how hypocritical are our government?

beast20vt · 4 Dec 2006 at 18:02

well after hearing a news story today i though god,how hypocritical are out goverment.we have been trying to stop countries like korea and iran using uranium enrichment for nuclear power unless they tried to make weapons and what does tony blair go and do today?well he announces that he plans to spend £20billion on replacing our trident nuclear weapons!!
another example of todays do as i say not as i do mentality :mad:

Gilly · 4 Dec 2006 at 18:05

beast20vt said:
we have been trying to stop countries like korea and iran using uranium enrichment for nuclear power unless they tried to make weapons

Are you sure about that?

locutus12 · 4 Dec 2006 at 18:18

its an utter waste of money in my opinion. we should either overhaul the current system for far less or simply scrap the entire system. we are no longer a world super power, and we are not in a cold war, nor are we likely to be. North korea`s nukes are utterly feebly as the recent botched test they did shows. Iran wont be able to build nukes anyway as the Israeli`s with the worlds most advanced air force will take lone action to prevent it whether the USA wants them to or not.

we have no need for this type of weapons system and certainly no need for one on the scale of which we are able to deploy. we have more warheads on 3 subs than there are country's in the world, each warhead being seveal times stronger than that which hit Hiroshima. its insane and not required.

Puzzled · 4 Dec 2006 at 18:34

I can't believe people don't want it renenewed.

At the moment we have the capability to strike any country on the planet, that constant threat keeps us safe. We do not have the military presence that we once had, and it's shrinking constantly without Trident whats to stop another country to decide that they like what we have.

It seems extreamly unlikely at the moment that we could ever need it, but things can change quickly. If the worst were to happen, it could be the only thing protecting us.

Posty · 4 Dec 2006 at 18:43

I dont see why it is hypocritical we have to stay ahead of potential enemies

[TW]Fox · 4 Dec 2006 at 18:48

beast20vt said:
well after hearing a news story today i though god,how hypocritical are out goverment.we have been trying to stop countries like korea and iran using uranium enrichment for nuclear power unless they tried to make weapons and what does tony blair go and do today?well he announces that he plans to spend £20billion on replacing our trident nuclear weapons!!
another example of todays do as i say not as i do mentality

Key difference:

North Korea and Iran are unstable regeimes. The UK is not.

This is why I doubt we would have any issues if, for example, Canada suddenly anounced a nuclear programme.

Arcade Fire · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:01

[TW]Fox said:
Key difference:

North Korea and Iran are unstable regeimes. The UK is not.

This is why I doubt we would have any issues if, for example, Canada suddenly anounced a nuclear programme.

I don't know; N Korea have been remarkable stable in their relentless isolation and dislike of anything Western for as long as I can remember...

...or are we defining "unstable" as "unfriendly to the UK and US" nowadays?

Gilly · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:04

Arcade Fire said:
I don't know; N Korea have been remarkable stable in their relentless isolation and dislike of anything Western for as long as I can remember...

...or are we defining "unstable" as "unfriendly to the UK and US" nowadays?

Or maybe willing to strike at other countries without consulting others?

Spleenus · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:06

All I can say is I'm glad that there are people in power who can make these decisions. Some people would gladly wish away our entire defence and leave us totally open. Who knows what might happen in the near future.

[TW]Fox · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:16

Arcade Fire said:
I don't know; N Korea have been remarkable stable in their relentless isolation and dislike of anything Western for as long as I can remember...

You mean dislike of anything at all - NK is a very, very worrying country.

And Iran has publically stated it wishes to wipe Isreal off the map.

I do hope anyone who genuinelly asks why we are allowed nukes but they are not is purely playing devils advocate becuase the reason is crystal clear.

Efour · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:19

And you ask any NK or Iranian citizen if they need nukes to protect their communist way of life, the reason is crystal clear....

Its all so crystal clear. :rolleyes:

robmiller · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:25

Efour2 said:
And you ask any NK or Iranian citizen if they need nukes to protect their communist way of life, the reason is crystal clear....

Its all so crystal clear.

Yeah, damn those Iranian communists. Err... wait, what?

Efour · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:31

damn my feeble typing skills, im sure most people get the point.

robmiller · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:33

I don't get your point, sorry. Are you saying that, because the people of Iran and DPRK probably don't like their governments, they want to be nuked/invaded?

Efour · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:36

Gilly said:
Or maybe willing to strike at other countries without consulting others?

Or consulting the UN, being told "not bloddy likely" then asking the UK to help and invading anyway.

[TW]Fox · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:37

Efour2 said:
Or consulting the UN, being told "not bloddy likely" then asking the UK to help and invading anyway.

Blimey I must have missed the nuclear strike on Iraq.

memphisto · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:37

what he is saying is by the same logic why shouldnt Iran and NK have nuclear weapons to defend their way of life.

If we can have them to defend ours what gives us the right to stop them building them to defend theirs ?

[TW]Fox · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:39

memphisto said:
what he is saying is by the same logic why shouldnt Iran and NK have nuclear weapons to defend their way of life.

If we can have them to defend ours what gives us the right to stop them building them to defend theirs ?

Becuase they are unstable regeimes who would likely use them for neferous purposes. For example, Iran have stated they wish to 'wipe Isreal from the map'.

I'm sure in wishy-washy-liberal memphisto land everyone would have nukes and Iran would live happily ever after, joyfully and playfully stoning rape victims to death or something.

memphisto · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:42

[TW]Fox said:
Becuase they are unstable regeimes who would likely use them for neferous purposes. For example, Iran have stated they wish to 'wipe Isreal from the map'.

I'm sure in wishy-washy-liberal memphisto land everyone would have nukes and Iran would live happily ever after, joyfully and playfully stoning rape victims to death or something.

thanks for that FOx I was simply interpreting what he said as robmiller didnt seem to get the point. not saying I agreed with it.

but good to see you've got the arguing / debating skills of a yoghurt when somone disagrees with you :rolleyes:

Efour · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:46

robmiller said:
I don't get your point, sorry. Are you saying that, because the people of Iran and DPRK probably don't like their governments, they want to be nuked/invaded?

No im saying we need to protect ourselves from "insert maniac"
and they say
"We need Nukes to protect ourselves from Imperialist America and its Lap dog Allies"

Thats all its going to be their is no other argument - There is no other soloution for nukes "you"(any serious country) have to have them from the day they nuked Japan. End of discussion. Either we all have them or no one does, Cos i promise you for the rest of history, anyone with out them will be secretly, to the best of their abilities acquiring them somehow, OR suckign up to those sides that already do (we should just become the 51st state and let the yanks pay to defend us with theirs, we dont need to buy our own off them or whoever makes them these days)