FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The British Nuclear Deterent

The British Nuclear Deterent

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I used to be a member of CND so my question is somewhat loaded (no pun intended!) The cost of the new missile system is estimated to be £25 billion with annual running costs of between £2 and £3 billion. Quite simply do we need this deterent? If we use it its game over in any case. Just we need to save money could this be a big part of that saving?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *etish fun and frolicsCouple over a year ago

Portsmouth

Lets just pretend we have a new one and keep the money....sssshhhhhhhhhh!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I used to be a member of CND so my question is somewhat loaded (no pun intended!) The cost of the new missile system is estimated to be £25 billion with annual running costs of between £2 and £3 billion. Quite simply do we need this deterent? If we use it its game over in any case. Just we need to save money could this be a big part of that saving?"

Cutting the 1 thing that makes the likes of Russia and China think twice about being aggressive?

I dont care how much it costs, they need to stay. History is littered with bad choices made in the false sense of security.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Cutting the 1 thing that makes the likes of Russia and China think twice about being aggressive?

I dont care how much it costs, they need to stay. History is littered with bad choices made in the false sense of security."
Good point well made but if we use the sanction is that not too late? If Iran develops a thermonuclear device will Trident make us safe? I think we are a small islandthat is punching above its weight and the money should be spent on social projects like the Dutch, Danes and Swedes et al who have a significantly higher standard of living that us in GB.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *emmefataleWoman over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville

beanz meanz heinz is the answer

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"beanz meanz heinz is the answer

"
Or candles are good in dorms.........nuclear candles that is!!!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *emmefataleWoman over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville

"beanz meanz heinz is the answer

Or candles are good in dorms.........nuclear candles that is!!!"
light the blue touch paper....

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Well firstly never believe a cost estimate from the MOD. They are more fanciful than some profiles on Fabs ...

Yes we do need it and we hope because we have it it will never be used. Mutually Assured Destruction is a very persuasive argument regardless of your religious or idealogical background. Ask Russia.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Good point well made but if we use the sanction is that not too late? If Iran develops a thermonuclear device will Trident make us safe? I think we are a small islandthat is punching above its weight and the money should be spent on social projects like the Dutch, Danes and Swedes et al who have a significantly higher standard of living that us in GB."

£25 billion is nothing compared to government waste, red tape and the EU blackhole that is consuming ever more of our money.

Whilst those countries maintain a healthy infrastructure, we are not those countries.

I agree the use of nuclear weapons is an end game scenario but the fact it is a deterrent is a good enough reason to keep it. You cannot predict the future but you can look into the past and say "never again".

Without nuclear weapons the armies of the world would not be kept in check.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Good point well made but if we use the sanction is that not too late? If Iran develops a thermonuclear device will Trident make us safe? I think we are a small islandthat is punching above its weight and the money should be spent on social projects like the Dutch, Danes and Swedes et al who have a significantly higher standard of living that us in GB."

How is the UK punching above it's weight? A small island we may be but we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and we're also founding members of NATO. We're hardly small fry.

As for nuclear deterents, it is folly to believe that because one's enemy suggests that he'll disarm if we do that he will actually disarm once we have. Nuclear weapons are an insurance but, as with most insurances, you never need it until you need it, by which time it's probably too late to have it. But to not have it in the first place leaves one wide open to anyone in a stronger position to take advantage of your weakness - in this case, the inability to defend our country from the threat of attack.

Scrapping the NHS will pay for a new set of Tridents.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Better safe than sorry.... The money could be better spent elsewhere... But it's a nessacery evil

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Better safe than sorry.... The money could be better spent elsewhere... But it's a nessacery evil"
sad but so true mate

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Better safe than sorry.... The money could be better spent elsewhere... But it's a nessacery evil"

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uttyMan over a year ago

Local to you maybe

"Better safe than sorry.... The money could be better spent elsewhere... But it's a nessacery evilsad but so true mate

This should be attached to the bareback thread

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What a world we live in where certain death and total annihilation is the only form of security .....

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *iewMan over a year ago
Forum Mod

Angus & Findhorn

more germ warfare than nuclear will be our end

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What a world we live in where certain death and total annihilation is the only form of security ....."

There is nothing more certain than death but we can sort of make sure we delay the event a while longer ..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I tend to disagree.... It's too hard to controll... Look at te Japanese ricin attacks, was too hard to assert huge damage. It's te long way round... Nuclear attack is a short sharp kick in the pants

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

A total waste of money, of course.

£2-£3bn a year to supposedly protect our nation. On the other hand, Cameron proposes removing housing benefit for under 25s, at a stroke destroying social mobility in the UK and t he job prospects of a generation.

With the Tories in charge, any country who wanted to invade us would honestly be doing us a favour. At least we'd be under attack from foreign nationals, rather than our own people.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A total waste of money, of course.

With the Tories in charge, any country who wanted to invade us would honestly be doing us a favour. At least we'd be under attack from foreign nationals, rather than our own people."

Wondered how soon the Lefties would invade this Thread and have a pop at us Tories.....

Correction needed: Cameron has floated an idea for discussion and consultation and nothing more than that. And many think there is merit in it especially as he has also stated there would always be safeguards for those in genuine need.

Personally I wouldn't give a council flat to some girl who got herself pregnant. Thats her problem along with the father and their parents. Its not MY problem as a taxpayer.

And if someone CHOOSES to leave home and then asks for a flat I'd say 'go back home, get a job and pay for one'. Like I had to do.

Someone who has not got a home, been in care or is just homeless will always be cared for by these proposals.

Now back to Mutually Assured Destruction... AKA The Labour Party

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A total waste of money, of course.

Well said... No one helped me when I bought my own home at 18 yrs old.....

With the Tories in charge, any country who wanted to invade us would honestly be doing us a favour. At least we'd be under attack from foreign nationals, rather than our own people.

Wondered how soon the Lefties would invade this Thread and have a pop at us Tories.....

Personally I wouldn't give a council flat to some girl who got herself pregnant. Thats her problem along with the father and their parents. Its not MY problem as a taxpayer.

And if someone CHOOSES to leave home and then asks for a flat I'd say 'go back home, get a job and pay for one'. Like I had to do.

Someone who has not got a home, been in care or is just homeless will always be cared for by these proposals.

Now back to Mutually Assured Destruction... AKA The Labour Party

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A total waste of money, of course.

Well said... No one helped me when I bought my own home at 18 yrs old.....

With the Tories in charge, any country who wanted to invade us would honestly be doing us a favour. At least we'd be under attack from foreign nationals, rather than our own people.

Wondered how soon the Lefties would invade this Thread and have a pop at us Tories.....

Personally I wouldn't give a council flat to some girl who got herself pregnant. Thats her problem along with the father and their parents. Its not MY problem as a taxpayer.

And if someone CHOOSES to leave home and then asks for a flat I'd say 'go back home, get a job and pay for one'. Like I had to do.

Someone who has not got a home, been in care or is just homeless will always be cared for by these proposals.

Now back to Mutually Assured Destruction... AKA The Labour Party

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I am sure I just said that ..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

Well firstly never believe a cost estimate from the MOD. They are more fanciful than some profiles on Fabs ...

Yes we do need it and we hope because we have it it will never be used. Mutually Assured Destruction is a very persuasive argument regardless of your religious or idealogical background. Ask Russia."

Why ask Russia? there is only one country in the world that has ever used them (twice)and the same country have been on the point of using them 3 times since WW2 and even talked of using tactical nuclear weapons in Europe to which Russia stated if even one small one is fired then it would be all out.

Which country do you believe would go first I know who my money is on and its not Russia.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"A total waste of money, of course.

With the Tories in charge, any country who wanted to invade us would honestly be doing us a favour. At least we'd be under attack from foreign nationals, rather than our own people.

Wondered how soon the Lefties would invade this Thread and have a pop at us Tories.....

Personally I wouldn't give a council flat to some girl who got herself pregnant. Thats her problem along with the father and their parents. Its not MY problem as a taxpayer.

And if someone CHOOSES to leave home and then asks for a flat I'd say 'go back home, get a job and pay for one'. Like I had to do.

Someone who has not got a home, been in care or is just homeless will always be cared for by these proposals.

Now back to Mutually Assured Destruction... AKA The Labour Party

Like most Tories, you are clearly unaware that well over 90% of people in receipt of housing benefits have jobs -otherwise you'd be embarrassed to come up with the ridiculous hypotheses that you did.

Still, carry on letting Tory lies justify your own prejudices. It's very telling that you presume someone left wing would support the Labour party! They're as bad as the Tories, or the Lib Dems for that matter.

