FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Trident

Trident

By *inkyHnS OP Couple over a year ago

The Council of Elrond

In Scotland its a majority dont want Trident

Am interested to know how many people living in England want it ?

If you have seen the debate time and time again the pm was asked how much in total will it cost and she didnt answer

The Iraq war should have all told us something no more killing of innocent people. People are fleeing Wars they never asked for and this weapon is useless and can only be ever used is a counter attack am sorry but i dont believe in killing innocent people

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

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

I think we should have a nuclear capability but I'm not sure Trident is the answer !

I don't trust it as independent !

I suspect we couldn't use it without the yanks permission !

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

By *ohnaronMan over a year ago

london

Lets nuke Edinburgh to check it works then have a proper informed discussion.

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

By *inkyHnS OP Couple over a year ago

The Council of Elrond

"I think we should have a nuclear capability but I'm not sure Trident is the answer !

I don't trust it as independent !

I suspect we couldn't use it without the yanks permission !"

Yeah how scary would it be if Trump wins the election in the USA and he has final say if the button should be pushed

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

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

"I think we should have a nuclear capability but I'm not sure Trident is the answer !

I don't trust it as independent !

I suspect we couldn't use it without the yanks permission !

Yeah how scary would it be if Trump wins the election in the USA and he has final say if the button should be pushed "

Nothing to do with Trump! It's our new PM that has the final say. Her first duty was most likely to pen a new set of letters of last resort for the current deterrent.

I'm slightly more concerned that Trump, if elected has a much larger arsenal!!!

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

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

"I think we should have a nuclear capability but I'm not sure Trident is the answer !

I don't trust it as independent !

I suspect we couldn't use it without the yanks permission !

Yeah how scary would it be if Trump wins the election in the USA and he has final say if the button should be pushed "

It would be scary but I'm far more worried about Putin ! And don't forget the Chinese ! They could take the line of thought that they have so many people they can lose plenty , I know it sounds sick but war is sick !

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

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

Get it out of Scotland.

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

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

It's a defensive deterrent. And it does work. If we didn't have it the likes of Russia would be very more kinetic.

A necessary evil unfortunately.

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"I think we should have a nuclear capability but I'm not sure Trident is the answer !

I don't trust it as independent !

I suspect we couldn't use it without the yanks permission !"

Correct - out 'independent' nuclear weapons system replied on the Yanks saying, yeah alright

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

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

It's the weapon of ultimate fail, only purpose is to carry out a revenge kill of some Russian civilians after we are all dead.

Personally I think we can live or die without it. would rather they spend the cash on body armour for infantry.

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

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

"In Scotland its a majority dont want Trident

Am interested to know how many people living in England want it ?

If you have seen the debate time and time again the pm was asked how much in total will it cost and she didnt answer

Correction - the SNP don't want it! The majority of the Scottish public want it and it will certainly be a disaster for industry and employment in Scotland if it goes!

Personally I agree with it - a necessary evil.

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

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

By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety.

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety."

Rubbish

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

By *inkyHnS OP Couple over a year ago

The Council of Elrond

I see once again not telling us all the total cost of Trident

I think i dont get is they are willing to spent billions on it yet they want to get rid of it so willing to waste billions when that money can be spent on better things i even heard the PM say what about the jobs of people in faslane give them a 1 million redundancy packet am sure that will keep them happy as everyone in life gets new jobs

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

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

Of course if you are worried about a foreign power having the ability to attack us with radiation, you may consider the Chinese financed and Chinese control systems of future nuclear power stations. saves all that nasty rocket fuel pollution if they just build it here .

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

By *ohnaronMan over a year ago

london

"By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety."

Yes

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

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

I think the idea of having it is to ensure that no other nation that also has it pushes the button, it's just a deterrent, nothing more, nothing less. We are certainly safer as a nation with it than without it.

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

By *ipswingCouple over a year ago

portrush

Dr Strangelove ...

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety.

Rubbish "

Lhe cost of Trident over the lifetime of the the project range from £31bn (BBC) to £167bn (IMF) to £205bn (CND).

Even if you disagree with the upper estimates, you will not the £31bn figure has a £10bn contingency fund attached to it.

It'll cost a lot of schools and hospitals.

Sorry.

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

By *icked weaselCouple over a year ago

Near Edinburgh..

Trident Will Be A Target For The USA Or ISIS.. I'm Not Sure Which !!

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

" Dr Strangelove ..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzddAYYDZkk

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Trident Will Be A Target For The USA Or ISIS.. I'm Not Sure Which !!

Nonsense

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

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

Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice. "

Cold War thinking

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

By *inkyHnS OP Couple over a year ago

The Council of Elrond

Pete Sinclair said it best- Either you press the nuclear button first ..which would be mad. Or you press it in retaliation in which case it wasn't a deterrent

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Pete Sinclair said it best- Either you press the nuclear button first ..which would be mad. Or you press it in retaliation in which case it wasn't a deterrent "

Yes, but who's else is gonna have a nuclear button to press that we're sooo afraid of?

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking"

I wasn't round back then so I wouldn't know what they were thinking...

That's my opinion.

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking"

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Pete Sinclair said it best- Either you press the nuclear button first ..which would be mad. Or you press it in retaliation in which case it wasn't a deterrent

Yes, but who's else is gonna have a nuclear button to press that we're sooo afraid of?"

Don;t get me wrong - I don;t for a second suggest that MPs won't vote for a renewal - but personally I think it a dinosaur and waste of money.

It's a truism that generals and politicians prepare for the next war by preparing for the last...

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not."

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

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

By *ohnaronMan over a year ago

london

Does Trident have an outdoor smoking/vaping area or am I in the wrong thread?

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me. "

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT"

That's what we all hope for.

And we hope everyone else who has them feels the same otherwise we're all fucked!

If we go down, fuck it, everyone does!

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

By *ohnaronMan over a year ago

london

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT"

Politician in their right mind - oxymoron

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

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

"Does Trident have an outdoor smoking/vaping area or am I in the wrong thread?

Of course, the MOD are very keen to ensure all their workers die healthy.

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

By *inkyHnS OP Couple over a year ago

The Council of Elrond

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me. "

See thats how Scotland feels 58 of our MP'S voting against it but we have to keep it 30 miles away from Glasgow which is not really fair a country voting against having it but it has to stay in Scotland dont get me wrong i dont want it in England either i want it scrapped

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

By *ohnaronMan over a year ago

london

"Does Trident have an outdoor smoking/vaping area or am I in the wrong thread?

Of course, the MOD are very keen to ensure all their workers die healthy."

With a glowing medical report.

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

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

Could go around on this all night - those in the disarm camp won't change their views nor will those in the stay armed camp. Fact is we've got it and will have for the foreseeable future.!

Now let's get back to talking about sex!

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT"

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact."

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?"

*threat

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?"

I doubt anyone is using trident to negotiate trade deals.

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

The problem I have is this.

So we ditch trident and build lots of schools and hospitals...

We've cut our military to pieces over the years, so what's left to stop Russia, China or North Korea from simply using their much, much larger militaries from simply taking what they want. Or are we just going to rely on their good natures? Or maybe just shout help to someone that does have a nuclear deterent.

Trident is a fleet of submarines that can't be touched because they are mobile and all but undetectable. So if any country should choose to attack the UK they know that out there is a nuclear deterent that will still have the ability to attack them no matter what damage they do to the Uk.

Getting rid of it will leave this country vulnerable. I don't see how it wouldn't.

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

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

The vote is in...

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

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

Trident renewed.

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?"

Calm down.

Why would you do it unilaterally?

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?

I doubt anyone is using trident to negotiate trade deals. "

I'm not talking about trade deals and trade deals have nothing to do with Trident

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT"

Yes but that's the point isn't it !

A lot of the world leaders we get arnt in Thier right minds !

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?

Calm down.

Why would you do it unilaterally?"

There we go, a sensible question...

And one I'll side-step as irrelevant as MPs just voted to replace

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

Yes but that's the point isn't it !

A lot of the world leaders we get arnt in Thier right minds !"

Names?

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

By *anejohnkent6263Couple over a year ago

canterbury

lets have fun ...Donald trump can have the button.,and aim it at the crankies house

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?

Calm down.

Why would you do it unilaterally?

There we go, a sensible question...

And one I'll side-step as irrelevant as MPs just voted to replace

Absolutely! Time for a pint? What you having?

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

The wars of the future are not nuclear, they are intra-state, guerrilla and asymmetrical.

In these parameters nukes are irrelevant

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?

Calm down.

Why would you do it unilaterally?

There we go, a sensible question...

