Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,509
- Location
- Scotland
What? You do know the meaning of "Proliferation" don't you?
Disgusting Politics
- Thread starter Dirk Diggler
- Start date
What? You do know the meaning of "Proliferation" don't you?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,509
- Location
- Scotland
Sure there haven't been any countries with nukes invaded. But that still doesn't justify a £100 billion+ trident nuclear submarine renewal. Israel doesn't have nuclear subs and is completely surrounded by enemies.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 4,503
- Location
- Darkest Worcestershire
This.
Each generations pension is funded by the working generation. There is no "pot" of money that they have each contributed to. In fact, studies have shown that this/the previous generation of pensions have presented a negative net tax contribution.
Who know's when the state pension will stop completely, but I'm sure at a minimum, today's school leavers are funding a scheme they will never get to utilise themselves.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,509
- Location
- Scotland
There is nothing formal in the treaty stating that a signatory of the treaty cannot use nukes on a non signatory.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
The conservative govt are great at one thing.
Picking and choosing figures which show them in the best possible light, and idiots lap it up and vote them in. All these cuts and all this and that and how much of the debt have they cleared?
People also seem to somehow attribute labour as the cause of the 2008 financial crash lmao so they're like DERRR I BETTER VOTE DAVID CAMERON IN AGAIN CUZ LUK HOW MUCH DAMAGE LABOUR DID!!!!!111
Seems stupidity knows no limits.
And whilst we're on about ponzi schemes and this ****. Get businesses TO PAY THEIR ****ING TAX! start by closing all these ridiculous loopholes.
Picking and choosing figures which show them in the best possible light, and idiots lap it up and vote them in. All these cuts and all this and that and how much of the debt have they cleared?
People also seem to somehow attribute labour as the cause of the 2008 financial crash lmao so they're like DERRR I BETTER VOTE DAVID CAMERON IN AGAIN CUZ LUK HOW MUCH DAMAGE LABOUR DID!!!!!111
Seems stupidity knows no limits.
And whilst we're on about ponzi schemes and this ****. Get businesses TO PAY THEIR ****ING TAX! start by closing all these ridiculous loopholes.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
LOL. Why would Israel need subs in the med? Subs are for strikes with little warning. I'm assuming Russia's sabre rattling hasn't escaped your attention.
Yes it does, surprising to see you campaigning to see thousands of Scots put out of work lol.
Completely different, Israel is a nuclear power surrounded by enemies who only possess conventional weapons, if Israel didn't have nukes they would have been invaded decades ago however they do so nobody attacks them due to fear of annihilation.
The UK on the other hand is a nuclear power with enemies that are both nuclear and non-nuclear. It requires subs to ensure an enemy cannot simply nuke us and then get away with it because we're a wasteland, they know our subs would annihilate their country so would never risk a sneak attack.
If this country had never developed nuclear weapons they you and I would either not be here or would be speaking Russian lol.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,509
- Location
- Scotland
No you missed my point completely.
Israel has conventional nukes (probably) that don't require submarines. Nobody has invaded them even though they are surrounded by enemies.
Why do we need to replace submarine based nukes with more submarine based nukes? Why don't we just have conventional land based or air deployed nukes and save billions which could go towards paying off debt, hospitals, education etc.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,509
- Location
- Scotland
No it doesn't.
"The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time."
See my other post.
Because this country is smaller than most US states and could be wiped out with a single strike, thus negating any ability to retaliate with land based nukes.
Because it would save a negligible amount, put people out of work, and leave the country vulnerable.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
Well because aircraft are slow, and nukes are heavy. How much do you think developing a land based ICBM system would cost? Quite frankly I'd rather have my nukes on a sub than in a silo.
Cost more than subs and are nowhere near as good.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I've never had my house burgled and I've always owned a cat.
Conclusion: Cats deter burglars
Your logic in a nutshell
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
The £100bn is over the life time of Trident and includes every possible cost associated to it. The actual per annum cost is only £2.9bn, which might sound like a lot still, but it's chump change compared to overall government expenditure. It's only about 2.5% of our total NHS spending for example.
The idea that we should cancel Trident in order to divert the money elsewhere is foolish, because we'd be giving up our national detterent for very little overall gain to the major spending departments. A percent here or there won't make much difference.
And given that the NHS wastes more than £2bn a year on unneccessary or over priced treatments, I'd suggest that a better argument would be that we tackle waste and inefficiency rather than scrapping the cornerstone no only our national defence, but also something which greatly increases our international influence.
As to the original topic: State pensions need to be scrapped altogether for those currently under 18. It's going to prove more and more unsustainable as time goes on.
What I'd perhaps suggest instead is that every 18 year old is given £10,000 to kick start their private pension, alongside a couple of national investment banks.
Last edited: