Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF

[Biohazard]

If we don't have nuclear capability there will be no deterrent against others using nuclear weapons against us as we can not retaliate what so ever.

The point is to deter others from using them, unless they want the same or worse back.

Who is going to use these weapons against the UK exactly?

There is plenty deterrent, for the world would be a waste ground if it ever happened. Trust would be gone, safety and wellbeing would be gone. It would be armaggedon. No one would ever stand back, on either side of the divide, and let someone start attacking the other. It would unravel the stalement and unleash an almost unstoppable domino effect.

Anyone seriously putting forward the point that if we did not have these we would be glowing bright green/yellow next year is somewhat missing the point.

We would be at no greater risk now, if x nuked the UK then what is stopping them doing it to France, Europe etc etc. Other countries would probably start a retaliation regardless if we had a nuclear retort or not.

I find all this far too fanciful to take seriously, the only reason we have these is to try to hold a slice of world power.

Politicians can't actually come out and say that, so they make up **** like Saddam and other places in order to set a tone into which we can pretend we need them.

We don't, the UK is not at threat from ICBM warfare.

What good are 13,000 mph nuclear warheads against a man with an AK47 and bomb vest or a 'dirty' shipping container ?

 

[Tefal]

What good are 13,000 mph nuclear warheads against a man with an AK47 or a 'dirty' shipping container?

What good is an APC against a UN resolution?

A permanent seat on the security council is a very valuable asset indeed.

There is more than one threat in the world, and you never know what's coming, it's always wise to have an ace in the hole.

After all 50 years ago who predicted we'd be fighting an insurgency war against IEDs and suicide bombers?

 

[Biohazard]

What good is an APC against a UN resolution?

A permanent seat on the security council is a very valuable asset indeed.

Not quite the point I was making, in terms of the appropriateness of nuclear warefare and what we really face as a threat. UN resolutions are whatever America/Britain make of them anyway.

I agree it is valuable. In the eyes of others, it is now either plainly unfair or now unjustifiable.

Even the US is questioning our postion now, I think the reality needs to set in eventially.

 

[Biohazard]

There is more than one threat in the world, and you never know what's coming, it's always wise to have an ace in the hole.

After all 50 years ago who predicted we'd be fighting an insurgency war against IEDs and suicide bombers?

We don't need an ace in the hole, it is unlikely to ever have to come to anything like launching nuclear weapons.

Britain has faught many insurgency wars over its history, suicidal attacks and bombs are nothing new either.

 

[KatanaDV20]

Its a tough call for sure.

Personally Im just really dissappointed that the European aviation powerhouses (UK, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain etc) didnt put their heads together to create a JSF-type fighter so we could have had a 100% European solution.

Dont tell me we cant do it cuz Europe spat out 3 excellent machines: Rafale, Typhoon & GripenNG.

How JSF will perform against the Russian "superfighters" remains to be seen but I guess thats F-22 territory!

 

[Superficial]

Even the US is questioning our postion now, I think the reality needs to set in eventially.

What? Where have you got this from?

why would our position be in question by anyone? and why any more than France?

 

[Biohazard]

What? Where have you got this from?

why would our position be in question by anyone? and why any more than France?

I read it.

The real next growing power states like Brazil, China, India etc.. while we are in decline. They see an imbalance apparently.

Anyway I agree, France doesn't really need it either that is a paranoid hangover from WWI and II (or, the Germans really) and the soviet era. Neither us nor France are the colonial powers that we were. We cling on to this table of power by way of irrelevant nuclear weapons.

 

[Superficial]

I read it.

Where? or are you making it up as you go?

 

[Biohazard]

Where? or are you making it up as you go?

Got anything else to say or is this it?

I'll go have a look, but I do read an awful lot. I will try to be prompt.

The US aren't the only one's, a lot of the G8/20, and the EU also. Point still stands either and everywhich way.

 

[Superficial]

Got anything else to say or is this it?

I'll go have a look, but I do read an awful lot. I will try to be prompt.

The US aren't the only one's, a lot of the G8/20, and the EU also. Point still stands either and everywhich way.

Ive added plenty to this thread Biohazard.

Ok I'll wait - obviously it will be from a credible source because everything I have read calls for an expansion of the SC and in the far future the *possibility* of the Uk and France being replaced by an EU representative.

 

[Biohazard]

Ive added plenty to this thread Biohazard.

Ok I'll wait - obviously it will be from a credible source because everything I have read calls for an expansion of the SC and in the far future the *possibility* of the Uk and France being replaced by an EU representative.

Somewhat irrelevant but anyway.

It was quite obscure, this is hardly going to be done by way of presidential memo. I'll find it, was quite a while ago and in an obscure article/report but I wouldn't take or read from anywhere non credible. I don't see the point.

As I said, regardless if I can go and furnish you with something to amuse your curiousity, the point still stands. There are plenty places and corners of the world questioning our now over inflated position in world institutions.

 

[Superficial]

Somewhat irrelevant but anyway.

It was quite obscure, this is hardly going to be done by way of presidential memo. I'll find it, was quite a while ago and in an obscure article/report but I wouldn't take or read from anywhere non credible. I don't see the point.

As I said, regardless if I can go and furnish you with something to amuse your curiousity, the point still stands. There are plenty places and corners of the world questioning our now over inflated position in world institutions.

Ahhh.... Thought so.


edit: Just to say I'm not against people posting their opinions - just those proposing them as more than that.

 

[Biohazard]

Ahhh.... Thought so.

What?

You are the one jumping in on a minuate point acting a **** making it out to be something huge. As I said, the point still stands. We are in decline, and a lot of places are now discrediting our right to these positions. Probably quite justifiably.

Sorry I haven't got an index of everything i've read online and in print over the last couple of years!

It was a US select committee of some sorts or something along those lines iirc, but I found it in an article I wouldn't have expected to find it in. I'll look, but I'm not busting my balls for a troll like you.

 

[Superficial]

What?

You are the one jumping in on a minuate point acting a **** making it out to be something huge. As I said, the point still stands. We are in decline, and a lot of places are now discrediting our right to these positions. Probably quite justifiably.

Sorry I haven't got an index of everything i've read online and in print over the last couple of years!

It was a US select committee of some sorts or something along those lines iirc, but I found it in an article I wouldn't have expected to find it in. I'll look, but I'm not busting my balls for a troll like you.

Look Biohazard - It's plainly wrong to make things up or rely on, what you say, which appears to be some obscure article on unknown origin.

Decline compared to whom? who should take our place? Are you suggesting that we are not a moral country on the whole? THAT* is what the Sc is all abou not how much money we have or how many nukes we have.

Edit: * is what its supposed to be about at any rate. I certainly can think of some countries on the Sc that shpuld not be there because they would not necessarily fit into this critera but the Uk is certainly not one of them.

 

[Biohazard]

Look Biohazard - It's plainly wrong to make things up or rely on, what you say, which appears to be some obscure article on unknown origin.

Stop saying I make things up, I'm not insulting you and that's all you've done.. jump in going roflchops your making it up as you go along. Maybe perhaps you dislike what I have got to say generally, and haven't really anything else to tug on?

The article wasn't obscure, finding the quote in it was considering its title.

It isn't plainly wrong to rely on facts you have learned elsewhere that you cannot immediately say where and when you got it. If you took it from a reliable source at the time, why would it be any less now?

"Yes, it was from the main Article on page 7/8 of the Independent's political views supplement on 24/05/2004."

I am not a robot; neither is anyone else. Get off your high horse.

Decline compared to whom? who should take our place? Are you suggesting that we are not a moral country on the whole? THAT is what the Sc is all abou not how much money we have or how many nukes we have.

Moral country?

What are you dribbling about?

I've never said anything like it.

What I am saying is, as is quite obvious, we are economically and in terms of power being overtaken by a lot of G20 countries. They see the power and veto we hold as becoming gradually unfair. Its quite commented on actually.

It is entirely what the argument has progressed to, and is more than appropriate. We don't need them at all.

 

[Superficial]

Stop saying I make things up, I'm not insulting you and that's all you've done.. jump in going roflchops your making it up as you go along. Maybe perhaps you dislike what I have got to say generally, and haven't really anything else to tug on?

The article wasn't obscure, finding the quote in it was considering its title.

It isn't plainly wrong to rely on facts you have learned elsewhere that you cannot immediately say where and when you got it. If you took it from a reliable source at the time, why would it be any less now?

"Yes, it was from the main Article on page 7/8 of the Independent's political views supplement on 24/05/2004."

I am not a robot; neither is anyone else. Get off your high horse.



Moral country?

What are you dribbling about?

I've never said anything like it.

What I am saying is, as is quite obvious, we are economically and in terms of power being overtaken by a lot of G20 countries. They see the power and veto we hold as becoming gradually unfair. Its quite commented on actually.

It is entirely what the argument has progressed to, and is more than appropriate. We don't need them at all.

Oh Biohazard - do you even know what the security Council is for goodness sake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

its concerned with Peace keeping and the sanctioning and blocking of Un sponsored conflicts. Its not about the economy.

Political Views supplement of the Independant? Give me a break - this is in no way, shape or form a pov uttered by the US or ANY country and as such should not be used to justify our removal from the SC.

 

[Biohazard]

Oh Biohazard - do you even know what the security Council is for goodness sake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

its concerned with Peace keeping and the sanctioning and blocking of Un sponsored conflicts. Its not about the economy.

Political Views supplement of the Independant? Give me a break - this is in no way, shape or form a pov uttered by the US or ANY country and as such should not be used to justify our removal from the SC.

Will you ever step down from the grandiose soap box of yours?

Yes, in both terms of the UN security council and IMF etc. So it is both 'peacekeeping' and 'economy'. Both are intertwined anyway.

There are questions raised elsewhere about our UN security seat, and our G7/8/20 membership the IMF etc.

I'm not saying that it came from the Independent, it was just an example. As I said I'll find it again, but I'm in no rush I can't help that you are quite unread.

It was a comment made in a select committee report or something very similar about SC and other spheres iirc, but again you'll have to wait until I find it again so just keep your wee panties in one piece till then. Not exactly going to be Times front page news is it. I was perhaps lazy with 'US' says, I'll accept that, it was a government committee however.

I'm not justifying the removal of our position on the security by way of a single comment/opinion or report as you somehow seem to believe and jump to conclusions again, but a lot of other people are. Including some UK/EU politicians, swathes of the EU, other interested nations and the ecomically growing ones. So again, my point still stands.

 

[Superficial]

Will you ever step down from the grandiose soap box of yours?

Yes, in both terms of the UN security council and IMF etc. So it is both 'peacekeeping' and 'economy'. Both are intertwined anyway.

There are questions raised elsewhere about our UN security seat, and our G7/8/20 membership the IMF etc.

I'm not saying that it came from the Independent, it was just an example. As I said I'll find it again, but I'm in no rush I can't help that you are quite unread.

It was a comment made in a select committee report or something very similar about SC and other spheres iirc, but again you'll have to wait until I find it again so just keep your wee panties in one piece till then. Not exactly going to be Times front page news is it. I was perhaps lazy with 'US' says, I'll accept that, it was a government committee however.

I'm not justifying the removal of our position on the security by way of a single comment/opinion or report as you somehow seem to believe and jump to conclusions again, but a lot of other people are. Including some UK/EU politicians, swathes of the EU, other interested nations and the ecomically growing ones. So again, my point still stands.

you know what - we'll skip ths until you actually provide credible sources to backup your claims

 

[Superficial]

The bottom line here is that the UK is an extremely valuable member of the UN security council and always has been - I do agree however that Germany and Japan should be permanent members.

 

[Biohazard]

you know what - we'll skip ths until you actually provide credible sources to backup your claims

Wrong, it is one claim not claims you are disputing here - at least try to get it right.


Again, why are you so caught up in one aspect of the various components of that point? Obviously the US will identify and accept the decline of the UK as well, what I read was not meant for politcal statement more just acknowledgement of what other nations were saying or complaining - other countries and collectives are growing far bigger and more powerful and that perhaps in future Britain/France etc is going to have to step asside. Rise and fall, and all that.

The bottom line here is that the UK is an extremely valuable member of the UN security council and always has been - I do agree however that Germany and Japan should be permanent members.

Why are we extremely valuable now?