FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The kindest cut of all
The kindest cut of all
Jump to: Newest in thread
When in opposition ,the liberals asked questions about the Trident programme and found out under parliamentary questions its real cost over 10 years is around 130 billion quid.
Now i dont know if its me ,but how many times do you need to be able to blow up the world. we already have the capacity to deliver over 100 nukes 8 times bigger than Hiroshima they are only a deterrent.
If you had a referendum on it would you scrap it ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would vote ta scrap it when i could trust everyone else on the planet xx  "
i understand what your saying but a nuke is a nuke ..does it have to be shinny and new who would care when the flash and roar came ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would vote ta scrap it when i could trust everyone else on the planet xx
i understand what your saying but a nuke is a nuke ..does it have to be shinny and new who would care when the flash and roar came ?"
True but surely things like that become unstable after a certain time
We wouldnt want ta blow ourselves ta bits first would we lol
Just a thought xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago
a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5 |
"I've always said that the first country these days to release a nuclear bomb would have to expect to be anhialated. Surely everyone else would turn on them or is that just me being niave?"
I agree with you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would vote ta scrap it when i could trust everyone else on the planet xx
i understand what your saying but a nuke is a nuke ..does it have to be shinny and new who would care when the flash and roar came ?
True but surely things like that become unstable after a certain time
We wouldnt want ta blow ourselves ta bits first would we lol
Just a thought xx"
no the missiles are serviced regularly ,nothing wrong with the ones we have they have spent millions maintaining them .
As the nuclear threat is dealt with by deterence ..ie Mutually assured destructuction.could the other side be sure and gamble that our slightly older system would fail.
Chenoyble has proved that nukes are not viable as a limited weapon ..its all or nothnig ..the wind is too indiscriminate for that
just seems a massive waste of money for something we can not use
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
the cost is in the four submarines that we need to deliver trident missiles.
The reason we need four is,one on patrol,one on standby or on its way out to relieve first sub.one on work up,one in maintenance and one in refit,
notice how there have been no world wars since everyone is shit scared a country might us it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the cost is in the four submarines that we need to deliver trident missiles.
The reason we need four is,one on patrol,one on standby or on its way out to relieve first sub.one on work up,one in maintenance and one in refit,
notice how there have been no world wars since everyone is shit scared a country might us it"
true MAD played its part in the cold war ..but the threat now is from a dirty bomb let off by a group who would deliver it softly to a city ,isnt it better to use money to boost infiltration and keep using the system that has so far worked ?
i still cant see the reason for this expense ...when you can literally already put a bomb through a kitchen window from hundreds if not thousands of miles away ,,what else could we possibly need .what advantage does trident have over our exisiting hardware....i dont know ...no one is saying ..therefor how can it be a deterant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
it's classed as a deterrent and isnt just left on a shelf to rust away!
compared to most countries, we are but a small island, yet we hold a lot of clout in the large scheme of things.
like it or not, the country needs a defence system that rivals any potential threat.
I thought we had come a long way away from the cold war and more people were better educatec. no-one is sat perched trigger happy with their finger on the button somewhere, it is exactly what it says it is, a deterrent, to deter others from attacking.
it would be nice if every country could sign up to disarming, but it is highly unlikely that it will ever happen, so i would rather be safe than sorry.
I think the only thing missing is a real education as to their true capability. Its easier for politicians to use it as a weapon against the other parties as the thought of them still scares so many folk, but it is just that, scare-mongoring |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Read the recent speech by President Obama and the Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that were released recently.
In it the Americans stated that they saw future threats coming not from a missile launched Nuclear weapon, but from a 'Dirty Bomb' shipped in probably by container and detonated at ground level.
So in the aftermath of a ground level 'Dirty Bomb' in New York, Washington or even London....who exactly do we retaliate against?
Considering that this 'Dirty Bomb' is likely to come from a rogue state within a state or a terrorist group just who gets Trident aimed at them?
Absolutely bloody pointless! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've always said that the first country these days to release a nuclear bomb would have to expect to be anhialated. Surely everyone else would turn on them or is that just me being niave?"
I think most people know next to nothing about nukes or their different types and yields. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it's classed as a deterrent and isnt just left on a shelf to rust away!
compared to most countries, we are but a small island, yet we hold a lot of clout in the large scheme of things.
like it or not, the country needs a defence system that rivals any potential threat.
I thought we had come a long way away from the cold war and more people were better educatec. no-one is sat perched trigger happy with their finger on the button somewhere, it is exactly what it says it is, a deterrent, to deter others from attacking.
it would be nice if every country could sign up to disarming, but it is highly unlikely that it will ever happen, so i would rather be safe than sorry.
I think the only thing missing is a real education as to their true capability. Its easier for politicians to use it as a weapon against the other parties as the thought of them still scares so many folk, but it is just that, scare-mongoring"
hmmm i agree with what you say ,but the existing technology is working ..no one knows where the subs are so the deterent is ....they could be in a launch position .As stated by the poster abopve the threat is now from a nuke dirty bomb in a city ....who would we ever fire against ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If we have learned anything from recent events it is that this £130bn needs to be spent on conventional forces, that ARE being used EVERYDAY in REAL theatres of conflict.
Not weapons that MIGHT be used in some HYPOTHETICAL situation that will in all likelyhood never arise....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Why the fuck we wanna all blow anyone up is beyond me lol
We all live an average of eighty bloody years and after that no one gives a fuck
So why we cant all co exist is bloody beyond me lol xx  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago
Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else |
Four submarines????
One working, one being maintained.
Unless they're trashing it every time they use it, that should be plenty!
And if both break down, we can subcontract to one of our many nuclear allies.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Four submarines????
One working, one being maintained.
Unless they're trashing it every time they use it, that should be plenty!
And if both break down, we can subcontract to one of our many nuclear allies.
"
and this one submarine can be deployed anywhere in the world at a moments notice eh? or would it make sense to have a few strategically placed where they are most needed that can be deployed immediately.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we have learned anything from recent events it is that this £130bn needs to be spent on conventional forces, that ARE being used EVERYDAY in REAL theatres of conflict.
Not weapons that MIGHT be used in some HYPOTHETICAL situation that will in all likelyhood never arise....
"
subs are used in theatre everyday during conflict. they're just not highlighted in the news for obvious reasons.
the new government have proposed cuts in defence that equate to 25% of its current status. perhaps what needs to be queried is where those cuts are going to come from and how that is going to impact on front line troops.
what this country needs is someone with a defence background who understands defence being a permanent member of the cabinet.
defence is the most misunderstood government department because the nature of it means it cannot respond to the accusations by the media so folk are ill informed and can only believe what they read in the absence of a counter argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago
Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else |
Hang on, this was about nuclear weapons, wasn't it?
What's the range of these things anyway? If the UK, USA, japan and Russia can hit anything within a 1000 mile radius of their borders, who's out of range? New Zealand?
See? No nuclear subs required! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
nuclear weapons arent a strong point of mine, in theory im against them, in practical terms we MAY need them and on the other hand 5000 jobs in scotland rely on faslane etc so its on the fence for me!! xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Uk retaining a nuclear deterant is as much about trying to remain as a force on the world stage as it is about defence issues. The fact is that over the last 50 years or so the UK's influence in the world has dropped significantly. We lag way behind many countries in terms of economics, population, expected gdp etc. Countries like China, India, Pakistan etc are fast moving towards being the dominant forces in the world over the next few decades.
The UK has no means to be anything other than a 'bit player' on the world stage, but the nuclear club is still a small and exclusive one, with high barriers to entry, and thus allows us to continue to dine at the top table of world politics for the time being.
The biggest threat of nuclear attack probably comes from Israel going loco and bombing Iran and things kicking off from there.
It's about politics, not defence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *umourCouple
over a year ago
Rushden |
"Why the fuck we wanna all blow anyone up is beyond me lol
We all live an average of eighty bloody years and after that no one gives a fuck
So why we cant all co exist is bloody beyond me lol xx "
In the words of Helen Lovejoy (Simpsons) "Will someone please think of the children?".  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I hate "CUTBACKS" by the new tory goverment !!
grrrrrrrr!!
AS in the words of sum1 years ago----"Would the last person to leave britain please turn out the lights"!! lol    |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I hate "CUTBACKS" by the new tory goverment !!
grrrrrrrr!!
AS in the words of sum1 years ago----"Would the last person to leave britain please turn out the lights"!! lol "
haha good one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *heWolfMan
over a year ago
warwickshire |
"Four submarines????
One working, one being maintained.
Unless they're trashing it every time they use it, that should be plenty!
And if both break down, we can subcontract to one of our many nuclear allies.
"
So long as they're not being built by anyone who worked at Longbridge, otherwise the fucking sunroof would leak. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would save a lot of money if we just talked them up and pretended we had them
lol got an image of camnick..........
yeah iran you got that but we got this!! we just hid it so you dont know what it looks like nah nah nah nah!!! xx "
funny thing is thats exactly what happened with the hydrogen bomb ,we made out we had it and said to the yanks you show us your we'll show you ours.They gave us the plans and we copied em and said ...wow just like ours |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When in opposition ,the liberals asked questions about the Trident programme and found out under parliamentary questions its real cost over 10 years is around 130 billion quid.
If you had a referendum on it would you scrap it ?"
i definitely would. It sticks to the pavement like shit.
and for 130billion quid, exactly how many packets do youi get?
Even SAF couldnt make a dent in that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
