Push the button? PM's nuclear options.

N17 said:
Odd isn't it, out of 186 countries in the world, have NO nuclear weapons, yet the UK does not have enough money to invest in roads, in things for the vulnerable/disabled/elderly, transport, infrastructure..... Yet we can find money to renew Nuclear Weapons AKA Mass Murder tools at £200billion, yes makes more sense now, especially with a looney whom would press the button and kill millions if she had to
Click to expand...

Hey if Saddam had Trident he would still be running Iraq.
Look how many lives that would have saved.
 
N17 said:
Odd isn't it, out of 186 countries in the world, have NO nuclear weapons, yet the UK does not have enough money to invest in roads, in things for the vulnerable/disabled/elderly, transport, infrastructure..... Yet we can find money to renew Nuclear Weapons AKA Mass Murder tools at £200billion, yes makes more sense now, especially with a looney whom would press the button and kill millions if she had to
Click to expand...

You have a point - those 186 other countries should be thanking the British tax payer.
 
Do nothing. If it comes to that, the "deterrent" has failed so there's no value in murdering hundreds of thousands of people in brutal fashion.
 
Mr Jack said:
Do nothing. If it comes to that, the "deterrent" has failed so there's no value in murdering hundreds of thousands of people in brutal fashion.
Click to expand...

So you would allow that nuclear aggressor to take over all the remaining non nuclear countries unopposed? :eek:
 
N17 said:
Odd isn't it, out of 186 countries in the world, have NO nuclear weapons, yet the UK does not have enough money to invest in roads, in things for the vulnerable/disabled/elderly, transport, infrastructure..... Yet we can find money to renew Nuclear Weapons AKA Mass Murder tools at £200billion, yes makes more sense now, especially with a looney whom would press the button and kill millions if she had to
Click to expand...

So those 186 countries all have better healthcare, social care and infrastructure than the UK then ... oh right they don't because your point is asinine.

Now all of those things may not work as well as we may want for the areas we are particularly interested in but they do work largely better than most other countries across the world. There is investment in all of the areas you mentioned just to the extent you or others or I may want.

The first job of a government is to ensure it's citizens are protected. Nuclear weapons have protected this country for years now. Any reasonable estimate would have indicated the USSR could have burst through the Fulda Gap at will during the 70s and 80s and yet the didn't for two obvious reasons. Firstly, they are not generally an expansionist people and secondly we would have used tactical nukes to stem that attack.
 
n111ck said:
So you would allow that nuclear aggressor to take over all the remaining non nuclear countries unopposed? :eek:
Click to expand...

You can't take over countries by nuking them and if that was your aim then nuking is counter-productive since you devastate the very thing you're trying to claim. Even if your simplistic view was true I'm not sure that murdering millions of innocents really helps.
 
Mr Jack said:
You can't take over countries by nuking them and if that was your aim then nuking is counter-productive since you devastate the very thing you're trying to claim. Even if your simplistic view was true I'm not sure that murdering millions of innocents really helps.
Click to expand...

So if, for example, North Korea was the only country left with nuclear weapons you don't think they would use that against the remaining non nuclear countries to take what they wanted?
 
lafemmefatale said:
Given Faslane isn't that far away from me, I'll be amongst the first to get insta-cooked. Which suits me fine, I'd much rather that than survive a full-scale nuclear exchange.
Click to expand...

I wonder if a foreign aggressor would bother nuking Faslane - most of the unhardened surfaces targets could just as effectively be destroyed with conventional warheads and less of a waste of the potential capabilities of the missiles and the merits of denial of service are a mixed story due to the terrain and distribution of facilities which is probably one of the reasons it was chosen as the site.

Its probably more likely they'd keep nukes to, depending on mission parameters, engage either other military targets or detonate in the middle of a population centre like Glasgow.
 
Mr Jack said:
You can't take over countries by nuking them and if that was your aim then nuking is counter-productive since you devastate the very thing you're trying to claim. Even if your simplistic view was true I'm not sure that murdering millions of innocents really helps.
Click to expand...

Well it may. If one group of absolute crazies (insert any Middle Eastern Muslim country here) decides they want to remove another culture totally (eg Israel) and then nuke them then the chances are there will be pockets of survivors. Now without stating the obvious unless you **** them up back they are going to come and finish the job aren't they. Therefore, if you want your culture to survive you have to make that as difficult as possible for them.

Common sense and ethics would dictate no-one would be mad enough to do this but we all know that the 3 big Abrahamic religions are loaded with people crazy enough to do this. Not only crazy enough but also given a belief they are doing a righteous act.

TBH if I had a nuke that would remove all religion from the planet I'd fire it before finishing this sentence.
 
Rroff said:
I wonder if a foreign aggressor would bother nuking Faslane - most of the unhardened surfaces targets could just as effectively be destroyed with conventional warheads and less of a waste of the potential capabilities of the missiles and the merits of denial of service are a mixed story due to the terrain and distribution of facilities which is probably one of the reasons it was chosen as the site.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Scotland is not worthy of expensive nuclear destruction? SNP not gonna be happy at this blatant discrimination.
 
Meet the Germans at Jutland for round 2. It's on like Kong message via WhatsApp and the "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" message.
 
Rroff said:
I wonder if a foreign aggressor would bother nuking Faslane - most of the unhardened surfaces targets could just as effectively be destroyed with conventional warheads and less of a waste of the potential capabilities of the missiles and the merits of denial of service are a mixed story due to the terrain and distribution of facilities which is probably one of the reasons it was chosen as the site.

Its probably more likely they'd keep nukes to, depending on mission parameters, engage either other military targets or detonate in the middle of a population centre like Glasgow.
Click to expand...

The more pertinent question Rroff is would you have nuked Iceland for taking away the drone assist from carriers? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom