FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

The kindest cut of all

Jump to newest
 

By *leasureDome OP   Man
over a year ago

all over the place

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

nope

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

yes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

no

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etillanteWoman
over a year ago

.

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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

yep

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

what is it????

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDome OP   Man
over a year ago

all over the place


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDome OP   Man
over a year ago

all over the place


"what is it????"

its a new missile delivery system designed to destroy whole cities in a nuclear explosion .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDome OP   Man
over a year ago

all over the place


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etillanteWoman
over a year ago

.


"

notice how there have been no world wars since everyone is shit scared a country might us it"

Isn't that sort of what I said?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDome OP   Man
over a year ago

all over the place


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDome OP   Man
over a year ago

all over the place


"

notice how there have been no world wars since everyone is shit scared a country might us it

Isn't that sort of what I said?"

yeah your always piping up ,making sense lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDome OP   Man
over a year ago

all over the place


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

It's Three Vanguard Mk.2 subs that have been commissioned.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *exeteraWoman
over a year ago

Bridgend

Would save a lot of money if we just talked them up and pretended we had them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"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

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualfire88Man
over a year ago

Edinburgh

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Hurray!! Thanks mally.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"Hurray!! Thanks mally. "

awwww , it's a love in now lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Hurray!! Thanks mally.

awwww , it's a love in now lol "

nah its buryin the hatchett... i just dread to think where!! x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDome OP   Man
over a year ago

all over the place


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top