Putting it simply, anyone who believes in the ideology of any major party is a fool, nothing more, nothing less.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

I totaly agree edwalu there are some on here who can see no wrong in anything the Tories do and everything Labour has ever done is wrong to my mind these people cant think for themselves or they would at least come up with some semblance of logic and no I am not a Labour supporter as said there are none of them you can trust.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My money's on china or Korea .... But 90% of housing benefit Recipients are working? Really ? Eyes opened up now.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

china,russia,iran,pakistan all best buddys,piss in the same pot.the yanks,brits,israil and some other U.N countrys dont like the above keep telling us all to fuck off.all the above countrays armys,air force,navy, soldiers are all pracitcing WAR GAMES!!! at see,on land and in the air.weapons and soldiers are being deployed to other U.N countrys very close to some of the above countrys,the question is why?.one or two things is going to happen,iran will bomb israil,or israil will bomb iran and that will be the start of WW3,but the thing that gets me is, all the above countrys stand to gain nothing BUT could loose everything in the prosses,a few nukes can wipe an entire country off the face of this earth.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I totaly agree edwalu there are some on here who can see no wrong in anything the Tories do and everything Labour has ever done is wrong to my mind these people cant think for themselves or they would at least come up with some semblance of logic and no I am not a Labour supporter as said there are none of them you can trust."

Thank you for your wrongly assuming I can't think for myself.

This is a Thread about Nuclear Deterrents but edwalu chose to bring in a totally unconnected and unfounded anti Tory comment. With which I disagreed, gave reasons why and added what I (personally) would do.

For the record I don't agree with everything this Government is doing and I do give credit to some of the things the last Labour government did. But I am entitled to defend the leader of the party I support when an unfounded criticism is made.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"china,russia,iran,pakistan all best buddys,piss in the same pot.the yanks,brits,israil and some other U.N countrys dont like the above keep telling us all to fuck off.all the above countrays armys,air force,navy, soldiers are all pracitcing WAR GAMES!!! at see,on land and in the air.weapons and soldiers are being deployed to other U.N countrys very close to some of the

above countrys,the question is

why?.one or two things is going to

happen,iran will bomb israil,or israil will

bomb iran and that will be the start of

WW3,but the thing that gets me is, all

the above countrys stand to gain

nothing BUT could loose everything in

the prosses,a few nukes can wipe an

entire country off the face of this earth.

Here here... And they kick puppy's and pull kittens ears. Only ever be one more world war... Next one after that will be fought with sticks n stones when amoebas have re- evolved into humans

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Like most Tories, you are clearly unaware that well over 90% of people in receipt of housing benefits have jobs -otherwise you'd be embarrassed to come up with the ridiculous hypotheses that you did.

Putting it simply, anyone who believes in the ideology of any major party is a fool, nothing more, nothing less."

90% of a benefit goes to those in jobs eh? Care to give us a link where that can be checked or is this another unfounded comment?

Blimey so you are left wing but don't support the Labour or Lib Dem parties? Puts you somewhere near the Communists then ?

So my having Conservative political beliefs is a lie led prejudice while your (apparently) Communist beliefs are not? Ok I got that!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Like most Tories, you are clearly unaware that well over 90% of people in receipt of housing benefits have jobs -otherwise you'd be embarrassed to come up with the ridiculous hypotheses that you did.

Still, carry on letting Tory lies justify your own prejudices. It's very telling that

you presume someone left wing would

support the Labour party! They're as bad as the Tories, or the Lib Dems for that matter.

Putting it simply, anyone who believes in the ideology of any major party is a fool, nothing more, nothing less.

90% of a benefit goes to those in jobs eh? Care to give us a link where that can be checked or is this another unfounded comment?

Blimey so you are left wing but don't support the Labour or Lib Dem parties? Puts you somewhere near the Communists then ?

So my having Conservative political beliefs is a lie led prejudice while your (apparently) Communist beliefs are not? Ok I got that!

See I don't understand that either? 90% that seems high... Being on the dole is not a job now is it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *its The Spot AlotMan over a year ago

Plymouth

Lets face it we all love a good war!!

If you think getting rid of our missles will help stop it your crazy !!

We like every country that hasnt got them will be destroyed just the same.

I say keep them and atleast we will be one of the last to be messed with.

Funny how its the woolly people saying they dont want them but dont go living in countries that are costantly fighting conventionally?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

Like most Tories, you are clearly unaware that well over 90% of people in receipt of housing benefits have jobs -otherwise you'd be embarrassed to come up with the ridiculous hypotheses that you did.

Putting it simply, anyone who believes in the ideology of any major party is a fool, nothing more, nothing less.

90% of a benefit goes to those in jobs eh? Care to give us a link where that can be checked or is this another unfounded comment?

Blimey so you are left wing but don't support the Labour or Lib Dem parties? Puts you somewhere near the Communists then ?

So my having Conservative political beliefs is a lie led prejudice while your (apparently) Communist beliefs are not? Ok I got that!

Fill your boots: http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/previous_years/2010/june_2010/housing_benefit_warning

The pertinent bit? '‘The vast majority of housing benefit claimants are either pensioners, disabled people, those caring for a relative or hardworking people on low incomes, and only 1 in 8 people who receive housing benefit is unemployed.'

So...one in eight people. Chopping the legs off under 25 year olds will certainly solve that!

If you do a bit more research, you'll find that 93% of new claims in 2010/11 are from people in employment.

As for the rest of your post, it's too silly to comment on I'm afraid.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

Like most Tories, you are clearly unaware that well over 90% of people in receipt of housing benefits have jobs -otherwise you'd be embarrassed to come up with the ridiculous hypotheses that you did.

Putting it simply, anyone who believes in the ideology of any major party is a fool, nothing more, nothing less.

90% of a benefit goes to those in jobs eh? Care to give us a link where that can be checked or is this another unfounded comment?

Blimey so you are left wing but don't support the Labour or Lib Dem parties? Puts you somewhere near the Communists then ?

So my having Conservative political beliefs is a lie led prejudice while your (apparently) Communist beliefs are not? Ok I got that!

Speaking of unfounded comments twice in the past you were going to give me a link to information/staistics you used to support your comment I am still waiting and its so long ago that I cant even remmember what it was except it was political of course.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Fill your boots: http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/previous_years/2010/june_2010/housing_benefit_warning

So...one in eight people. Chopping the legs off under 25 year olds will certainly solve that!

If you do a bit more research, you'll find that 93% of new claims in 2010/11 are from people in employment.

As for the rest of your post, it's too silly to comment on I'm afraid."

Well your link didn't work but I did find it. And yes it does indeed say what you say it does. But it was a very carefully selected quote from the 'Survey of English Housing 2007/08'.

What it doesn't say is '90% of (this) benefit go to employed people' which is the bit I challenged. It says 1 in 8 (or 12.5%) are unemployed and the rest are Pensioners, Carers or those on low income employment which is not the same thing at all.

Its a bit out of date plus the topic was Housing Benefit changes proposed by George Osbourne under his Budget last year? Nothing to do with under 25s at all and couldn't be as this was some 5 years ago and before Cameron's speech!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

erm ..so you criticise me for not doing something that you can't recall what it was I was supposed to do. But it was definitely, without a shadow of a doubt...'political'

Selective Amnesia or just a general punt at a Tory?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *kin BohnerMan over a year ago

derby

Bring back the cold war... I had a blast stationed in Germany back in the 80's. All gone now, sadly.

But seriously, do we really need to spend all that money on a weapon system that will never be used! The whole world has changed since the cold war and the threat is no longer nuclear so the need for a nuclear deterrent is no longer there.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

erm ..so you criticise me for not doing something that you can't recall what it was I was supposed to do. But it was definitely, without a shadow of a doubt...'political'

Selective Amnesia or just a general punt at a Tory?

I cant remember the subject but do know it was political I am sure you will remember as you were going to give me a link.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

erm ..so you criticise me for not doing something that you can't recall what it was I was supposed to do. But it was definitely, without a shadow of a doubt...'political'

Selective Amnesia or just a general punt at a Tory?

I cant remember the subject but do know it was political I am sure you will remember as you were going to give me a link."

Way over my head and not sure what its got to do with Nuclear Deterrents ..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

Fill your boots: http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/previous_years/2010/june_2010/housing_benefit_warning

So...one in eight people. Chopping the legs off under 25 year olds will certainly solve that!

If you do a bit more research, you'll find that 93% of new claims in 2010/11 are from people in employment.

As for the rest of your post, it's too silly to comment on I'm afraid.

Well your link didn't work but I did find it. And yes it does indeed say what you say it does. But it was a very carefully selected quote from the 'Survey of English Housing 2007/08'.

Why does it need to refer to Cameron's speech? The facts are the facts, that Cameron is trying to present an ideological attack on the young as some way of dealing with a problem that doesn't exist anywhere other than in the minds of people like him, and consequently you, is the issue.

As I said, do your own research, you'll find that the figures I quoted are correct. It's best to rely on your own intelligence in these matters, rather than dogmatically following the squawks of others, even if they are the 'leader' of a party that you support.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Forgive me but you started this political debate as follows:

"£2-£3bn a year to supposedly protect our nation. On the other hand, Cameron proposes removing housing benefit for under 25s, at a stroke destroying social mobility in the UK and t he job prospects of a generation."

So this has everything to do with Cameron's speech and your unnecessary attack on it and by inference my political beliefs. And all you produce is a Shelter briefing concerning a Budget proposal 2 years ago, referring to a report some 5 years old now and which bears no resemblance to your claim that '90% of Housing Benefit goes to employed people'.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *leasureDomeMan over a year ago

all over the place

"Bring back the cold war... I had a blast stationed in Germany back in the 80's. All gone now, sadly.

Yep totally agree with you how can you ever use trident ,have the "my weapons bigger than yours" gang forgotten Chernobyl already ,you cant control the direction of the wind.

The yanks have upgraded there assessments and now say the new nuclear threat is from an indiscriminate conventional dirty bomb in a large city,so if that happens ,who we gonna fire the mighty trident at...everyone ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Cutting the 1 thing that makes the likes of Russia and China think twice about being aggressive?

I dont care how much it costs, they need to stay. History is littered with bad choices made in the false sense of security."

British history abounds with people who overestimate Britain's power and know little about other countries. Neither Russia nor China would be deterred from attacking this tiny little island in the North Atlantic if they wanted to by the fact that we have a handful of nuclear weapons . Their arsenals are massive and as for their armed forces, China has a standing army of over a million and that does not include their airforce and navy.

The deterrent argument cannot be sustained.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Lets face it we all love a good war!!

If you think getting rid of our missles will help stop it your crazy !!

We like every country that hasnt got them will be destroyed just the same.

I say keep them and atleast we will be one of the last to be messed with.

Funny how its the woolly people saying they dont want them but dont go living in countries that are costantly fighting conventionally?"

Britain is a tiny little island in the North Atlantic with so little political and military clout that it couldn't even bully Myanmar into accepting its aid workers on the terms it wanted rather than on the terms Myanmar insisted upon and got. No matter whether or not it has a handful of nuclear weapons it wouldn't stand a chance against Russia, never mind China.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

How is the UK punching above it's weight? A small island we may be but we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and we're also founding members of NATO. We're hardly small fry.

Scrapping the NHS will pay for a new set of Tridents.

Perhaps you should read one of my other posts on this thread. The British Government, like so many of its subjects cannot get it into their heads that Britain ceased being a superpower long ago. Witness what happened re Myanmar. The British Government imperiously demanded that their aid workers be sent in under their terms. Myanmar refused knowing full well that Britain didn't have the power to do anything about it and the British Government had to ignominiously back down and accept Myanmar's terms.

Russia, never mind China, could swat Britain with its handful of nuclear weapons and its tiny armed forces like a fly. And as that American general wrote, even America couldn't possibly win a war against China.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What a world we live in where certain death and total annihilation is the only form of security ....."

Well said, that man!!!!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

*Germany...Independent nuclear deterrent i meant to say

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

Utterly obscene.

Completely hyprocritcal.

These little islands - these broke little islands - neither need nor can afford weapons of mass destruction.

They are obselete anyway.

It's puffed up generals and bathtub commanders who still believe Britain is a global power. It aint.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive"

Well yes I am sure there is an ego thing mixed in there somewhere but any country, no matter how big, would not want to risk a massive Nuclear blast on their own people in reaction to something they did. And thats how it works now and has done since WWII rather successfully if rather expensively.

Doesn't matter about Army sizes its a Naval power and because it is sub surface it has multiplied the deterrent effect as its all but invisible. Take a smaller example: In the Falklands War we had 3 subs down there long before the Task Force arrived. One sank the Belgrano and as the Argies never knew where the rest were they kept their Navy in ports. 3 subs kept a whole Navy at bay.

Germany was forbidden from going Nuclear and in return NATO gave Germany the nuclear cover it needed.

ANd fuck yes its expensive ...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Doesn't matter about Army sizes its a Naval power and because it is sub surface it has multiplied the deterrent effect as its all but invisible. Take a smaller example: In the Falklands War we had 3 subs down there long before the Task Force arrived. One sank the Belgrano and as the Argies never knew where the rest were they kept their Navy in ports. 3 subs kept a whole Navy at bay.

Germany was forbidden from going Nuclear and in return NATO gave Germany the nuclear cover it needed.

ANd fuck yes its expensive ..."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive"

We have a seat on the Security Council - a permanent seat - because we are a nuclear power. If we get rid of our nukes the UN would simply look at us in the same light as Sweden, or Holland, or Finland and tell us to fuck off in matters of UN security.

We keep our seat because it's important we sit at the world's top table protecting British interests whenever someone thinks we're now too small to protect ourselves.

It's worth remembering that we've had a lot of wars with a lot of countries and we've made some enemies along the way. Our alliance to America makes us a target too and without a deterrent - and a seat on the UN Sec Council - we'd be a soft target and reliant upon the Americans to help us out, and we had a war with them too don't forget. Special Friendship status means fuck all to the Yanks if there's nothing in it for them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *leasureDomeMan over a year ago

all over the place

"It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive

Germany was forbidden from going Nuclear and in return NATO gave Germany the nuclear cover it needed.

ANd fuck yes its expensive ..."

a nuke is a nuke we already have 34 we dare not use ,why have new ones if its only a deterrent.If "sub surface dont know where they are delivery platforms"are effective and if deterrence is the only motive .why not beef up the existing fleet or do as the yanks are planning and move to airborne unmanned delivery ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive

We keep our seat because it's important we sit at the world's top table protecting British interests whenever someone thinks we're now too small to protect ourselves.

To be honest i personally see us more along the lines of Holland,Finland and Sweden as opposed to the US Russia and China. That's no bad thing.

As for protecting ourselves we have Nato and The UN to look after our interests,whether we have a seat at the top table or not.

If there ever is a nuclear war our little contribution will be a damp squib if they work at all.

If the Chinese can do what they do with fireworks fuck knows what they can do with ICBM's

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"a nuke is a nuke we already have 34 we dare not use ,why have new ones if its only a deterrent.If "sub surface dont know where they are delivery platforms"are effective and if deterrence is the only motive .why not beef up the existing fleet or do as the yanks are planning and move to airborne unmanned delivery ?

A country 800 miles long by 100 miles wide is not a very big place to hide a static drone nuke launch base. The US has so much more territory to site their bases and then they have 3,000 miles of ocean either side of it that says, "Attack us if you like but we'll shoot you down long before you get here."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

All the other nations will be lobbing missiles about while we'll have some prick with a clipboard doing a risk assessment

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Special Friendship status means fuck all to the Yanks if there's nothing in it for them."

I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of the Special Relationship. Have a look at the clips in YouTube where ordinary Americans welcome British troops over there for training or especially when the war wounded go over there on reciprocal visits.. its pretty much lump in the throat moments.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"All the other nations will be lobbing missiles about while we'll have some prick with a clipboard doing a risk assessment "

hehe so love that

And making sure Minorities are represented in the target areas ..

And making sure there is a black / Gay Lesbian woman's finger on the 'Fire' button as well?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Special Friendship status means fuck all to the Yanks if there's nothing in it for them.

I'm sure the average GI believes he has a special relationship with his Brit counterpart but on a political level that relationship is only upheld when American presidents think it profitable to do so.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Special Friendship status means fuck all to the Yanks if there's nothing in it for them.

Indeed so. And Obama thought just like that until his advisers told him to rethink bunging Churchill out the Oval Office...

Hence the State visit to UK after his G20 visit and invitation to Cameron. Politically we are still important...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive

Germany was forbidden from going Nuclear and in return NATO gave Germany the nuclear cover it needed.

ANd fuck yes its expensive ...

"
34 nukes???? we have a few more than that,thank fuck.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *john121Man over a year ago

staffs

Perhaps if you think of those countries who have them leaving Russia out and those who aspire to have them then tell me should we...

Of course we should

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Rot. An Aircraft Carrier with good systems is a far more potent force in the world than a submarine with Nuculear weponry.

We would be able to use an Aircraft Carrier independently of the US or EU, whereas we would never use a replacement for Trident without their agreement or permision.........

I wouldn't say we should use the money for social projects (though I would prefer it) but there are far more effective uses for the money within the Defence Budget..........

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Ref earlier post hope this is of interest:

http://youtu.be/otExCEHr73g

and:

http://youtu.be/dKv3kfQodMo

Put up by Americans I might add, And take time to read the posts underneath.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"All the other nations will be lobbing missiles about while we'll have some prick with a clipboard doing a risk assessment "
That being the case! don't think any of us will be around to worry including the "prick with the clipboard doing a risk assessment"

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Rot. An Aircraft Carrier with good systems is a far more potent force in the world than a submarine with Nuculear weponry.

We would be able to use an Aircraft Carrier independently of the US or EU, whereas we would never use a replacement for Trident without their agreement or permision.........

