This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 18 Jul 16 1.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) Potentially, Russia Realistically, only North Korea is probably a real threat, and not to the UK. pakistan represents more the threat of Islamists obtaining control of existing nuclear arsenal. Russia and China however would be likely to use the lack of military threat as a means of leverage (and it would mean NATO would only have France as a localised nuclear power - making it far more dependent on the US). And within a decade maybe Saudi Arabia and Iran. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons, its going to start an arms race in the middle east, likely with Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't rule Japan or South Korea out of interest, with North Korea 'joining the club'. Currently, there is no real nuclear threat to the UK, which I believe makes it the ideal time to phase out Trident for a land based long range system. Only France realistically could launch a strike to achieve total destruction without the UK being able to launch from land. Problem really is that Trident only ever has the capability to retaliate to one of those threats, not all of them.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
  Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 3.26pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) I understand the basis of the counter argument and I accept that Trident itself is in flexible and needs updating but are you really telling me that in the event of a nuclear stand off, you would rely on other friendly nations to protect us?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| elgrande bedford 18 Jul 16 3.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
And there is the crux of the matter. Reality and the denial of it, (in favour of some self designed lefty utopia full of unicorn farts and same sex parents). Is what drives the more lunatic lefty fringe these days. Ha ha post of the day.....
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 18 Jul 16 3.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It needs more than updating it needs a complete re-think. Silent submarines are 1980's technology its a big if that they are not detectable now and more so in the future. I would rather have Jeremy Corbyn looking at this than the tories just rubber stamping it as usual. He is actually willing to go along with Trident in some form if all the work is done in UK. I wonder if the truth is that this is a first strike weapon then that would deter (mad isn't it)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 18 Jul 16 3.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) ARE YOU FOR REAL ???????
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
It needs more than updating it needs a complete re-think. Silent submarines are 1980's technology its a big if that they are not detectable now and more so in the future. I would rather have Jeremy Corbyn looking at this than the tories just rubber stamping it as usual. He is actually willing to go along with Trident in some form if all the work is done in UK. I wonder if the truth is that this is a first strike weapon then that would deter (mad isn't it) ...................................................... You want a known CND supporting surrender monkey to asses our military capability? Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 3.58pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 18 Jul 16 4.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Please answer sensibly or not at all thank you. Really you are a c**t etc etc please refrain
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 4.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Please answer sensibly or not at all thank you. Really you are a c**t etc etc please refrain No one has called you anything/ How about giving a coherent justification for clinging on to the idea that the entire world will disarm and that defending ourselves will no longer be necessary when all the evidence points toward than never happening in the imaginable future.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Jul 16 4.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
No one has called you anything/ How about giving a coherent justification for clinging on to the idea that the entire world will disarm and that defending ourselves will no longer be necessary when all the evidence points toward than never happening in the imaginable future. Hrolf I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. It is essential we renew a very important component of our national security for generations to come.In fact it is simply not possible to be certain that no extreme threats will emerge in years to come which threaten us here in the UK.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| topcat Holmesdale / Surbiton 18 Jul 16 4.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Good time to watch PM Jim Hacker and Cabinet Secretary Humphrey Appleby discussing this subject 30 years ago
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 4.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
Hrolf I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. It is essential we renew a very important component of our national security for generations to come.In fact it is simply not possible to be certain that no extreme threats will emerge in years to come which threaten us here in the UK.
The nuclear deterrent has been it's own worst enemy in the sense that it has been so successful that it has bred complacency among the post war population and especially the younger ones, who didn't even really experience the Cold War.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 18 Jul 16 5.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
That's not actually an answer. Who are the enemies? MAD still exists. Who is going to bomb the UK if we don't have our own deterrent? I don't recall Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy et al being threatened with nuclear or conventional attack since the end of the Cold War. They don't have a nuclear option, to the best of my knowledge. I'd argue that spending tens of billions annually on something we may actually no longer need is beyond bonkers. If you believe having nukes buys our seat on the UN Security Council, then that's a different argument. Edited by Mr_Gristle (18 Jul 2016 1.33pm) I think you've defeated your opinion right there.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.