deterant, every day.
Don't be so absurd, of course there is - it's this: the money is better spent on other things rather than spent on a system that we will never, ever use.
You may not agree with it. You may argue that the benefits of a nuclear deterrent are worth the costs. But that is a rational argument about the relative value of different spending priorities and the nebulous value of a nuclear defence. Claiming that's not a rational argument makes you look silly, frankly.
As I understand it (And no doubt somebody will come along and correct me)
We build the Subs
We build the warheads and the delivery system (AKA the Bus)
The US supply and maintain the actual rockets as a deal.
Our sub commanders have complete autonomy over launching and targeting.
However,
If we were to launch without US approval it MAY be possible for the US to deny targeting/navigational data (GPS etc) so the missiles might be less accurate.
But they could not stop us from launching or selecting our own targets!