I wouldn't say we should use the money for social projects (though I would prefer it) but there are far more effective uses for the money within the Defence Budget.........."
a aircraft carrier is just that

it does not hunt subs

,subs hunt ships,other subs and big easy to hit aircraft carriers,my bet is on subs

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *teborahCouple over a year ago

warrington

"It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive

We keep our seat because it's important we sit at the world's top table protecting British interests whenever someone thinks we're now too small to protect ourselves.

As far as the yanks are concerned the UK is just one convenient big aircraft carrier positioned perfectly off the coast of Europe. always has been and always will be. If the UK was positioned lets say in the middle of the south atlantic do you still think we would have that "Special Relationship" with them??? like fuck we would!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As far as the yanks are concerned the UK is just one convenient big aircraft carrier positioned perfectly off the coast of Europe. always has been and always will be. If the UK was positioned lets say in the middle of the south atlantic do you still think we would have that "Special Relationship" with them??? like fuck we would!

As evidenced by their refusal to assist when we were/are at loggerheads with Argentina.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As evidenced by their refusal to assist when we were/are at loggerheads with Argentina."
wishy well said

the yanks armed,and trained the argies,thats friends for you

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As long as we can take out the warheads and blast some tories off into a low earth orbit in some... sounds like a result to me.

Not that I'm keen on space pollution

Wolf

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As evidenced by their refusal to assist when we were/are at loggerheads with Argentina.wishy well said

the yanks armed,and trained the argies,thats friends for you

They also didn't stop Noraid money getting to the IRA until they'd experienced terrorism first hand in one of their own cities. (Oklahoma)

And then, when aircraft are flown into three of their most famous buildings, the US set about embroiling as many countries that they could in a 'war on terrorism'. Who's war? It wasn't our fookin war but Blair wanted to cosy up with Bush have have a love-in at the White House, and Bush needed us to back him up so he could appease an outraged American public, so the Special Relationship came into play and the rest is history.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As long as we can take out the warheads and blast some tories off into a low earth orbit in some... sounds like a result to me.

Not that I'm keen on space pollution

Wolf

It'd never happen cos it would take a Labour supporter to press the button and a) he'd have to know how, b) he'd have to do a full risk assessment in case he breaks his finger, and c) he'd be too busy trying to figure out who he is.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As long as we can take out the warheads and blast some tories off into a low earth orbit in some... sounds like a result to me.

Not that I'm keen on space pollution

Wolf

How very intelligent ... Pity Labour didn't leave you any money to do that.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *teborahCouple over a year ago

warrington

"It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive

Germany was forbidden from going Nuclear and in return NATO gave Germany the nuclear cover it needed.

ANd fuck yes its expensive ...

34 nukes???? we have a few more than that,thank fuck.

Do you have any idea how many of our subs at present are fucked sat in various ports around the world waiting to get fixed? even our newest "White Elephant" the HMS Astute is still not operational even after 3 years after being handed over to the Royal Navy

and is also widely believed to all that sail in her to be jinxed as it up to date has a catalogue of major disasters already including a murder and attempted murder

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

How is the UK punching above it's weight? A small island we may be but we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and we're also founding members of NATO. We're hardly small fry.

Scrapping the NHS will pay for a new set of Tridents.

"
Can I ask why The Dutch, Swedes, Danes and Norway do not feel the need to have such protection. Incidentally they have a better health service than ours!! We are contrantly told by Mr Cameron and Clegg we cannot afford new schools hospitals and bobbies on the beat but a bunch of WMD are fine to possess? I just cannot see the need. If the septics want to play at Dr No let them. A Mail reader perhaps?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"A total waste of money, of course.

With the Tories in charge, any country who wanted to invade us would honestly be doing us a favour. At least we'd be under attack from foreign nationals, rather than our own people."
You should run for election...well said!!!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Cutting the 1 thing that makes the likes of Russia and China think twice about being aggressive?

I dont care how much it costs, they need to stay. History is littered with bad choices made in the false sense of security.

The deterrent argument cannot be sustained. The threat is from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran and maybe Israel could fall into that category. China, Russia the US et al have no [political]reason to unleash theit nuclear arsenals as the all operate the same economic system whereby 3% 0r the population own 80% of the wealth. So the world spends over a trillion dollars on kit that will not be used and if it is we are all toast. I blame CeeBeBeeies and the left wing BBC!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Can I ask why The Dutch, Swedes, Danes and Norway do not feel the need to have such protection. Incidentally they have a better health service than ours!! We are contrantly told by Mr Cameron and Clegg we cannot afford new schools hospitals and bobbies on the beat but a bunch of WMD are fine to possess? I just cannot see the need. If the septics want to play at Dr No let them. A Mail reader perhaps?"

The Dutch, Swedes, Danes et al have not made as many enemies as we have over the years. You've only got to look at Argentina to see how people with a grudge against the UK can spot a chink in our armour and try and open it up. The fault for Britain's colonial past can't be laid at the feet of anyone alive in the UK today, the world was a different place back then and naval power made a country a dominant force, but we are reaping what our ancestors sewed back then and we have to protect ourselves against the possibility of any threat, real or otherwise. Or should we just give up our arms and wait for someone to give us a bloody nose before we realise that the Americans aren't going to assist and that we should have kept our own method of deterring others from thinking they can push us around.

A pacifist is a capitualist.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

How is the UK punching above it's weight? A small island we may be but we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and we're also founding members of NATO. We're hardly small fry.

Scrapping the NHS will pay for a new set of Tridents.

"
Now you should definately run for election to the FAB party. !!!!!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

how did a topic about bombs get to benifit, the fab forums amaze me

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"even our newest "White Elephant" the HMS Astute is still not operational even after 3 years after being handed over to the Royal Navy

and is also widely believed to all that sail in her to be jinxed as it up to date has a catalogue of major disasters already including a murder and attempted murder

So you want to base the defence of our country on superstition? Gee, I'll sleep safe tonight.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive

Germany was forbidden from going Nuclear and in return NATO gave Germany the nuclear cover it needed.

ANd fuck yes its expensive ..."
Explain to me why we can afford WMD but soliders in Helmand province do not get the required kit? I will tell you .....big business and backers of the Tory party. I just wish people would understand its economics for the few. The heros in Helmand province need night vision goggles not a nuclear war head.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"It's not a deterrent,it's 'look at us we're a superpower'

It's fanciful to believe it would stop someone attacking us if they wanted to. As long as they don't use theirs against us we won't use ours. How big is our army compared to some other countries?

Germany don't have a nuclear deterrent,why should we?

And fuck its expensive

We keep our seat because it's important we sit at the world's top table protecting British interests whenever someone thinks we're now too small to protect ourselves.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Explain to me why we can afford WMD but soliders in Helmand province do not get the required kit? I will tell you .....big business and backers of the Tory party. I just wish people would understand its economics for the few. The heros in Helmand province need night vision goggles not a nuclear war head."

Go out to Helmand yourself and see what kit our lads are lacking. They don't need mobile McDonald's but they do have everythbing they need to get the job done, and I have that from my bro-in-law who is RSM for his regiment and has been out there several times. Sure he's lost friends out there but when I spoke to him about what was being reported in the press (re lack of kit etc) he said, "Don't believe everything you read. If we had all the kit the press say we need we wouldn't be able to walk in it let alone fight."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

" Can I ask why The Dutch, Swedes, Danes and Norway do not feel the need to have such protection. Incidentally they have a better health service than ours!! We are contrantly told by Mr Cameron and Clegg we cannot afford new schools hospitals and bobbies on the beat but a bunch of WMD are fine to possess? I just cannot see the need. If the septics want to play at Dr No let them. A Mail reader perhaps?

A pacifist is a capitualist."
Its the Beano ........its has to be! Captiulation is when you roll over and die If anybody tried to tell me what I could or couldnt say I would, if necessary, use force to protect my rights as my father did in the last war.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Germany..................it could pay off the European debt in a heart beat! Point proven"

Why should it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If anybody tried to tell me what I could or couldnt say I would, if necessary, use force to protect my rights as my father did in the last war. "

Do you actually know what side of the spectrum your politics lie? You seem to contradict yourself.

If another country decided to invade us (because the pacifists had surrendered our nuclear arsenal) and then set about telling you that you could no longer speak freely about anything they didn't like, you would use force.

How is that different from using a much deadlier force to prevent them attacking us in the first place?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Germany..................it could pay off the European debt in a heart beat! Point proven

Why should it?

Since 1948 GB has spent 8 trillion pounds on its Nuclear Deterent. Do the maths they have the capacity to do so. My brother purchased a set of night vision goggles as they are not standard issue in the AGH theatre but what he really needs is a thermonuclear purchased from an American company as the next time he is in the dark it will help him!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Explain to me why we can afford WMD but soliders in Helmand province do not get the required kit? I will tell you .....big business and backers of the Tory party. I just wish people would understand its economics for the few. The heros in Helmand province need night vision goggles not a nuclear war head."

Oh dear oh dear here we go again! Labour fails to give the kit that is required over 2 wars and 13 years yet its the Tory backers that are to blame. Labour punched a £35m black hole in MOD funding causing some very nasty decisions (like scrapping Harriers) to be made and now the books are balanced. One of the first things Fox did as incoming Secretary was to have all Defence chiefs sign off on what if anything was required. And then he gave them everything they said they needed.

The lads in Helmand have night vision goggles and everything else they need. Maybe if you knew someone who has been there you would realise you are talking party political nonsense.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Germany..................it could pay off the European debt in a heart beat! Point proven

Why should it?

You're talking in riddles. You've gone from Germany paying of a European debt (didn't know there was a collective European debt) to 1948 to night vision goggles to dodgy thermonuclear devices (in a suitcase probably) from ... the Americans?

Do you want to introduce hamburgers armed with flick hammers too?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

" Explain to me why we can afford WMD but soliders in Helmand province do not get the required kit? I will tell you .....big business and backers of the Tory party. I just wish people would understand its economics for the few. The heros in Helmand province need night vision goggles not a nuclear war head.

The lads in Helmand have night vision goggles and everything else they need. Maybe if you knew someone who has been there you would realise you are talking party political nonsense. "
I have no political point to make. Its one of economics but you are incorrect on the night vision goggles point I can, really asure you on that point. The first thing Dr Fox did was to employ his mate as a special advisor to the MOD but he neglected to tell the cabinet sectretary that is why he is holding daily MP surgieries in his safe seat! Now if you have a point to make then please be factual.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"... My brother purchased a set of night vision goggles as they are not standard issue in the AGH theatre..."

OK our posts crossed and you do know somneone who has been there so apologies for that.

Except if they aren't standard issue then the Army thinks they aren't needed for the Ops being undertaken. If they were needed then they would be supplied.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Hello there - simple ending to this whole discussion Read History - same mistakes were made 1920-38 and then a mad scramble to sort out the mess left by various governments Lib's and Lab to find some means to defend a country without arms.

It is easy to blame the party in government now, when the issue to go to war without equipment was made by a ex PM, who wants to return either as Big Boss of Europe or as PM.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Hello there - simple ending to this whole discussion Read History - same mistakes were made 1920-38 and then a mad scramble to sort out the mess left by various governments Lib's and Lab to find some means to defend a country without arms.

It is easy to blame the party in government now, when the issue to go to war without equipment was made by a ex PM, who wants to return either as Big Boss of Europe or as PM.

Tony B Liar is/was the worse thing to ever happen to this country. He's the biggest crook of them all and I hope the Treasury goes after him and his dodgy Middle East company he channels his many millions through.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" I have no political point to make. Its one of economics but you are incorrect on the night vision goggles point I can, really asure you on that point. The first thing Dr Fox did was to employ his mate as a special advisor to the MOD but he neglected to tell the cabinet sectretary that is why he is holding daily MP surgieries in his safe seat! Now if you have a point to make then please be factual."

My point was factually correct and you just proved it. You made political points in your earlier post and you have just made another.

OK lets agree to disagree on what Fox did 'first'. My point was that 'one of the first things' he did was to ask what kit was needed for our lads in Afghan and the Chiefs signed off on what was needed and Fox funded it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It is easy to blame the party in government now, when the issue to go to war without equipment was made by a ex PM, who wants to return either as Big Boss of Europe or as PM.

Amen to that

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Sounds MAD to me. Mutually Assured Destruction. We need them as a deterrent to stop other nations from using them. I don't care how much they cost. As long as other countries have them we need them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Sounds MAD to me. Mutually Assured Destruction. We need them as a deterrent to stop other nations from using them. I don't care how much they cost. As long as other countries have them we need them."

Absolutely. Good post.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"As long as we can take out the warheads and blast some tories off into a low earth orbit in some... sounds like a result to me.

Not that I'm keen on space pollution

Wolf

Probably one of the silliest things I've ever read on Fab forums...and as most things people say on here regarding politics are ill informed at best, that's good going!

Get a clue folks. If you think any of the three main political parties are not self-serving crooks, then the joke is in you. Especially if you post all that 'Bliar' rubbish whilst seal clapping Cameron. They are both liars, and in terms of political ideology you couldn't squeeze a rizla paper between them.

Politics...the opiate of the masses

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"As long as we can take out the warheads and blast some tories off into a low earth orbit in some... sounds like a result to me.

Not that I'm keen on space pollution

Wolf

Probably one of the silliest things I've ever read on Fab forums...and as most things people say on here regarding politics are ill informed at best, that's good going!

Politics...the opiate of the masses

"
Is that not religion?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As long as we can take out the warheads and blast some tories off into a low earth orbit in some... sounds like a result to me.

Not that I'm keen on space pollution

Wolf

Probably one of the silliest things I've ever read on Fab forums

Why thank you for the compliment.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just remember that if we hadnt spent money on planes and bombs we would all be speaking German. So yes although i would hate the thought of anyone using them, we need them. Just look at North Korea, crazy feckers..Nukes are like shin pads, they are not there to hurt anyone just there to protect us.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I think the topic shows that we have a difference of opinion on this subject. Some of those _iews are extreme and think that there is a simple (Beano) solution to the complex issue. Good open debate is healthy but as for wanting to nuke the Russians or the Chinese I rather think we could settle our differences by talking. Entrenched simplistic _iews offer nothing to the debate. We do live in a (semi) democratic society as these conversations are monitored by GCHQ so go figure! Perhaps a Beano approach is the way forward but I somehow doubt it!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Do you actually know what side of the spectrum your politics lie? You seem to contradict yourself.

How is that different from using a much deadlier force to prevent them attacking us in the first place?"
Sorry Wishy, but I wanted to take you up on the point that those who don't think we need a neuculear deterent are pacifists. Not at all........

Our deterent threat is entirely at the disposal of the US (or NATO).

Our "conventional" forces are at our own disposal..........

The quote of the Falklands conflict is fairly aposite. What diference (in terms of the deterent to the Argentinian Navy) would a fleet of nuculear subs have made as opposed to a fleet of (quieter) diesel subs?

Absolutely none.

The Norwegian Navy were as vital to the Cold War defgence of NATO as were the UK's Reactor subs, except they had more of 'em than we did.

The UK has a bunch of enemies because we project power across the globe and our enemies object to the protection of our overseas interests, not our domestic position. The Neuculear deterent is useless in a multi-polar world a we can't use it without the agreement of our "big brother". If the situation were grave enough to use the deterent force, they would use it themselves.

The story of the last 70 years is one of masive UK defence comitment (which we have never realy been able to afford) to support our position of first position of the second rate powers.........

We are a small island off the coast of Europe. We cant afford to be a world player. The Empire, and our part as leader of that Empire and Comonwealth, is HISTORY..............

Conventional Forces (aircraft Cariers) are far better value for money.........

As an addendum, if Scotland decide to become independent, where are our subs going to be based? Southampton has a berth for a carier, only Faslane has the facilities for MRBM subs...............

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *teborahCouple over a year ago

warrington

"even our newest "White Elephant" the HMS Astute is still not operational even after 3 years after being handed over to the Royal Navy

and is also widely believed to all that sail in her to be jinxed as it up to date has a catalogue of major disasters already including a murder and attempted murder

So you want to base the defence of our country on superstition? Gee, I'll sleep safe tonight.

No not at all, was just saying that the latest and up to now our most expensive boat is plagued with issues and the rest of the fleet spend most of there time in dock around the world out of commision. like most things our servicemen have to put up with there equipment is either out of date and or fucked. In some recent theatres we have had to borrow bullets.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"In some recent theatres we have had to borrow bullets.

Do you have resources to back that claim up? I doubt very much the MoD would permit bullets that haven't been produced for our own guns to be used by our lads out there.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Its not even a independent deterent, its an American system.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Well firstly never believe a cost estimate from the MOD. They are more fanciful than some profiles on Fabs ...

Yes we do need it and we hope because we have it it will never be used. Mutually Assured Destruction is a very persuasive argument regardless of your religious or idealogical background. Ask Russia.

Which country do you believe would go first I know who my money is on and its not Russia."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"In some recent theatres we have had to borrow bullets.

Do you have resources to back that claim up? I doubt very much the MoD would permit bullets that haven't been produced for our own guns to be used by our lads out there. "
The issue with the arms industry is that it sells its wares to anyone with the money. Approximately one third of all arms used against British Forces were made in the UK. It seems we thought General Gallteria was a nice guy. We thought the same of Saddam as when he was at war with Iran we (this scepterd isle) armed him to the teeth so that when the Americans decided he was no longer of any use we tagged along for the fight only to find that most of the kit we had supplied was now being aimed at British service men. As for fact I would refer you to the WMD enquiry which produced those little tit bits.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

The first bit of that was about the Falklands war (which I whole heartly supported!)Seems we could have had that one over in a couple of minutes if we had used a trident missle on Bunos Aires

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Sorry Wishy, but I wanted to take you up on the point that those who don't think we need a neuculear deterent are pacifists. Not at all........

Our deterent threat is entirely at the disposal of the US (or NATO).

Our "conventional" forces are at our own disposal..........

Absolutely none.

The Norwegian Navy were as vital to the Cold War defgence of NATO as were the UK's Reactor subs, except they had more of 'em than we did.

The story of the last 70 years is one of masive UK defence comitment (which we have never realy been able to afford) to support our position of first position of the second rate powers.........

We are a small island off the coast of Europe. We cant afford to be a world player. The Empire, and our part as leader of that Empire and Comonwealth, is HISTORY..............

Conventional Forces (aircraft Cariers) are far better value for money.........

As an addendum, if Scotland decide to become independent, where are our subs going to be based? Southampton has a berth for a carier, only Faslane has the facilities for MRBM subs..............."

I stand by what I said regarding pacifists being capitualists as it is borne out by the mentality of people who think that because of the physical size of our islands we are small in other ways too. That's a bit like saying it's physically impossible for a small man to have a big penis.

We wouldn't want to use our nuclear deterrent without the full backing of NATO nor use it without the full co-operation of our fellow UN Security Council members, of which we have a permanent seat. Our democracy is regarded as one of the most fair in the world hence why so many people wish to come to these 'small islands' to escape persecution in their own countries and live as free people should live.

As for nuclear subs versus diesel subs, well, a nuclear sub can stay underwater for upto 3 months without resurfacing, a diesel can't. Nuke subs are cleaner and run much more efficiently than their 'dirty' diesel counterparts. The Argentinian navy was kept in port during the Falklands by the prescence of three nuclear submarines from these 'small islands'. Not bad for a little guy with a big penis eh?

...and finally, IF Scotland vote for independence, (which it won't) it would not be so foolish as to completely sever it's associations with the UK and I'd be very surprised if an independent Scotland decided to order UK subs out of it's bases, but if even if it did we could simply build another base somewhere else on the UK coastline, it wouldn't be the end of our nuclear fleet simply because Scotland said "go find another home."

The pacifists would simply give up our nuclear deterrent and naively ask the rest of the world to kindly not attack us.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

"Germany..................it could pay off the European debt in a heart beat! Point proven

Why should it?

That must have been quite a while ago as night vision goggles have been standard issue for yrs and a young squaddie from 4 Scots lost his life due to leaving camp alone to retrieve a pair he had left behind as they were quoted at £5ooo a pair.

I recently returned from there being out for a yr although not involved in front line or anything but in repair support but still know enough of what goes on.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ove2-shareCouple over a year ago

South Gloucestershire

Scrap it we have to start living in the world and not trying to control by pretending to be a superpower or isolate ourselves from it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A total waste of money, of course.

With the Tories in charge, any country who wanted to invade us would honestly be doing us a favour. At least we'd be under attack from foreign nationals, rather than our own people.

Wondered how soon the Lefties would invade this Thread and have a pop at us Tories.....

Personally I wouldn't give a council flat to some girl who got herself pregnant. Thats her problem along with the father and their parents. Its not MY problem as a taxpayer.

And if someone CHOOSES to leave home and then asks for a flat I'd say 'go back home, get a job and pay for one'. Like I had to do.

Someone who has not got a home, been in care or is just homeless will always be cared for by these proposals.

Now back to Mutually Assured Destruction... AKA The Labour Party

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

" Explain to me why we can afford WMD but soliders in Helmand province do not get the required kit? I will tell you .....big business and backers of the Tory party. I just wish people would understand its economics for the few. The heros in Helmand province need night vision goggles not a nuclear war head.

The lads in Helmand have night vision goggles and everything else they need. Maybe if you knew someone who has been there you would realise you are talking party political nonsense. "

there you go again you realy do have to do your homework most of the kit that is on the ground now was ordered and being put in place before Labour went out and Tories came in just have a look at when mastiff protected vehicles etc went into theatre.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

The above is fact and not just some made up drivel as part of a party political broadcast.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Do you actually know what side of the spectrum your politics lie? You seem to contradict yourself.

How is that different from using a much deadlier force to prevent them attacking us in the first place? Sorry Wishy, but I wanted to take you up on the point that those who don't think we need a neuculear deterent are pacifists. Not at all........

Our deterent threat is entirely at the disposal of the US (or NATO).

Our "conventional" forces are at our own disposal..........

Absolutely none.

The Norwegian Navy were as vital to the Cold War defgence of NATO as were the UK's Reactor subs, except they had more of 'em than we did.

The story of the last 70 years is one of masive UK defence comitment (which we have never realy been able to afford) to support our position of first position of the second rate powers.........

We are a small island off the coast of Europe. We cant afford to be a world player. The Empire, and our part as leader of that Empire and Comonwealth, is HISTORY..............

Conventional Forces (aircraft Cariers) are far better value for money.........

As an addendum, if Scotland decide to become independent, where are our subs going to be based? Southampton has a berth for a carier, only Faslane has the facilities for MRBM subs..............."

what comic book did you get that bullshit from

point 1 a diesle powererd sub makes a damb site more noise as it has a damb site more moving parts the a Nsub and as for our Ndeterent its controld by the MOD and the serving PM NOT NATO or the US we have the power of veto and we have always had full control of our N type weapon systems an also if trident isnt replaced and we do come under atack we will have nothing the trident deployment system is old a degraded

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *leasureDomeMan over a year ago

all over the place

It is easy to blame the party in government now, when the issue to go to war without equipment was made by a ex PM, who wants to return either as Big Boss of Europe or as PM.

ha ha ha there is no evidence against Blair at all, the whole "Daily Mail"story was debunked months ago ,but hang on wishy if your so against corruption within the prime-ministers office whet on earth are you lending support to Cameron for ,surely it has not slipped your memory that earlier this year, the treasurer of the Conservative party, Peter Cruddas, on tape talking to two undercover reporters and making some pretty serious claims about what they can get in return for donations. anyone watching or listening to it would certainly get the impression that there was something wrong. If you Read the transcript, there were at least four points that stick out as being problematic.

Take the fact that Cruddas did seem to be making the argument that if you give money you'll get special access to the prime minister. Also that it had to be a pretty sizeable donation in order to get that access. Sums as large as £200,000 and £250,000 are bandied about. In a democracy like ours, even the suggestion that you could 'buy' access to elected officials in this way should set the alarm bells ringing. Giving money and being invited to a dinner where you're one person out of 300 is one thing. Being allowed one-on-one time with the leader of Britain is another.

Or is it just another Tory sleeze story ala "cash for questions" those Eton boys certainly know how to get down and feed at the trough with the best of em ....

Re the nukes no one can survive a nuke attack the Russian plan published by the russians during glasnost. for the uk was 3 ,one on london, one 300ft above 5 ways in bham and one on Scotland up near the nuke sub base if i remember correctly, but its been a long time since they were published.

In Australia the plan was to introduce denge fever and pneumonia to leave 20% of the population alive to provide labour to work the resources they would need in a post nukewar world

LOL in the 1950s the govt actually showed calming films hinting a nuke was survivable if you simply Duck and cover

that is duck into the gutter if outside and cover your head with your jacket. cynical eh,and actually quite ludicrous to suggest we can ever use a weapon like that and survive .

The MAD scenario certainly wont work with the iranian's losses of 30 percent of their population is perfectly acceptable to them to usher in there perceived new world ,in fact they expect and welcome it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Is there any point in posting genuinely held _iews when carefully worded posts are dismissed as 'drivel'?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Tony B Liar is/was the worse thing to ever happen to this country. He's the biggest crook of them all and I hope the Treasury goes after him and his dodgy Middle East company he channels his many millions through.

ha ha ha there is no evidence against Blair at all, the whole "Daily Mail"story was debunked months ago ,but hang on wishy if your so against corruption within the prime-ministers office .. "

It wasn't the Mail article I read (mainly because I wouldn't wipe my arse with that rag let alone actually read anything printed in it). It was a Panorama programme I watched where Blair uses his position as Middle East Peace Envoy to channel money through a company he set up in the Middle East that is paid to him by companies who want to do business out there. We're talking millions here, not the odd couple of grand. The Panorama reporter tried to get as much info about this Blair company but it is shrouded in secrecy although he did manage to confirm that it exists and that large amounts of money is paid to it.

Blair wasn't PM at the time so it's not corruption in the PM's office I referring to here - you made that leap.

From The Independent:

Mr Cruddas claimed following his resignation that he had acted without the knowledge of the leadership of his party. Tory headquarters subsequently said that no donation was ever accepted or even formally considered and Mr Cameron called his former fundraiser's promises "completely unacceptable"."