And one I'll side-step as irrelevant as MPs just voted to replace

Absolutely! Time for a pint? What you having?

Guinness, please

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

Yes but that's the point isn't it !

A lot of the world leaders we get arnt in Thier right minds !

Names?"

Kim-jong un

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

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

Putin v Trump is a troubling thought

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?

I doubt anyone is using trident to negotiate trade deals.

I'm not talking about trade deals and trade deals have nothing to do with Trident

Of course they don't. I was merely pointing out that I doubt in any international relations anyone is bringing up the fact that we have a nuclear deterrent.

When you quote Jeremy Corbyn you should at least give him credit though.

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?

I doubt anyone is using trident to negotiate trade deals.

I'm not talking about trade deals and trade deals have nothing to do with Trident

Of course they don't. I was merely pointing out that I doubt in any international relations anyone is bringing up the fact that we have a nuclear deterrent.

When you quote Jeremy Corbyn you should at least give him credit though. "

The point stands

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?

I doubt anyone is using trident to negotiate trade deals.

I'm not talking about trade deals and trade deals have nothing to do with Trident

Of course they don't. I was merely pointing out that I doubt in any international relations anyone is bringing up the fact that we have a nuclear deterrent.

When you quote Jeremy Corbyn you should at least give him credit though.

The point stands"

*my point

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

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

"The problem I have is this.

So we ditch trident and build lots of schools and hospitals...

Getting rid of it will leave this country vulnerable. I don't see how it wouldn't."
trident does not stop Russia from taking whatever they want from the UK if the wanted to nato does if it came to nuclear war the uk would be nuked and Russia would be left un touched they and the Americans have technology to protect themselves from each other nukes getting into there airspace and their country...

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

Yes but that's the point isn't it !

A lot of the world leaders we get arnt in Thier right minds !

Names?

Kim-jong un"

Yeah; he's definitely a little crazy like!

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

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

Problem is deep water submarines were untraceable, they are not anymore.

Launching a nuclear attack is only relevant if there are targets to hit, if Any of the powers mentioned wanted to attack you can bet your life the "important people" will be well clear of our strike zones.

So bottom line is the weapon doesn't work.

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

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

"Mutually assured destruction.

I can't say I have much faith in the world leaders at the moment but I'm sure knowing if you go for it then it's game over for you too....even Trump would think twice.

Cold War thinking

And the ending of the Cold War tells you world dynamics change quite quickly. Far quicker than we can build subs and nuclear deterrents.

I'd rather have them than not.

You can keep them in yr back garden then! Don;t want the fucking things anywhere near me.

It has more to do with national 'prestige' and the feeling that we sit at the top table of international diplomacy.

No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

That's not a FACT merely conjecture on your part.

Same as my view is my opinion and not fact.

Do you think that the tread of murdering millions of people is a good way to conduct international relations?

Really?

I doubt anyone is using trident to negotiate trade deals.

I'm not talking about trade deals and trade deals have nothing to do with Trident

Of course they don't. I was merely pointing out that I doubt in any international relations anyone is bringing up the fact that we have a nuclear deterrent.

When you quote Jeremy Corbyn you should at least give him credit though.

The point stands

*my point

Not really yours though, you just regurgitated his point.

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"The problem I have is this.

So we ditch trident and build lots of schools and hospitals...

Getting rid of it will leave this country vulnerable. I don't see how it wouldn't. trident does not stop Russia from taking whatever they want from the UK if the wanted to nato does if it came to nuclear war the uk would be nuked and Russia would be left un touched they and the Americans have technology to protect themselves from each other nukes getting into there airspace and their country..."

Then you misunderstand both NATO and international air space. The Russians have pushed it but they haven't broken it... And arguably NATO has done similar near Russian borders

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

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

"By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety."

Well put, even with the £10bn contingency its still cheap. It's a necessary evil.

We don't have to worry about Russia, Putin is far too clever for that. We don't have to worry about China as they like us, who else will buy all their cheap shit.

That only leaves Korea. If they did decide to develop and use nuclear weapons against I'd die happier knowing we were killing everyone of them fuckers too

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"The problem I have is this.

So we ditch trident and build lots of schools and hospitals...

So you're going with 'shout help' because our neighbours are known for sticking up for us.

Not to mention that the United states 'star wars' project actually never was put online in any operational manner. Though the UK and untied states do have a laser anti ballistic missile defense system in development. Russia don't tend to share that information go freely so I have no idea.

But the whole point of trident is that it is not land based so to say that anyone would left untouched is really guesswork.

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

By *icked weaselCouple over a year ago

Near Edinburgh..

"No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT"

Some Country Will Produce One !!!

FACT..

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety.

Well put, even with the £10bn contingency its still cheap. It's a necessary evil.

We don't have to worry about Russia, Putin is far too clever for that. We don't have to worry about China as they like us, who else will buy all their cheap shit.

That only leaves Korea. If they did decide to develop and use nuclear weapons against I'd die happier knowing we were killing everyone of them fuckers too

The North Koreans do have basic nuclear weapons. They don't work terribly and couldn't be guaranteed to hit Japan; they would never strike the UK. They do not have ICBM technology

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"No politician in their right mind would use them.

FACT

Some Country Will Produce One !!!

FACT..

Examples...?

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"The problem I have is this.

So we ditch trident and build lots of schools and hospitals...

Then you misunderstand both NATO and international air space. The Russians have pushed it but they haven't broken it... And arguably NATO has done similar near Russian borders "

I don't miss understand Nato or international airspace at all.

Didn't Turkey have a little incident not so long ago?

I don't believe that Nato will stop them, I've always preferred to rely on my own than rely on others to fight for me and trident is a deterent.

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety.

Well put, even with the £10bn contingency its still cheap. It's a necessary evil.

We don't have to worry about Russia, Putin is far too clever for that. We don't have to worry about China as they like us, who else will buy all their cheap shit.

That only leaves Korea. If they did decide to develop and use nuclear weapons against I'd die happier knowing we were killing everyone of them fuckers too

The North Koreans do have basic nuclear weapons. They don't work terribly and couldn't be guaranteed to hit Japan; they would never strike the UK. They do not have ICBM technology "

No... that's a work in process that a lot of people are trying to stop and are failing to do so.

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

By *oorland2Couple over a year ago

Stoke

"In Scotland its a majority dont want Trident

Am interested to know how many people living in England want it ?

If you have seen the debate time and time again the pm was asked how much in total will it cost and she didnt answer

They do t want trident but they want the security and the money that they pump in to the local economy

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

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

"By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety.

Well put, even with the £10bn contingency its still cheap. It's a necessary evil.

We don't have to worry about Russia, Putin is far too clever for that. We don't have to worry about China as they like us, who else will buy all their cheap shit.

That only leaves Korea. If they did decide to develop and use nuclear weapons against I'd die happier knowing we were killing everyone of them fuckers too

The North Koreans do have basic nuclear weapons. They don't work terribly and couldn't be guaranteed to hit Japan; they would never strike the UK. They do not have ICBM technology "

Not at the moment but they will have.

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

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

"I don't believe that Nato will stop them, I've always preferred to rely on my own than rely on others to fight for me and trident is a deterent. "

France have nukes, not helped them much this year has it...

Spend the money arming and training troops instead, only they can fight our real enemy's.

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

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

Are tou aware that Trident D5 SLMB's are built by Lockheed Martin, an American company??? Why would the Yanks target them?

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"I don't believe that Nato will stop them, I've always preferred to rely on my own than rely on others to fight for me and trident is a deterent.

France have nukes, not helped them much this year has it...

Spend the money arming and training troops instead, only they can fight our real enemy's. "

I don't entirely dissagree with you. I think that if you could reduce the size of the trident project and put that money into troops, training and equipment then it would be worth seriously looking at.

I just don't believe that's where the money would go.

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

By *oorland2Couple over a year ago

Stoke

"By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety.

Well put, even with the £10bn contingency its still cheap. It's a necessary evil.

We don't have to worry about Russia, Putin is far too clever for that. We don't have to worry about China as they like us, who else will buy all their cheap shit.

That only leaves Korea. If they did decide to develop and use nuclear weapons against I'd die happier knowing we were killing everyone of them fuckers too

So well said, I really don't know why we worry about Russia, or real worry should be directed at the likes of Pakistan, and rest of Muslim world. Although they take over the Europe and the UK by simply out breeding the indigenous population

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

By *oorland2Couple over a year ago

Stoke

"Problem is deep water submarines were untraceable, they are not anymore.

So bottom line is the weapon doesn't work. "

It definitely works better than no deterrent at all.

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

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

Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Problem is deep water submarines were untraceable, they are not anymore.

So bottom line is the weapon doesn't work.

It definitely works better than no deterrent at all. "

As a deterrent against whom?

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

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

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea . "

Saddam and Kadafi were both taken out, i bet they wish they had a credible Nuclear deterent.

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea . "

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?"

Exactly - what enemies do we have next Door?

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

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

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?"

No country with a credible nuclear deterrent has been invaded, that is the whole point of it.

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

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

"Problem is deep water submarines were untraceable, they are not anymore.

So bottom line is the weapon doesn't work.

It definitely works better than no deterrent at all.

As a deterrent against whom? "

why have any sort of army?

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?

Exactly - what enemies do we have next Door?"

None next door as we're an island? But I'm sure that those countries and other that could in theory be a threat have a few boats lying around.

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?

No country with a credible nuclear deterrent has been invaded, that is the whole point of it."

I knkw that's my point lol

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

*know

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

By *rincessvenusCouple over a year ago

Hull

were you going torun to in 4 mins

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

By *leasure domMan over a year ago

Edinburgh

This immoral WMD system which addresses none of the security threats facing us today is unwelcome in Scotland. It exposes our major centre of population to unnecessary risk, all so that the English establishment, addicted to war, can retain their seat on the UN security council and continue to be best friends and supplicants of the White House and Pentagon.

Apart from the French, with their equally ludicrous love of la gloire and "projecting power" (ugh!), no other European country feels the need to spend obscene amounts of money on this outdated concept of defence.

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"Problem is deep water submarines were untraceable, they are not anymore.

So bottom line is the weapon doesn't work.

It definitely works better than no deterrent at all.

As a deterrent against whom?

why have any sort of army? "

That's a valid point to be fair. If you get rid of trident why bother with any armed forces because what we have left is not going to bother anyone.

After all we are a part of nato. Let the French fight for us... oh wait maybe not the French, erm Germans they'll fight our battles for us we have a great track record with them....

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?

Exactly - what enemies do we have next Door?

None next door as we're an island? But I'm sure that those countries and other that could in theory be a threat have a few boats lying around."

The French? Belgians, Dutch, Danes... Norwegians?

Who?

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Problem is deep water submarines were untraceable, they are not anymore.

So bottom line is the weapon doesn't work.

It definitely works better than no deterrent at all.

As a deterrent against whom?

why have any sort of army?

That's a valid point to be fair. If you get rid of trident why bother with any armed forces because what we have left is not going to bother anyone.

After all we are a part of nato. Let the French fight for us... oh wait maybe not the French, erm Germans they'll fight our battles for us we have a great track record with them...."

Trident is a Cold War weapon, created with Russia in mind.

The Russian army is so shit it could barely pushover the Georgians in 2008

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?

Exactly - what enemies do we have next Door?

None next door as we're an island? But I'm sure that those countries and other that could in theory be a threat have a few boats lying around.

The French? Belgians, Dutch, Danes... Norwegians?

Who?"

The Irish?

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

By *hoenixcouplexxCouple over a year ago

Leicestershire

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?

Exactly - what enemies do we have next Door?

None next door as we're an island? But I'm sure that those countries and other that could in theory be a threat have a few boats lying around.

The French? Belgians, Dutch, Danes... Norwegians?

Who?"

Navey's

2nd biggest Russia.

3rd biggest China.

8th biggest North Korea.

They have a few between them.

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

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

Haha very good. No but it should have a vaping area. There are many like myself that vape. Moving on personally, if Scotland doesn't want it, there choice. They don't want anything English. So we take it back and give the jobs of building running and porting back to the British.

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

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

"Problem is deep water submarines were untraceable, they are not anymore.

So bottom line is the weapon doesn't work.

It definitely works better than no deterrent at all.

As a deterrent against whom?

why have any sort of army?

That's a valid point to be fair. If you get rid of trident why bother with any armed forces because what we have left is not going to bother anyone.

After all we are a part of nato. Let the French fight for us... oh wait maybe not the French, erm Germans they'll fight our battles for us we have a great track record with them....

Trident is a Cold War weapon, created with Russia in mind.

The Russian army is so shit it could barely pushover the Georgians in 2008"

They did alright at the Euros against the English..... Used your preferred method of fighting too.

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

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?

Exactly - what enemies do we have next Door?

None next door as we're an island? But I'm sure that those countries and other that could in theory be a threat have a few boats lying around.

The French? Belgians, Dutch, Danes... Norwegians?

Who?

Navey's

2nd biggest Russia.

3rd biggest China.

8th biggest North Korea.

They have a few between them."

The Russian navy is shite - it's rusting in port.

China's is on the other side of the world - we have no territorial disputes with the Chinese, that's the American's bag.

North Korea? You shittin' me?

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

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"By the way she did say how much it cost if you watched it properly - £31 billion spread over a very long period of time which works out at about 2% of GDP. A bargain to ensure our future safety."

Trident is a lot less than that as 2%of GDP is the entire defence budget.

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

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

"Does it? Iran and many other countries have no nukes, they have not been invaded by Russia, China or Korea .

Didn't they have a thing with their neighbours for quite a while?

Have an countries that are nuclear capable been invaded?

Exactly - what enemies do we have next Door?

None next door as we're an island? But I'm sure that those countries and other that could in theory be a threat have a few boats lying around.

The French? Belgians, Dutch, Danes... Norwegians?

Who?

Navey's

2nd biggest Russia.

3rd biggest China.

8th biggest North Korea.

They have a few between them.

The Russian navy is shite - it's rusting in port.

China's is on the other side of the world - we have no territorial disputes with the Chinese, that's the American's bag.

North Korea? You shittin' me?

“Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world.”

Napoleon

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

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"Problem is deep water submarines were untraceable, they are not anymore.

So bottom line is the weapon doesn't work.

It definitely works better than no deterrent at all.

As a deterrent against whom?

why have any sort of army?

That's a valid point to be fair. If you get rid of trident why bother with any armed forces because what we have left is not going to bother anyone.

After all we are a part of nato. Let the French fight for us... oh wait maybe not the French, erm Germans they'll fight our battles for us we have a great track record with them....

Trident is a Cold War weapon, created with Russia in mind.

The Russian army is so shit it could barely pushover the Georgians in 2008"

the ivasion look less time than it takes to watch the movie Titanic!

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

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

I haven't read all the Thread so please excuse me if I repeat what has been said.

The premise of the OP's question is fatally flawed when she says:

"In Scotland its a majority dont want Trident"

I am sure the OP was taking information from possibly the SNP in good faith.

However results from an ICM poll have been circulating in the press and on social media and here they are:

Scotland On keeping Trident:

Support: 43%

Oppose: 42%

(via ICM)

12:44 PM - 22 May 2016

It is the same misleading statements by the SNP who say "All of Scotland voted to Remain in the EU"

They didn't. Over a million Scots voted to leave.

Always be careful when the SNP say something.....

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

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

"I think we should have a nuclear capability but I'm not sure Trident is the answer !

I don't trust it as independent !

I suspect we couldn't use it without the yanks permission !"

The UK Trident system is entirely independent of the USA except in the rotation of the missiles (not the warheads) as they are pooled with US Trident subs in supply and maintenance from Florida.

The first thing a new PM is obliged to do is write a 'Letter of Last Resort' to each Trident sub Commander in their own handwriting choosing from 4 options:

* Retaliate with nuclear weapons

* Do not retaliate

* Use their own judgement

* Place the submarine under an Allied country's command specifically Australia or the USA.

No US implications there especially as at that point the UK (and half of Europe) probably doesn't exist any more.

We do not rely on any guidance, satellite or other external systems to keep the Trident targeting integrity in place.

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

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

“Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world.”

Napoleon "

Napoleon was well known for his wit and fine crafting of “Yo momma so fat” jokes

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

By *oncupiscentTonyMan over a year ago

Kent

It's not meant to be used yeah?

A deterrent yeah?

Mutually assured destruction yeah?

Now here's my plan, we don't renew it...BUT...crucially we tell the rest of the world we have, they can't take a chance it's all bluff, the deterrent stays in place but we save wheelbarrows of cash, job done.

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

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

"In Scotland its a majority dont want Trident

Am interested to know how many people living in England want it ?

If you have seen the debate time and time again the pm was asked how much in total will it cost and she didnt answer

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

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

"This immoral WMD system which addresses none of the security threats facing us today is unwelcome in Scotland. It exposes our major centre of population to unnecessary risk, all so that the English establishment, addicted to war, can retain their seat on the UN security council and continue to be best friends and supplicants of the White House and Pentagon.

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government"

Well said

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

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

"In Scotland its a majority dont want Trident

Am interested to know how many people living in England want it ?

If you have seen the debate time and time again the pm was asked how much in total will it cost and she didnt answer

******************

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government

Well said "

a couple of good quotes above

and what about France, remember France!!! the ones who blew the hell out of the South Pacific with their nuclear Testing!!!

lets hope they don't get attacked as the nuclear fallout will take out half the UK or at least the lower southerners

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

By *iverpool LoverMan over a year ago

liverpool

"I think we should have a nuclear capability but I'm not sure Trident is the answer !

I don't trust it as independent !

I suspect we couldn't use it without the yanks permission !

Yeah how scary would it be if Trump wins the election in the USA and he has final say if the button should be pushed

why are people worried about Russia and putin for?

If you come away from the main stream media and watch alternative news outlets you will see putin is way more reasonable and a far better leader then our current western leaders.

if there is ever another cold war russia it wont be bacause putin starts it, it will be because the west are doing everything possible to incite one with russia.

and also with regards to trident as _iamondjoe said on the other thread let's just call it what it is, its not a detterent or insurance policy but a tool for vengence annihilation.

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

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

"I think we should have a nuclear capability but I'm not sure Trident is the answer !

I don't trust it as independent !

I suspect we couldn't use it without the yanks permission !

Yeah how scary would it be if Trump wins the election in the USA and he has final say if the button should be pushed

why are people worried about Russia and putin for?

If you come away from the main stream media and watch alternative news outlets you will see putin is way more reasonable and a far better leader then our current western leaders.

if there is ever another cold war russia it wont be bacause putin starts it, it will be because the west are doing everything possible to incite one with russia.

and also with regards to trident as _iamondjoe said on the other thread let's just call it what it is, its not a detterent or insurance policy but a tool for vengence annihilation. "

It did not work as a deterrent or an Insurance Policy on 2nd April 1982 when Argentina attacked the UK

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

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"I think we should have a nuclear capability but I'm not sure Trident is the answer !

I don't trust it as independent !

I suspect we couldn't use it without the yanks permission !

Yeah how scary would it be if Trump wins the election in the USA and he has final say if the button should be pushed

why are people worried about Russia and putin for?

If you come away from the main stream media and watch alternative news outlets you will see putin is way more reasonable and a far better leader then our current western leaders.

if there is ever another cold war russia it wont be bacause putin starts it, it will be because the west are doing everything possible to incite one with russia.

and also with regards to trident as _iamondjoe said on the other thread let's just call it what it is, its not a detterent or insurance policy but a tool for vengence annihilation.

It did not work as a deterrent or an Insurance Policy on 2nd April 1982 when Argentina attacked the UK

You are right. It didn't work against the IRA either.

Maybe we should have nuked Buenos Aires and Belfast.

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

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

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government"

You are right the English warmongers need the Scottish.

Who else are we going to use for cannon fodder

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

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

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government

You are right the English warmongers need the Scottish.

Who else are we going to use for cannon fodder

Breaking News:

Trident fuck off and don't come back

"It would be democratically unacceptable if in the face of this clear opposition the UK government were to impose Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde against Scotland's wishes."

"On becoming Prime Minister Theresa May claimed that she wanted to govern in the interests of all nations and people in the UK - if that is true she must now make clear she respects Scotland's decision.

"The UK government must work with the Scottish government to ensure the earliest safe withdrawal of nuclear warheads from Scotland, and to discuss the retention and diversification of HMNB Clyde as a conventional naval base."

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

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

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government

You are right the English warmongers need the Scottish.

Who else are we going to use for cannon fodder

Breaking News:

Trident fuck off and don't come back

"It would be democratically unacceptable if in the face of this clear opposition the UK government were to impose Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde against Scotland's wishes."

And yet another perfect example of 'cake and eat it too' madness from the SNP. Given all our submarines a re nuclear powered if you want 'nukes' off the Clyde it all goes.

Yes the SNP wants the employment but it doesn't want the bits the drive that employment. Selfish and stupid.

The only 'working with the SNP' that should happen now is to say "we are moving Faslane depot to Devonport next April and as you are intent on holding 'IndyRef2' and assure us you have a majority we cannot risk having advanced warships built in a foreign country so the Type 26s are going to Portsmouth".

Personally I would call Sturgeon and say "Look you have been very persuasive and it is with much humility I accept your arguments. Well done Mrs Sturgeon. There is clearly no need for a Referendum and so I shall be laying a Motion before the House tomorrow for the Repeal of the Act of Union 1536"

The people of Scotland need to be careful for what they wish ....

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

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

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government

You are right the English warmongers need the Scottish.

Who else are we going to use for cannon fodder

Breaking News:

Trident fuck off and don't come back

"It would be democratically unacceptable if in the face of this clear opposition the UK government were to impose Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde against Scotland's wishes."

And yet another perfect example of 'cake and eat it too' madness from the SNP. Given all our submarines a re nuclear powered if you want 'nukes' off the Clyde it all goes.

Yes the SNP wants the employment but it doesn't want the bits the drive that employment. Selfish and stupid.

The people of Scotland need to be careful for what they wish .... "

you get a gold star today

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

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

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government

You are right the English warmongers need the Scottish.

Who else are we going to use for cannon fodder

Breaking News:

Trident fuck off and don't come back

"It would be democratically unacceptable if in the face of this clear opposition the UK government were to impose Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde against Scotland's wishes."

The UK is overwhelingly in favour of Trident. As the majority want it and want it to remain in Scotland then it shall remain in Scotland.

The minority can't go against the will of the majority. That would be undemocratic

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

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

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government

You are right the English warmongers need the Scottish.

Who else are we going to use for cannon fodder

Breaking News:

Trident fuck off and don't come back

"It would be democratically unacceptable if in the face of this clear opposition the UK government were to impose Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde against Scotland's wishes."

The UK is overwhelingly in favour of Trident. As the majority want it and want it to remain in Scotland then it shall remain in Scotland.

The minority can't go against the will of the majority. That would be undemocratic

Even the Scottish people are equally split on Trident going by a recent Poll of 43% for and 42% against. So the SNP saying (as they always do) "Scotland wants Trident out" isn't actually true. Just like only 35% of the Scottish Electorate voted to Remain in the EU but according to the SNP it was the whole of Scotland.

I think its their exaggerated righteous indignation based on a fabrication of lies that annoys people most.

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

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

some need to find a life

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

By *horehouseCouple over a year ago

dissatisfied

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government

You are right the English warmongers need the Scottish.

Who else are we going to use for cannon fodder

Breaking News:

Trident fuck off and don't come back

"It would be democratically unacceptable if in the face of this clear opposition the UK government were to impose Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde against Scotland's wishes."

The UK is overwhelingly in favour of Trident. As the majority want it and want it to remain in Scotland then it shall remain in Scotland.

The minority can't go against the will of the majority. That would be undemocratic

It's undemocratic to force the will of England upon the people of Scotland ..as they are different countries in a union

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

By *horehouseCouple over a year ago

dissatisfied

[Removed by poster at 19/07/16 15:04:14]

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

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

Bottom line is Trident exists, it will exist in the future, and if there is any sign it may be needed it will not be anywhere near Glasgow. So the Scotts get the employment benefits with little or no risk of any attack.

Personally I don't like having it, don't think it is a wise investment but that won't get rid of it.

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

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

The Scottish government should cut off the power to the Faslane base. Time to play hardball with the warmongers in London.

The Scottish government

You are right the English warmongers need the Scottish.

Who else are we going to use for cannon fodder

Breaking News:

Trident fuck off and don't come back

"It would be democratically unacceptable if in the face of this clear opposition the UK government were to impose Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde against Scotland's wishes."

The UK is overwhelingly in favour of Trident. As the majority want it and want it to remain in Scotland then it shall remain in Scotland.

The minority can't go against the will of the majority. That would be undemocratic

It's undemocratic to force the will of England upon the people of Scotland ..as they are different countries in a union "

It's also undemocratic to force the will of Scotland on the people of England. Or it would be if we wasn't in a union where the constution of that union has been agrees for centuries. So in England we accept it and don't bitch on about it.

If Scotland don't want Trident I couldn't give a shit. I'd happily have it in England but Scotland can pay for the new infrastructure and decommisioning what is already there. I'm sure they can afford it along with the 45000 Scots depending on it for their lively hood.

Although I think they will have to export a lot of haggis to get the income

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

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

" Although I think they will have to export a lot of haggis to get the income "

Gee thanks I was just enjoying a Lamb Chop ...

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

» Add a new message to this topic