Mr Cameron cannot be held accountable for a man claiming to be able to sell access to the PM when the PM doesn't know about it. That's like me telling another swinger they can shag you but the reality is that you don't know anything about it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Mr Cameron cannot be held accountable for a man claiming to be able to sell access to the PM when the PM doesn't know about it. That's like me telling another swinger they can shag you but the reality is that you don't know anything about it."
So do you think that, in his office as Prime Minister, DC does not know why he is meeting people? That he is not introduced to the people who attend these dinners? In your capacity as a leader of your business, do you ever go to dinner with clients or suppliers under the impresion that there is not, nor will there be, any discusion of your current or future business relationship? (not, I am sure you understand, to imply any duplicity on your part).

I do, however, agree in part that if he may not have known that dodgy deals were being done in his name for party funding, but he does not escape scott free as, since he installed all of the people in high office, or those who install them if he is too busy ridind Ruperts horses, his judgment is in error and seriously so.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Is there any point in posting genuinely held _iews when carefully worded posts are dismissed as 'drivel'?"

Yes m8. Some people dismiss oponions as drivel, but many others of us (even if we disagree) will argue the points you make.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Mr Cameron cannot be held accountable for a man claiming to be able to sell access to the PM when the PM doesn't know about it. That's like me telling another swinger they can shag you but the reality is that you don't know anything about it. So do you think that, in his office as Prime Minister, DC does not know why he is meeting people? That he is not introduced to the people who attend these dinners? In your capacity as a leader of your business, do you ever go to dinner with clients or suppliers under the impresion that there is not, nor will there be, any discusion of your current or future business relationship? (not, I am sure you understand, to imply any duplicity on your part).

Was Tony Blair held responsible when his Deputy PM (Prescott) decided to have fisticuffs with a reporter in full public _iew? No, of course he wasn't. If a Prime Minister could be so perfect as to predict the future actions of his underlings he'd be a very wise man indeed. As soon as Cameron found out what Cruddas had been doing/saying/attempting to do he sacked him, or made it clear he should go before being sacked. Cameron doesn't need £250k of party funding that badly - he could write the cheque out himself if the Tories needed it (which they don't).

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It was a Met Police horse being cared for in retirement by Mr Brookes a respected horse trainer. It had nothing to do with Murdoch.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"what comic book did you get that bullshit from

A) diesels have an electric motor which they run in combat scenarios.

B) Which do you think is more important to a marine invasion? A submarine or an aircraft carrier? Which gets more use?

C) Neither the Battle of the Atlantic, or the war in the Pacific theater were won by submarines, they hinged largely on air cover (admitedly land based aircraft in the Atlantic). The writing was definately on the wall for the Japs after Midway when they lost 3 out their 4 Carriers.

D) The Falklands conflict was not won by Subs, but by Harriers. Subs do cover against ships, but not against planes. You can lauch naval opperations without submarines (though there are likely to be more losses without them than with) but it is suicidal to do so without air cover.

I still maintain that we will never have an opportunity to use our Atomic resources without the permision of Uncle Sam, but we have much more control over our conventional forces. I think it's a catastrophy that we don't have an opperational marine air arm and I don't quite see how anyone would think that we can claim to be a 'serious player' on the world stage without one. FFS even the Frogs have got Aircraft carriers!!!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *aceytopWoman over a year ago

from a town near you

a bit crass i know,but i thought this was about washing powder(new glasses)

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It was a Met Police horse being cared for in retirement by Mr Brookes a respected horse trainer. It had nothing to do with Murdoch."
Fair enough, I used the example flipantly, he was actualy wining and dining Rebecca............

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Was Tony Blair held responsible when his Deputy PM (Prescott) decided to have fisticuffs with a reporter in full public _iew? No, of course he wasn't. If a Prime Minister could be so perfect as to predict the future actions of his underlings he'd be a very wise man indeed. As soon as Cameron found out what Cruddas had been doing/saying/attempting to do he sacked him, or made it clear he should go before being sacked. Cameron doesn't need £250k of party funding that badly - he could write the cheque out himself if the Tories needed it (which they don't)."
Differrent cases Wishy....... Prezza was not doing anything imoral when he lashed out at someone (half his age) who whrew an egg at his head. It was an instant reaction and, to be honest, most people actualy thought 'right on'. The punch did not directly reduce the Labour parties accountability to the electorate (whatever you might think of the labour party).

Cruddas was making a premeditated act, he seems to have done it on a number of occasions and selling influence did reduce the opportunity of the populous to influence policy to those with the money to buy that influence (if we sart from the premise that you can speak to your MP (who would be DC if you lived in his constituancy) in order to influence.

Had you asked me if Tony Blair was responsible for the sale of Peerages I would have said yes, absolutely.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Lets just pretend we have a new one and keep the money....sssshhhhhhhhhh!"

I go with this option.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think you have extended my fun comments too far. Subs never won the Falklands and neither did Harriers. It was boots on the ground did that. Subs kept their navy bottled up and Harriers gave air cover.

Of course diesel subs have electric motors as do nuclear but diesels have to surface to recharge batteries.

And l can assure you it is our PM that controls our deterrent and not the USA. But one assumes there will have been huge diplomatic activity by NATO by the time any buttons are pushed.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"a bit crass i know,but i thought this was about washing powder(new glasses)

Quality x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Well firstly never believe a cost estimate from the MOD. They are more fanciful than some profiles on Fabs ...

Yes we do need it and we hope because we have it it will never be used. Mutually Assured Destruction is a very persuasive argument regardless of your religious or idealogical background. Ask Russia.

Which country do you believe would go first I know who my money is on and its not Russia."

yer money won't be worth a lot if it kicks off. Buy gold!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think you have extended my fun comments too far. Subs never won the Falklands and neither did Harriers. It was boots on the ground did that. Subs kept their navy bottled up and Harriers gave air cover.

Of course diesel subs have electric motors as do nuclear but diesels have to surface to recharge batteries.

And l can assure you it is our PM that controls our deterrent and not the USA. But one assumes there will have been huge diplomatic activity by NATO by the time any buttons are pushed."
There is always the possibility.............

I agree that boots on the ground that did the winning, so I will conceede that point as well, but I do maintain that Air cover is a more important contribution to marine combat that submarines (though I think I made it clear that subs were improtant).

Of course the PM controls the bombs, but only to the extent that the yanks can't shoot our birds. We couldn't shoot them if the president said no.

I also maintain that a carrier is a beter value purchase than a sub in purely usage value if not 'bang for buck' as it were!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Is there any point in posting genuinely held _iews when carefully worded posts are dismissed as 'drivel'?"

oh yes, do not worry bout them, the listeners continue to listen.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If only the forum politicians got the chance to rule the world everything would be perfect.

Well maybe not.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If only the forum politicians got the chance to rule the world everything would be perfect.

Well maybe not. "
Nah, we would just end up screaming and shouting at each other like the Tories and Labour. The only diference would be Naked PMQ's and the Standing Commitee on Gang Banging............

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I agree that boots on the ground that did the winning, so I will conceede that point as well, but I do maintain that Air cover is a more important contribution to marine combat that submarines (though I think I made it clear that subs were improtant).

Of course the PM controls the bombs, but only to the extent that the yanks can't shoot our birds. We couldn't shoot them if the president said no.

I also maintain that a carrier is a beter value purchase than a sub in purely usage value if not 'bang for buck' as it were!"

I think you are comparing chalk and cheese. Hunter killer subs (like the Astute class which is nowhere near as bad as some have suggested and a world leader in technology) have one function, ie deterring other navies and taking out naval threats, Trafalgar class Trident submarins have quite another and should be seen as missile launch platforms. They don't only fire nuclear tipped missile but can launch (as I understand it) cruise type missiles and have done in recent conflicts.

Carrier borne air power has its own rightful place and is an important component in an aggressive war or strike operation (as in Falklands) and it grieves me to see the Harriers and carriers finally retired after 30 years service. But we will get new ones. Eventually. We hope! But without planes.

But having said that air power alone never actually won anything. Even the magnificent few only prevented a seabourne landing and bought the UK time. It can only assist, delay or advance overall warfare.

In the end it is either Army / Marine / Para boots on the ground with artillery power that will take ground and therefore win wars or everyone gets nuked!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If only the forum politicians got the chance to rule the world everything would be perfect.

Well maybe not. Nah, we would just end up screaming and shouting at each other like the Tories and Labour. The only diference would be Naked PMQ's and the Standing Commitee on Gang Banging............

.... plus a Dogging Select Commitee and Special Advisors on Cuckolding. Plus Polo for Speaker....

The Lords Chamber would be The Masters Chamber with the Woolsack reserved Anal-ysts...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 03/07/12 11:04:06]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *leasureDomeMan over a year ago

all over the place

"Lets just pretend we have a new one and keep the money....sssshhhhhhhhhh!

I go with this option.

its worked before ,it the 60s we conned the yanks into believing we had the Hydrogen bomb when we had'nt.

They looked at the v.force and said lets compare design notes and we said ok send yours over and thats how we got ours...

...god you got to love that cold war period ,so many opportunities.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *leasureDomeMan over a year ago

all over the place

Of course the PM controls the bombs, but only to the extent that the yanks can't shoot our birds. We couldn't shoot them if the president said no.

I also maintain that a carrier is a beter value purchase than a sub in purely usage value if not 'bang for buck' as it were!

In the end it is either Army / Marine / Para boots on the ground with artillery power that will take ground and therefore win wars or everyone gets nuked!"

That is in some part correct ,combined operations are the only effective form of full on ramped up,aggression,anything less puts the men on the ground at risk ,however it was not just the few that stopped AH from invasion ,but it was German tactical errors and poor intelligence that won us the day. This does not decry the efforts of "the Few" the bravest of the brave in my _iew ,but if the Germans had not assumed we had a new secret weapon protecting our airfields post the August 14th attacks ,they would not have switched attacks to the cities, allowing the rebuilding of our battered airfields and resupply. Having met and spoken at length to many of the few over the years the common theme was of complete exhaustion and incredulity along the lines of why did they change tactics we were done for. The Navy also focused the mind of the German Generals involved in the invasion plans, who felt to put 25 divisions across the channel and supply them was an impossible task given the British naval strength at the time.

Regarding the loss of our harrier force ,it made no sense at all to get rid of them so soon ,as the age of the dogfight is largely over, modern fighters are positional aerial platforms

for over the horizon missile attack,it is little wonder the American's snapped them up for £99 each and have refitted them with modern armament and turned them into AV8B a perfect fire and forget missile launch platform and ground support aircraft.

Having said that Drone aircraft are the way forward which can turn beyond 9G,but would you really want to put a nuke or WMD on one ..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

"Is there any point in posting genuinely held _iews when carefully worded posts are dismissed as 'drivel'?"

No you are correct in what you said about the prime minister saying "Whatever the troops need they shall have" You just got the name of the prime minister wrong it was actualy Brown someone I dont have any time for either.

And it was the Labour party mid 2000s that ordered the protected vehicles.

I am only stating facts here and I dont give a fig for either Labour or Tory.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ushroom7Man over a year ago

Bradford

Of course the PM controls the bombs, but only to the extent that the yanks can't shoot our birds. We couldn't shoot them if the president said no.

I also maintain that a carrier is a beter value purchase than a sub in purely usage value if not 'bang for buck' as it were!

In the end it is either Army / Marine / Para boots on the ground with artillery power that will take ground and therefore win wars or everyone gets nuked!

Regarding the loss of our harrier force ,it made no sense at all to get rid of them so soon ,as the age of the dogfight is largely over, modern fighters are positional aerial platforms

Having said that Drone aircraft are the way forward which can turn beyond 9G,but would you really want to put a nuke or WMD on one ..

To a Pakistani wedding party, standard or nuke warhead it makes not a lot of difference.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

"Is there any point in posting genuinely held _iews when carefully worded posts are dismissed as 'drivel'?

oh yes, do not worry bout them, the listeners continue to listen."

It was the opposite that he stated it was so what should i call it?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Is there any point in posting genuinely held _iews when carefully worded posts are dismissed as 'drivel'?

oh yes, do not worry bout them, the listeners continue to listen.

It was the opposite that he stated it was so what should i call it?

Try just agreeing to disagree without the personal comments and just make your point.

Simples!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

"Is there any point in posting genuinely held _iews when carefully worded posts are dismissed as 'drivel'?

oh yes, do not worry bout them, the listeners continue to listen.

It was the opposite that he stated it was so what should i call it?

Try just agreeing to disagree without the personal comments and just make your point.

Simples!"

It wasnt an attack on your person I just stated what I thought the post was not you.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *acreadCouple over a year ago

central scotland

My apologies if you think I was being persnal Charlie2012 it was not my intention.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My apologies if you think I was being persnal Charlie2012 it was not my intention."

Apologies given should always be accepted and I am glad we have cleared this up. Thank you.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *teborahCouple over a year ago

warrington

"In some recent theatres we have had to borrow bullets.

Do you have resources to back that claim up? I doubt very much the MoD would permit bullets that haven't been produced for our own guns to be used by our lads out there. "

You doubt very much the Mod would permit using other countries kit??? please wake up and smell the coffee. despite Mr Cameron or mr Brown or whoever sitting on there high horse force feeding us shit about how our brave men get whatever they ask for is pure shit!! I don't suppose they could tell the truth about that really could they.

My statements came from first hand accounts from someone on the ground. not something that I had read from a daily newspaper which incidentally I don't waste a penny on as they are full of bollocks and as believable as the viz! do you have the first clue on how ill prepared our troops are with kit and spare parts! Depending on what flavour newspaper you buy it proberbly states that our glorious polititions say our servicemen want for nothing and have kit comming out of there ears

like I said pure and simply "Bollocks"

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"In some recent theatres we have had to borrow bullets.

Do you have resources to back that claim up? I doubt very much the MoD would permit bullets that haven't been produced for our own guns to be used by our lads out there.

like I said pure and simply "Bollocks"

And as I've already stated on this thread, I have a brother-in-law who's out there at the moment and when I discussed shortage of kit as reported in the media he told me not to believe everything I read. They *do* have the kit they need and if they had every piece of kit the press say they should have they wouldn't be able to carry it, let alone fight with it. From the horse's mouth also.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ove2-shareCouple over a year ago

South Gloucestershire

"In some recent theatres we have had to borrow bullets.

Do you have resources to back that claim up? I doubt very much the MoD would permit bullets that haven't been produced for our own guns to be used by our lads out there.

like I said pure and simply "Bollocks"

which has gotta be a damn site more reliable a source than The Sun, hope yor bro in law stays safe.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *leasureDomeMan over a year ago

all over the place

Todays Telegraph

--------------------------------

Sweetheart of soldier killed in Afghanistan condemns equipment shortages

The childhood sweetheart of one of eight British soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 24 hours has accused the Government of failing troops through equipment shortages.

--------------------------------

..if you actually search: British Army Equipment shortages 2012 never mind 2011,10 etc you will find loads of evidence from all ranks that there is not enough out there.

Night vision goggles less than half of what is required,people are going out there with no training on them at all.

No matter what the government of the day for men and women who have taken the shilling ,they deserve a fighting chance to do their job.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Special Friendship status means fuck all to the Yanks if there's nothing in it for them.

Indeed so. And Obama thought just like that until his advisers told him to rethink bunging Churchill out the Oval Office...

Hence the State visit to UK after his G20 visit and invitation to Cameron. Politically we are still important..."

Ah yes the "Special Relationship" that the Americans have with the British. And the Germans. And the French. And the Israelis. Etc etc etc.

Britain has fought two wars with America (the second being the 1812-14 war which everybody has forgotten about), and it gave the Confederacy its tacit support during the Civil War. America only came into the First and Second World Wars when its own interests were threatened.

Special relationship my eye.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Cutting the 1 thing that makes the likes of Russia and China think twice about being aggressive?

I dont care how much it costs, they need to stay. History is littered with bad choices made in the false sense of security.

"Rogue states" the name that the western capitalists give all countries which won't play ball with them but instead place themselves in China's camp.

China wouldn't allow North Korea to attack anyone with nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have any. Israel is not among the so-called 'rogue states' but is in America's camp, as is India.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Ah yes the "Special Relationship" that the Americans have with the British. And the Germans. And the French. And the Israelis. Etc etc etc.

Special relationship my eye.

Given that it was Churchill and Roosevelt that coined and used this expression during the war and other Presidents after his death I think what happened before is somewhat academic.

OK it took Pearl Harbour and Germany declaring war on the USA to bring them in to the War and they basically didn't get into action in Europe until mid 1943 but US industrial muscle was already working for the British war effort (albeit paid for) and this later became Lease / Lend.

Any mention of US involvement often forgets the large number of US citizens that joined the RAF Eagle squadrons and fought with us from the Battle of Britain onwards, many becoming 'Aces', and who were then transferred to the USAAF as top fighter squadrons complete with Spitfires when the US joined the war effort.

Germany and France have no special relationship indeed France was overtly anti-US and NATO for many years and the yanks don't forget too easily. ANd if you got o the USA and talk with people there its the 'not forgetting' that drives the Special Relationship as they don't forget what we and our Commonwealth friends did to keep freedom alive in Europe, alone for some years, and then our war effort alongside the USA against Japan.

Their relationship with Israel is way beyond Special. Israel have the USA by the political bollocks and it is a case of the Israeli tail wagging the US dog and it will be a brave President that risks electoral annihalation by doing the right thing and telling Israel the truth about its behaviour in its own backyard and the implications that has had for the world.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ove2-shareCouple over a year ago

South Gloucestershire

Its also enshrined in US law that they will not al with countires who ilegally possess nuclear weapons, which is why they dont talk about pakistan and indias possessions, its easier to ignore whilst they still allow Israel to pretend they dont have any even though thier prime minister even accidentally slipped it out. its the worst kept secret in international politics as everyone knows they have loads.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ove2-shareCouple over a year ago

South Gloucestershire

F ing laptop keeps moving words i meant deal with.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic