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

Trident?

Jump to newest
 

By *inkyHnS OP   Couple
over a year ago

The Council of Elrond

Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

There is more to nuclear technology than weapons

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Build it big

Build it high

Build enough

To reach the sky!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I think if the Money wasnt spent on Trident it would be spent on other kinds of Weapons.

Gimp

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

We need them, they are our last defence, somebody fires one at us, we fire them back, its a good deterrent to have!

Stops the world becoming like a mad max movie

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

I think we should renew. We should keep to our NATO commitments and spend 2%. International military cooperation keeps us safer and actually keep military costs down. We would spend a lot more if we weren't NATO members.

Look at the decision to scrap Nimrod, we haven't been able to search for Russian subs off Scotland, we have had help from Canada for that capability gap. Also turn decision to scrap our carriers, because we thought we wouldn't need them, but they sure would be useful off the Syrian coast.

Geo-politics change quickly, building nuclear submarines takes years, we just can't risk a gap.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

We are building two carriers but not the planes to fly from them

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"We are building two carriers but not the planes to fly from them"

Well we are buying the planes from the Yanks so they should be pretty good

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"We are building two carriers but not the planes to fly from them"

Yeah they decided they wanted VTOL capability, paid for design changes, then went back to having non VTOL capability, and paid again for changes to be made back the idiots!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"We are building two carriers but not the planes to fly from them

Yeah they decided they wanted VTOL capability, paid for design changes, then went back to having non VTOL capability, and paid again for changes to be made back the idiots!"

Military procurement is not really our strong point is it? The last lot of nuclear submarines we 50%+ over budget and something like 57 months late!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"We are building two carriers but not the planes to fly from them

Yeah they decided they wanted VTOL capability, paid for design changes, then went back to having non VTOL capability, and paid again for changes to be made back the idiots!"

Now JSF will be vtol keeping the price of the carriers down. Still shit planning though.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

We don't need them. If we didn't have them, why would we be nuked? It would serve no purpose. The country would be uninhabitable and of no use to anyone. Plenty of other small countries manage without them. And let's not kid ourselves. We are pretty small and insignificant. Our wealth is now based almost entirely by the banking sector (as we keep being told). You don't actually need the country as a physical entity. If someone wants to invade, then the last thing they would do is nuke us.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

West Midlands

I've got a lovely new red trident or toasting fork in my new photos

I'm such a devil

As for nuclear weapons

Sadly we need some as a deterrent we're led to believe

I think we need them but we could spend the monkey on kinder things

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"We are building two carriers but not the planes to fly from them

Yeah they decided they wanted VTOL capability, paid for design changes, then went back to having non VTOL capability, and paid again for changes to be made back the idiots!

Military procurement is not really our strong point is it? The last lot of nuclear submarines we 50%+ over budget and something like 57 months late!"

Mostly cos military procurement is done by politicians and not military folk.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I don't think we need them. I can't see another world war type situation arising again where we would seriously considering pushing the button.

Nobody really wants to launch, look at the Cuban missile crisis. that was probably the closest the world came to a nuclear war and even at the height of their paranoia they didn't launch.

Billions of pounds wasted I think.

G

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *illyrocCouple
over a year ago

north west


"I don't think we need them. I can't see another world war type situation arising again where we would seriously considering pushing the button.

Nobody really wants to launch, look at the Cuban missile crisis. that was probably the closest the world came to a nuclear war and even at the height of their paranoia they didn't launch.

Billions of pounds wasted I think.

Really I wonder why China ,Pakistan are investing billions in them for ,do you think by the UK not having them the rest of the world would follow suit ,no we would be very weak

"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

No, we'd never use them. I'd rather have the Russians marching up the strand than bring about Armageddon for the rest of the world.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Why aren't are new carriers nucular too.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I'd prefer it not to be renewed as I don't think the UK has need for it, alongside our membership of security alliances.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

George Bush Jnr would have nucular ones.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"We don't need them. If we didn't have them, why would we be nuked? It would serve no purpose. The country would be uninhabitable and of no use to anyone. Plenty of other small countries manage without them. And let's not kid ourselves. We are pretty small and insignificant. Our wealth is now based almost entirely by the banking sector (as we keep being told). You don't actually need the country as a physical entity. If someone wants to invade, then the last thing they would do is nuke us. "

Its like walking the street at night with a big knife to protect yourself from robbers. Cool eh? Then along comes a man with an AK47 and points it at you. He does not have to fire it; you just give in or die.

If we have trident we cannot be intimidated into capitulation. Even if we never use it there are some madmen around the world who will; unless of course they face mutually assured destruction.

Sterilising our land mass is not important. Consider Russia, she is currently suffering because Britain's financial clout is hurting them. A nuke into central London and away goes the problem. Russia has areas of land the size of Britain with less than 10,000 people in it. Britain has 63,000,000. Russia doesn't need our land. (The Crimea is a naval base that does not freeze in winter.)

One final point. Britain may be small but we are very far from insignificant. A few years ago I sat next to an Iranian on a plane. He was a very educated man and well travelled. He said he loved Britain and that the most common perception of the British around the world is that you do not want to go to war with them; they nearly always win! I think we need to be ready for the psychopath with an AK47.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *iverpool LoverMan
over a year ago

liverpool

The question is do you want to live in a world where every country has nuclear weapons or no countrys have nuclear weapons.

I firmly believe in the qoute "be the change you wish to see in the world"

its gotta start somwhere with somone so hey why dont we show the rest of the world what a peacefull world it could be and use those billions of pounds on education, hospitals, jobs, helping people out of poverty instead of on warfare.

4 nuclear submarines are not needed and in 50 years time they need to be replaced again.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

it's completely unnecessary

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"We don't need them. If we didn't have them, why would we be nuked? It would serve no purpose. The country would be uninhabitable and of no use to anyone. Plenty of other small countries manage without them. And let's not kid ourselves. We are pretty small and insignificant. Our wealth is now based almost entirely by the banking sector (as we keep being told). You don't actually need the country as a physical entity. If someone wants to invade, then the last thing they would do is nuke us. "

I'm afraid you're measuring the rest of the world by your own sense of logic, values, honor and fair play.

Religious zealots, disenfranchised individuals, radicals and lunatics don't share your values so regrettably won't take the same path as you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *inkyHnS OP   Couple
over a year ago

The Council of Elrond


"The question is do you want to live in a world where every country has nuclear weapons or no countrys have nuclear weapons.

I firmly believe in the qoute "be the change you wish to see in the world"

its gotta start somwhere with somone so hey why dont we show the rest of the world what a peacefull world it could be and use those billions of pounds on education, hospitals, jobs, helping people out of poverty instead of on warfare.

4 nuclear submarines are not needed and in 50 years time they need to be replaced again.

"
100% agree

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"We don't need them. If we didn't have them, why would we be nuked? It would serve no purpose. The country would be uninhabitable and of no use to anyone. Plenty of other small countries manage without them. And let's not kid ourselves. We are pretty small and insignificant. Our wealth is now based almost entirely by the banking sector (as we keep being told). You don't actually need the country as a physical entity. If someone wants to invade, then the last thing they would do is nuke us.

Its like walking the street at night with a big knife to protect yourself from robbers. Cool eh? Then along comes a man with an AK47 and points it at you. He does not have to fire it; you just give in or die.

If we have trident we cannot be intimidated into capitulation. Even if we never use it there are some madmen around the world who will; unless of course they face mutually assured destruction.

Sterilising our land mass is not important. Consider Russia, she is currently suffering because Britain's financial clout is hurting them. A nuke into central London and away goes the problem. Russia has areas of land the size of Britain with less than 10,000 people in it. Britain has 63,000,000. Russia doesn't need our land. (The Crimea is a naval base that does not freeze in winter.)

One final point. Britain may be small but we are very far from insignificant. A few years ago I sat next to an Iranian on a plane. He was a very educated man and well travelled. He said he loved Britain and that the most common perception of the British around the world is that you do not want to go to war with them; they nearly always win! I think we need to be ready for the psychopath with an AK47. "

Thumbs up.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

A nuclear armed Iran is very close. Anyone in the UK trying to work out the mindset of a fanatic in Tehran has no chance of even getting to first base. Of course WE dont want nuclear weapons but as long as other potential enemies do, then we must nullify their threat.

The UK needs is nuclear deterrent more than ever and suggesting that we don't need them because our friends have them is selfish AND foolish.

Nuclear arms are a MASSIVE waste of money because one hopes and trusts that they will never be used. Considering that we barely have a conventional military force anymore, nuclear weapons are about the only protection that we do have.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"

I'm afraid you're measuring the rest of the world by your own sense of logic, values, honor and fair play.

Religious zealots, disenfranchised individuals, radicals and lunatics don't share your values so regrettably won't take the same path as you.

"

That just about sums it up perfectly. Unfortunately too many Brits have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world and that is very surprising considering the 24/7 news stories from currently Iraq & Syria.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"The question is do you want to live in a world where every country has nuclear weapons or no countrys have nuclear weapons.

I firmly believe in the qoute "be the change you wish to see in the world"

its gotta start somwhere with somone so hey why dont we show the rest of the world what a peacefull world it could be and use those billions of pounds on education, hospitals, jobs, helping people out of poverty instead of on warfare.

4 nuclear submarines are not needed and in 50 years time they need to be replaced again.

"

I kind of agree, yes it's got to start somewhere. But why with us when there are so many lunatics in the world who would nuke us the second they had a chance.

Do you really think the like of Al quaida or Isis would hesitate to make us dust if they had a chance.

All this let's make the world a safer place and not have a deterrent is unbelievably naive pony.

Just because we are nice and peaceful and won't press the button doesn't mean some lunatic who wants to meet Allah and get 30 virgins won't press the button.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oodmessMan
over a year ago

yumsville

Personally I am favour, if not for the jobs and extended contractors associated with it. The recent economic sanctions seem worthwhile, but, I still think there are more positives than negatives myself

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"A nuclear armed Iran is very close. Anyone in the UK trying to work out the mindset of a fanatic in Tehran has no chance of even getting to first base. Of course WE dont want nuclear weapons but as long as other potential enemies do, then we must nullify their threat.

The UK needs is nuclear deterrent more than ever and suggesting that we don't need them because our friends have them is selfish AND foolish.

Nuclear arms are a MASSIVE waste of money because one hopes and trusts that they will never be used. Considering that we barely have a conventional military force anymore, nuclear weapons are about the only protection that we do have."

What you said!!!!!!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

WE don't need them. NATO has more than enough.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

We have GOT to stop measuring the world by our own ethics and how we value life.

Some years ago I ran a security course and covered the subject of morals and values.

The question I posed was "how much money would it take you to shoot a total stranger in the head?"

Everyone, all hardened veterans, said no amount of money would allow then to do it.

These guys shared my moral compass.

The preceding month a senior Russian policeman, plus his wife, three children and dog were shot dead in their own home by a 13 year old boy for the equivalent price of 20 Bensons.

Different country. Different moral compass. Different value on human life.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"WE don't need them. NATO has more than enough."

And when the NATO countries decide they don't need nukes either and get rid of them? What do we do then?

We try to fight the likes of North Korea, Al quaida, Isis, Iran, Syria with a baloon on a stick......

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Let uncle Sam pay for them. They are the ones most likely to use them. They have form.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

Trident= £100 billion.

oil under the falklands= £100 billion.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate


"The question is do you want to live in a world where every country has nuclear weapons or no countrys have nuclear weapons.

I firmly believe in the qoute "be the change you wish to see in the world"

its gotta start somwhere with somone so hey why dont we show the rest of the world what a peacefull world it could be and use those billions of pounds on education, hospitals, jobs, helping people out of poverty instead of on warfare.

4 nuclear submarines are not needed and in 50 years time they need to be replaced again.

I kind of agree, yes it's got to start somewhere. But why with us when there are so many lunatics in the world who would nuke us the second they had a chance.

Do you really think the like of Al quaida or Isis would hesitate to make us dust if they had a chance.

All this let's make the world a safer place and not have a deterrent is unbelievably naive pony.

Just because we are nice and peaceful and won't press the button doesn't mean some lunatic who wants to meet Allah and get 30 virgins won't press the button.

"

Why wouldn't said nutter just press the button anyway? He doesn't care if we fired one back because he's going to meet allah anyway,,?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits."

let's get real, world peace is never going to happen, not while money is the driving force behind everything, people want more, it's in our nature.

If we got rid of our nuclear deterrent, the rest of the world is not going to go awell, we don't need them now, let's all hold hands and have a planet scale orgy!!!

UK with no deterrant, would mean for instance, Russia could fire a nuke at London taking out the head of government, then they come parading through the UK from the north, what resistance do we have from an invasion? I mean our armed forces are already dwindling to nothing!

If even one was fired at us we could launch all ours back at Russia before the Russian one hits. taking out Russian government and key military installations to prevent any further military action against the UK while our government tries to rebuild itself amongst the chaos.

We need tridant,,,,,,, and a more powerful navy all together. If you only knew how many times a month Russia flies it's bombers into UK airspace testing our response times, you would see we need more defence. like it was said before, we have to ask the Canadians for help protecting our borders from submarines since we got rid of nimrod.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"I think if the Money wasnt spent on Trident it would be spent on other kinds of Weapons.

Gimp"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *omaMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"I don't think we need them. I can't see another world war type situation arising again where we would seriously considering pushing the button.

Nobody really wants to launch, look at the Cuban missile crisis. that was probably the closest the world came to a nuclear war and even at the height of their paranoia they didn't launch.

Billions of pounds wasted I think.

G

"

And it's because the Yanks had nuclear weapons that averted that crisis. . When two sides have the same destructive power then it will never lead to nuclear Wars.

When just one side has them then the bullying really starts. . . We should keep and upgrade to Trident.

Russia is bullying its closest neighbours, Ukraine for example, as it feels NATO is too close for comfort.

All the more reason for NATO to have the response capability, and we are a major part of NATO

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits.

let's get real, world peace is never going to happen, not while money is the driving force behind everything, people want more, it's in our nature.

If we got rid of our nuclear deterrent, the rest of the world is not going to go awell, we don't need them now, let's all hold hands and have a planet scale orgy!!!

UK with no deterrant, would mean for instance, Russia could fire a nuke at London taking out the head of government, then they come parading through the UK from the north, what resistance do we have from an invasion? I mean our armed forces are already dwindling to nothing!

If even one was fired at us we could launch all ours back at Russia before the Russian one hits. taking out Russian government and key military installations to prevent any further military action against the UK while our government tries to rebuild itself amongst the chaos.

We need tridant,,,,,,, and a more powerful navy all together. If you only knew how many times a month Russia flies it's bombers into UK airspace testing our response times, you would see we need more defence. like it was said before, we have to ask the Canadians for help protecting our borders from submarines since we got rid of nimrod. "

a liitle boy who missed living through the real threat of nuclear annihilation trying to lecture those of us who remember it all too well ..... go and watch the film called "threads" young 'un

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Hi there (m) replying - I lived in Moscow speak fluent German and Russian; spent ages reading Tolstoy in Russian and have friends who used to work for the 3 letter Russian government authority.

A Russian mind does not "tick" the same way as a "peace" loving Western European does - they had friendly visits from the Tatars, Napoleon, Wilhelm II and Hilter and their minds are always on finding a weakness in countries to defend the Russian Motherlands.... With the aggressive expansion of the EU and Nato to the boarders of Russia the people in power are "worried" and they have started several years ago replacing old knackered submarines and rockets with brand new ones... which are aimed at little cities in the States and the UK... other European countries are dismissed in the Russian minds as not important or lack of back bones...

So is the money well spent - hmm yes if the Russians give up their rockets and submarines then "no"...but that is saying that my wife would find a bi girlfriend for herself next week .. a Dream

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits.

let's get real, world peace is never going to happen, not while money is the driving force behind everything, people want more, it's in our nature.

If we got rid of our nuclear deterrent, the rest of the world is not going to go awell, we don't need them now, let's all hold hands and have a planet scale orgy!!!

UK with no deterrant, would mean for instance, Russia could fire a nuke at London taking out the head of government, then they come parading through the UK from the north, what resistance do we have from an invasion? I mean our armed forces are already dwindling to nothing!

If even one was fired at us we could launch all ours back at Russia before the Russian one hits. taking out Russian government and key military installations to prevent any further military action against the UK while our government tries to rebuild itself amongst the chaos.

We need tridant,,,,,,, and a more powerful navy all together. If you only knew how many times a month Russia flies it's bombers into UK airspace testing our response times, you would see we need more defence. like it was said before, we have to ask the Canadians for help protecting our borders from submarines since we got rid of nimrod.

a liitle boy who missed living through the real threat of nuclear annihilation trying to lecture those of us who remember it all too well ..... go and watch the film called "threads" young 'un"

What you said!!!!!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits.

let's get real, world peace is never going to happen, not while money is the driving force behind everything, people want more, it's in our nature.

If we got rid of our nuclear deterrent, the rest of the world is not going to go awell, we don't need them now, let's all hold hands and have a planet scale orgy!!!

UK with no deterrant, would mean for instance, Russia could fire a nuke at London taking out the head of government, then they come parading through the UK from the north, what resistance do we have from an invasion? I mean our armed forces are already dwindling to nothing!

If even one was fired at us we could launch all ours back at Russia before the Russian one hits. taking out Russian government and key military installations to prevent any further military action against the UK while our government tries to rebuild itself amongst the chaos.

We need tridant,,,,,,, and a more powerful navy all together. If you only knew how many times a month Russia flies it's bombers into UK airspace testing our response times, you would see we need more defence. like it was said before, we have to ask the Canadians for help protecting our borders from submarines since we got rid of nimrod.

a liitle boy who missed living through the real threat of nuclear annihilation trying to lecture those of us who remember it all too well ..... go and watch the film called "threads" young 'un

What you said!!!!!!"

do you remember living through world war three?

No? Thank the bomb.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"

a liitle boy who missed living through the real threat of nuclear annihilation trying to lecture those of us who remember it all too well ..... go and watch the film called "threads" young 'un"

I may not have lived through the threat of it, but I am very aware of nuclear war, after all I have to instruct soldiers how to fight through one, it's not something that should be taken lightly at all. I would never consider using it to resolve anything however, if somebody plans to take us out, I beleieve we should be able to wipe them off the face of the earth too.

I am not lecturing anybody about anything, we have it as a deterrant, not to use as a threat. It keeps the psychos from threatening us with them. what if we got rid of them and Putin decided to Say, we want the Falkland islands, give it or we will launch our nukes at London. what's our answer now,,,,,,we have no deterrent! Should we rely on another ally with nukes. what about when that alliance breaks?

We need it as a deterrent.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"

a liitle boy who missed living through the real threat of nuclear annihilation trying to lecture those of us who remember it all too well ..... go and watch the film called "threads" young 'un

I may not have lived through the threat of it, but I am very aware of nuclear war, after all I have to instruct soldiers how to fight through one, it's not something that should be taken lightly at all. I would never consider using it to resolve anything however, if somebody plans to take us out, I beleieve we should be able to wipe them off the face of the earth too.

I am not lecturing anybody about anything, we have it as a deterrant, not to use as a threat. It keeps the psychos from threatening us with them. what if we got rid of them and Putin decided to Say, we want the Falkland islands, give it or we will launch our nukes at London. what's our answer now,,,,,,we have no deterrent! Should we rely on another ally with nukes. what about when that alliance breaks?

We need it as a deterrent."

so you teach violence to other people for a living ..... your veiw is thus unbalanced in that case

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"

so you teach violence to other people for a living ..... your veiw is thus unbalanced in that case"

My view is my view, I am not attacking your view as I beleieve every comment is in its own way correct.

I don't teach violence for a living. I teach people how to survive in a situation should a psychopath fire any nuclear biological or chemical weapons at us. How to protect ourselves from an enemy who wish us harm and protect the people of our country.

In a perfect world we would have no need for any deterrent or even a military for that matter, but humans will always want more and a threat will always be present. until that day we need to defend our self. then go on the attack when attacked.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits."

I dont recall an instance where a country with an inferior armed force prevented a hostile invasion from a more heavily armed aggressor,

It is a very regrettable part of human nature that a bully can only be dealt with by a person who is bigger and tougher.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"

so you teach violence to other people for a living ..... your veiw is thus unbalanced in that case

My view is my view, I am not attacking your view as I beleieve every comment is in its own way correct.

I don't teach violence for a living. I teach people how to survive in a situation should a psychopath fire any nuclear biological or chemical weapons at us. How to protect ourselves from an enemy who wish us harm and protect the people of our country.

In a perfect world we would have no need for any deterrent or even a military for that matter, but humans will always want more and a threat will always be present. until that day we need to defend our self. then go on the attack when attacked.

"

you said in your previous post that instruct soldiers how to fight and now you change that to teaching people how to survive .... it may be advisable to think about what you're trying to say here as those comments are two distinctly different things.

it would be a good thing to remember that japans four pillars policy has served them well for the last 70 years .... even with Russia being so close

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

[Removed by poster at 09/04/15 16:37:02]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits.

I dont recall an instance where a country with an inferior armed force prevented a hostile invasion from a more heavily armed aggressor,

It is a very regrettable part of human nature that a bully can only be dealt with by a person who is bigger and tougher."

one word .... vietnam

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"

so you teach violence to other people for a living ..... your veiw is thus unbalanced in that case"

What an unbelievably miopic perspective.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"

so you teach violence to other people for a living ..... your veiw is thus unbalanced in that case

My view is my view, I am not attacking your view as I beleieve every comment is in its own way correct.

I don't teach violence for a living. I teach people how to survive in a situation should a psychopath fire any nuclear biological or chemical weapons at us. How to protect ourselves from an enemy who wish us harm and protect the people of our country.

In a perfect world we would have no need for any deterrent or even a military for that matter, but humans will always want more and a threat will always be present. until that day we need to defend our self. then go on the attack when attacked.

you said in your previous post that instruct soldiers how to fight and now you change that to teaching people how to survive .... it may be advisable to think about what you're trying to say here as those comments are two distinctly different things.

it would be a good thing to remember that japans four pillars policy has served them well for the last 70 years .... even with Russia being so close"

they cut a deal with the americans that they would be protected by American nukes.

For somebody whose against the bomb your very nasty and aggresive

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"

you said in your previous post that instruct soldiers how to fight and now you change that to teaching people how to survive .... it may be advisable to think about what you're trying to say here as those comments are two distinctly different things.

it would be a good thing to remember that japans four pillars policy has served them well for the last 70 years .... even with Russia being so close"

That's just being pedantic, Fighting and straight out violence are two different things, you have to fight to survive!

A soldier is taught how to fight, in defence of his country, one of my skills is teaching our troops to survive and live through an CBRN attack and fight the enemy in those situations.

Japan can happily sit on the bench, being part of Team America with the nuclear deterrent they have, after all America has pretty much vowed to protect them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"

so you teach violence to other people for a living ..... your veiw is thus unbalanced in that case

My view is my view, I am not attacking your view as I beleieve every comment is in its own way correct.

I don't teach violence for a living. I teach people how to survive in a situation should a psychopath fire any nuclear biological or chemical weapons at us. How to protect ourselves from an enemy who wish us harm and protect the people of our country.

In a perfect world we would have no need for any deterrent or even a military for that matter, but humans will always want more and a threat will always be present. until that day we need to defend our self. then go on the attack when attacked.

you said in your previous post that instruct soldiers how to fight and now you change that to teaching people how to survive .... it may be advisable to think about what you're trying to say here as those comments are two distinctly different things.

it would be a good thing to remember that japans four pillars policy has served them well for the last 70 years .... even with Russia being so close

they cut a deal with the americans that they would be protected by American nukes.

For somebody whose against the bomb your very nasty and aggresive "

you may not like the words i use but i'm far from aggressive .... i'm not the person who has advocated things like going on the attack or teaching people to fight ... both things which you have mentioned on this very thread

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

If it keeps money out of the pockets of the unemployed, unemployable, and immigrants then I'm all for it. In fact buy it twice.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"

so you teach violence to other people for a living ..... your veiw is thus unbalanced in that case

My view is my view, I am not attacking your view as I beleieve every comment is in its own way correct.

I don't teach violence for a living. I teach people how to survive in a situation should a psychopath fire any nuclear biological or chemical weapons at us. How to protect ourselves from an enemy who wish us harm and protect the people of our country.

In a perfect world we would have no need for any deterrent or even a military for that matter, but humans will always want more and a threat will always be present. until that day we need to defend our self. then go on the attack when attacked.

you said in your previous post that instruct soldiers how to fight and now you change that to teaching people how to survive .... it may be advisable to think about what you're trying to say here as those comments are two distinctly different things.

it would be a good thing to remember that japans four pillars policy has served them well for the last 70 years .... even with Russia being so close

they cut a deal with the americans that they would be protected by American nukes.

For somebody whose against the bomb your very nasty and aggresive

you may not like the words i use but i'm far from aggressive .... i'm not the person who has advocated things like going on the attack or teaching people to fight ... both things which you have mentioned on this very thread"

do you remember calling someone a little boyon this thread?

Ive mentioned no such thing. Didn't expect someone ekse to stand up for the other guy? Relevant lesson there somewhere I think

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"

you may not like the words i use but i'm far from aggressive .... i'm not the person who has advocated things like going on the attack or teaching people to fight ... both things which you have mentioned on this very thread"

You have taken those words out of context though, fighting and attacking in self defence is what it's about,

a deterrent, a means to protect our nation's and it's people from the threats from psychotic maniacs who want more.

and to answer the OP's original question, in my oppinion yes we need it, if not a better one, maybe invest in dropping tungsten rods from atmosphere via satellites, gives us the damage of a nuclear bomb, minus the radiation.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits.

I dont recall an instance where a country with an inferior armed force prevented a hostile invasion from a more heavily armed aggressor,

It is a very regrettable part of human nature that a bully can only be dealt with by a person who is bigger and tougher.

one word .... vietnam"

If Vietnam had a bigger military it would not have been invaded. It was invaded because it was perceived to be a pushover. You are using a strange argument to support your cause.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits.

I dont recall an instance where a country with an inferior armed force prevented a hostile invasion from a more heavily armed aggressor,

It is a very regrettable part of human nature that a bully can only be dealt with by a person who is bigger and tougher."
.

Britain ww2

You don't even remember our own wars for Christ sake

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

although nukes are hi tech, they're low brow.

1) drop some big boys + theres nothing left, apart from a few bunkers-which negates the point really.

war is business + the winners want the spoils, not some radioactive wasteland.

so war will continue to be fought the old fashioned way, air force, navy, army. just as soon as we can find another target....

2) economically- the cost of our armed forces much greater than a few nukes. = more dosh for the 'defence' companies.

3)'deterrent' is the marketing slogan.

but unlike insurance, the cba is pretty hard to work out. none have been dropped anywhere in anger,by anyone at anytime in 60 odd years. deterrent? maybe,maybe not.

its all a bit Dr Strangelove, but you can bet they will be renewed. the MIC drives the agenda. 4 minute warnings to scare everyone/Iran building some nukes, russian subs/planes taking a drive by yadda yadda.

there are other ways of weakening your enemy. cyber (eg stuxnet), financial sanctions,oil sanctions ,info-wars to win hearts+minds

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Hi there (m) replying - I lived in Moscow speak fluent German and Russian; spent ages reading Tolstoy in Russian and have friends who used to work for the 3 letter Russian government authority.

A Russian mind does not "tick" the same way as a "peace" loving Western European does - they had friendly visits from the Tatars, Napoleon, Wilhelm II and Hilter and their minds are always on finding a weakness in countries to defend the Russian Motherlands.... With the aggressive expansion of the EU and Nato to the boarders of Russia the people in power are "worried" and they have started several years ago replacing old knackered submarines and rockets with brand new ones... which are aimed at little cities in the States and the UK... other European countries are dismissed in the Russian minds as not important or lack of back bones...

So is the money well spent - hmm yes if the Russians give up their rockets and submarines then "no"...but that is saying that my wife would find a bi girlfriend for herself next week .. a Dream "
.

So in your own words Russia's been invaded by the Germans twice the French and the tartars.... But apparently it's them who are the aggressors.

Strange logic

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Whilst I would love the world to never need such things, it sadly doesn't work that way. I'm for it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"although nukes are hi tech, they're low brow.

1) drop some big boys + theres nothing left, apart from a few bunkers-which negates the point really.

war is business + the winners want the spoils, not some radioactive wasteland.

so war will continue to be fought the old fashioned way, air force, navy, army. just as soon as we can find another target....

2) economically- the cost of our armed forces much greater than a few nukes. = more dosh for the 'defence' companies.

3)'deterrent' is the marketing slogan.

but unlike insurance, the cba is pretty hard to work out. none have been dropped anywhere in anger,by anyone at anytime in 60 odd years. deterrent? maybe,maybe not.

its all a bit Dr Strangelove, but you can bet they will be renewed. the MIC drives the agenda. 4 minute warnings to scare everyone/Iran building some nukes, russian subs/planes taking a drive by yadda yadda.

there are other ways of weakening your enemy. cyber (eg stuxnet), financial sanctions,oil sanctions ,info-wars to win hearts+minds

"
.

Exactly right it's got nothing to do with deterrent and everything to do with holding power on the un permanent security council.

Which basically means we bully everybody.

being a bully is good fire business.

Your a scumbag but your well off... Slap yourself on the back as the wonderful individuals you think you are!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits.

I dont recall an instance where a country with an inferior armed force prevented a hostile invasion from a more heavily armed aggressor,

It is a very regrettable part of human nature that a bully can only be dealt with by a person who is bigger and tougher.

one word .... vietnam

If Vietnam had a bigger military it would not have been invaded. It was invaded because it was perceived to be a pushover. You are using a strange argument to support your cause. "

invasion? are talking the french in 1858 or the japanese in 1941?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Desperate.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"

you said in your previous post that instruct soldiers how to fight and now you change that to teaching people how to survive .... it may be advisable to think about what you're trying to say here as those comments are two distinctly different things.

it would be a good thing to remember that japans four pillars policy has served them well for the last 70 years .... even with Russia being so close

That's just being pedantic, Fighting and straight out violence are two different things, you have to fight to survive!

A soldier is taught how to fight, in defence of his country, one of my skills is teaching our troops to survive and live through an CBRN attack and fight the enemy in those situations.

Japan can happily sit on the bench, being part of Team America with the nuclear deterrent they have, after all America has pretty much vowed to protect them."

Soldiers have equipment to deal with CBRN attack. As civilians we have fuck all. We will be the ones who if not killed immediately will die months later of radiation poisoning and subsequent generations will have mutagenic defects. Why bother bombing a country that is going to have all its people and resources rendered unusable?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Personally I am for the renewal of Trident, and there are so many facets as to why, it is a deterrent, the UK will hope never to use it, if it is ever used then it means it has failed.

But the whole issue is so much larger than cancelling Trident, you scrap Trident then you scrap the next generation of Submarines and deleting a capability of the UK, which in turn will have a detrimental impact on the economy of the UK. Once Astute is built then the shipyard will be redundant having a knock on effect on the 600 companies within the supply chain. Not to mention the recession that will hit the town where they are built, BAES is the largest employer in the area and thousands of people will find themselves unemployed the area cannot support this and people will either be forced to move or remain unemployed not disimilar to the closing of the mines, the cost to the UK government will go on for years to come in terms of welfare.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Personally I am for the renewal of Trident, and there are so many facets as to why, it is a deterrent, the UK will hope never to use it, if it is ever used then it means it has failed.

But the whole issue is so much larger than cancelling Trident, you scrap Trident then you scrap the next generation of Submarines and deleting a capability of the UK, which in turn will have a detrimental impact on the economy of the UK. Once Astute is built then the shipyard will be redundant having a knock on effect on the 600 companies within the supply chain. Not to mention the recession that will hit the town where they are built, BAES is the largest employer in the area and thousands of people will find themselves unemployed the area cannot support this and people will either be forced to move or remain unemployed not disimilar to the closing of the mines, the cost to the UK government will go on for years to come in terms of welfare."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield


"I don't think we need them. I can't see another world war type situation arising again where we would seriously considering pushing the button.

Nobody really wants to launch, look at the Cuban missile crisis. that was probably the closest the world came to a nuclear war and even at the height of their paranoia they didn't launch.

Billions of pounds wasted I think.

G

"

In 1962 there were a number of confrontations where nuclear weapons were within minutes of being used.

Any one of which would have lead to all out strike and counter strike.

Nuclear weapons including missiles have kept us safe for the last 70 years or so.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

Scrap it, their shite, theres been 2053 nuclear detonation s and I aint got no three headed fish

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

If it's only a deterrent that doesn't need to be used why not just pretend to the world we have them?.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eorgeyporgeyMan
over a year ago

Warrington

[Removed by poster at 09/04/15 18:53:57]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"If it's only a deterrent that doesn't need to be used why not just pretend to the world we have them?."

Because ed milibands poker face probably looks like his cum face.

Im _icky999 and I approve this message

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon "

we need the bomb , more bombs, bigger bombs , badder bombs, louder bombs so that we can do gods work better

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"WE don't need them. NATO has more than enough."

NATO does not have enough and to be part of nato we need to contribute.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

What would NATO need us for if we didn't have Trident?

The UK and especially Scotland are strategically placed for being close to Russia. The jobs and input to the economy are also important.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

It's not that doesn't need to be used, but we hope not have the need to use it, a fairly fundamental difference.

Unfortunately the rest of the world would probably find out pretty quickly that we didn't have the goods and it never ends well when you pretend to have something you haven't got.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"What would NATO need us for if we didn't have Trident?

The UK and especially Scotland are strategically placed for being close to Russia. The jobs and input to the economy are also important.

"

The Scots don't want Trident because they think it makes them a target. If we get to nuclear war Faslane and Coulport will be the last targets to be hit as the nuclear subs will have long left the dock and can subsequently dock at hundreds places around the world.

The NHS sucks up circa £115 billion per annum. The Trident update £20 billion and will last for 50 years. Scrapping Trident will fund 63 days of NHS and leave Britain vulnerable to any despot with a nuclear bomb. Its a life insurance policy; lets just buy it and put it in the drawer.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *inkyHnS OP   Couple
over a year ago

The Council of Elrond


"What would NATO need us for if we didn't have Trident?

The UK and especially Scotland are strategically placed for being close to Russia. The jobs and input to the economy are also important.

The Scots don't want Trident because they think it makes them a target. If we get to nuclear war Faslane and Coulport will be the last targets to be hit as the nuclear subs will have long left the dock and can subsequently dock at hundreds places around the world.

The NHS sucks up circa £115 billion per annum. The Trident update £20 billion and will last for 50 years. Scrapping Trident will fund 63 days of NHS and leave Britain vulnerable to any despot with a nuclear bomb. Its a life insurance policy; lets just buy it and put it in the drawer. "

Not true people in Scotland want to get rid of it as there are families going to foodbanks , and that money they are spending on it would be better getting spent on ways to end foodbanks and spent on the NHS and no it shouldnt be moved down south better getting rid of it altogether. Hope over fear

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"What would NATO need us for if we didn't have Trident?

The UK and especially Scotland are strategically placed for being close to Russia. The jobs and input to the economy are also important.

The Scots don't want Trident because they think it makes them a target. If we get to nuclear war Faslane and Coulport will be the last targets to be hit as the nuclear subs will have long left the dock and can subsequently dock at hundreds places around the world.

The NHS sucks up circa £115 billion per annum. The Trident update £20 billion and will last for 50 years. Scrapping Trident will fund 63 days of NHS and leave Britain vulnerable to any despot with a nuclear bomb. Its a life insurance policy; lets just buy it and put it in the drawer. "
.Don't make me laugh.

I'll wash every sub personally if it comes in under 20 billion.

And don't forget that is just the cost for the subs!!.

Add on everything else and try a six fold increase just like polaris was... Which in reality we still haven't paid for!.

So apart from a shit load of money we haven't got, a deterrent that only works on big nations (and in reality there not that great a threat).

In reality all your doing is robbing money from proper defence spending ie soldiers and equipment to spend on a nonsense that if somebody does decide to nuke us at best all we get is revenge!!.

It's the ultimate human stupidity

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

But scrapping it will lead to more job losses it will not boost the economy in any way shape or form. The money is ultimately defence money and will remain in defence is the programme was scrapped.

As to people using foodbanks, I struggle to believe poverty truly exists in the UK, welfare payments are adequate but the way in which they are spent by some are questionable, people like free stuff, can't help feeling that's the draw over the need

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"What would NATO need us for if we didn't have Trident?

The UK and especially Scotland are strategically placed for being close to Russia. The jobs and input to the economy are also important.

The Scots don't want Trident because they think it makes them a target. If we get to nuclear war Faslane and Coulport will be the last targets to be hit as the nuclear subs will have long left the dock and can subsequently dock at hundreds places around the world.

The NHS sucks up circa £115 billion per annum. The Trident update £20 billion and will last for 50 years. Scrapping Trident will fund 63 days of NHS and leave Britain vulnerable to any despot with a nuclear bomb. Its a life insurance policy; lets just buy it and put it in the drawer.

Not true people in Scotland want to get rid of it as there are families going to foodbanks , and that money they are spending on it would be better getting spent on ways to end foodbanks and spent on the NHS and no it shouldnt be moved down south better getting rid of it altogether. Hope over fear"

The Scottish parliament has full autonomy over their social care responsibilities so why does Trident get blamed?

They wanted to remain in NATO after separation so Britain and the USA would have to defend them. The SNP had not counted on NATO requiring them to contribute armed forces as a condition of membership.

"Hope over fear" yes, lovely sentiment.

Likewise - "The meek shall inherit the Earth. So long as the others don't mind!"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

I think we need cheaper nuclear option.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"What would NATO need us for if we didn't have Trident?

The UK and especially Scotland are strategically placed for being close to Russia. The jobs and input to the economy are also important.

"

They would need us for the same reason that Germany and Japan are needed. They don't have nuclear weapons. All they do, is make an insignificant island, a target for annihilation. Because just one nuclear device exploded in the UK would kill most of us within weeks. The country would be uninhabitable for hundreds of years. I would rather be red than dead thanks all the same.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

To be honest we really don't need nukes. Our army, navy and airforce are so huge and well equiped that only a madman would challenge us!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"What would NATO need us for if we didn't have Trident?

The UK and especially Scotland are strategically placed for being close to Russia. The jobs and input to the economy are also important.

They would need us for the same reason that Germany and Japan are needed. They don't have nuclear weapons. All they do, is make an insignificant island, a target for annihilation. Because just one nuclear device exploded in the UK would kill most of us within weeks. The country would be uninhabitable for hundreds of years. I would rather be red than dead thanks all the same."

And therein is the face of the complacency that has developed in this country over the last 30 years.

Just because we have only had little wars (almost continuously) since the end of WW2 does not mean that this is what is going to happen for the next 70 years. There are distinct possibilities of global religious wars as well as war through shortages of natural resources like food and oil.

You may choose to be red, rather than dead, but why not accept that with a bit of strategic forward planning you need not be red, or dead. Just safe.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Because by having nukes, you become a target for nukes. An aggressor doesn't nuke a country that it plans to exploit. As I said, I would still rather be red, than dead. If someone wants to try to invade the UK to force it into some sort if caliphate, they still wouldn't use nukes. You don't shit on what will be your own doorstep.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Because by having nukes, you become a target for nukes. An aggressor doesn't nuke a country that it plans to exploit. As I said, I would still rather be red, than dead. If someone wants to try to invade the UK to force it into some sort if caliphate, they still wouldn't use nukes. You don't shit on what will be your own doorstep."

So you're happy to be dressed in an orange boiler suit whilst some Muslim extremist goes about separating your head from your body lol. Hmmm. You'd deffo he quite Red after that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

At least I have a fighting chance of survival. Nukes just mean nobody survives. That's just childish to the nth degree.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"At least I have a fighting chance of survival. Nukes just mean nobody survives. That's just childish to the nth degree."

I have a bunker and 23,000 cans of sweetcorn! I'm ready!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

There's about 11 countries that have got or had nuclear weapons.

South Africa gave theirs up.

Israel claims not to have them but pretty much everybody knows the yanks gave them some ( totally against the non proliferation treaty).

So that leaves the us, France, Britain, Russia, China.

The permanent security members who are allowed them under treaty but not meant to develop more?

Pakistan

India

North Korea

The last three have limited scope for deployment and certainly can't reach the uk.

So really the people were left guarding against is China and Russia, being that France and the us are allies!.

So Russia does have the ability to reach us China really doesn't, they have long range bombers that could drop them but there very detectable.

So really were spending hundreds of Billon's guarding against Russia who in 2000 years has made no attempt to invade or even go to war with the uk, in fact the last major war they were probably our best Allie.

I find that kind of mass hysteria quite worrying, not Russia attacking us

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rank_SimoneCouple
over a year ago

Bideford

Trident is the same as any Insurance, you hope you never need it, but if you do its there.

Stopping Trident won't mean the money will be put into social care either.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate


"

so you teach violence to other people for a living ..... your veiw is thus unbalanced in that case

What an unbelievably miopic perspective."

Not really...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate


"peace through superior firepower has already been proved an ideology that is not only pointless but it is also usually supported by brain dead fuckwits.

I dont recall an instance where a country with an inferior armed force prevented a hostile invasion from a more heavily armed aggressor,

It is a very regrettable part of human nature that a bully can only be dealt with by a person who is bigger and tougher.

one word .... vietnam"

How about Afghanisan, a good 3 times in modern history..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"So really were spending hundreds of Billon's guarding against Russia who in 2000 years has made no attempt to invade or even go to war with the uk, in fact the last major war they were probably our best Allie."

That was pre Putin.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"To be honest we really don't need nukes. Our army, navy and airforce are so huge and well equiped that only a madman would challenge us! "

Just need the numbers to use it all

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *omaMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

okay, let's kinda simplify this.

You are a member of a club, let's call it NATO. . There is a man down the road with a VERY big stick who doesn't like your club, he had his own but found his members started to visit yours.

So his went bust.

Now, Mr Russia isn't too chuffed cause Club NATO has been granted planning permission to expand. Your club is now very close to Mr Russia's back yard.

Mr Russia starts waving this big stick around whilst getting himself wound up.

Now, what do you do? Do you look out a big stick just incase it all kicks off or do you look in the fridge for a couple of sticky buns to throw at him incase he comes knocking at your door?

I personally would look for the biggest stick i could find, and hammer a few nails thru the end for good measure.

Don't look to be violent but make sure you can give back what MAY come your way.

Upgrade to Trident every time!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate


"okay, let's kinda simplify this.

You are a member of a club, let's call it NATO. . There is a man down the road with a VERY big stick who doesn't like your club, he had his own but found his members started to visit yours.

So his went bust.

Now, Mr Russia isn't too chuffed cause Club NATO has been granted planning permission to expand. Your club is now very close to Mr Russia's back yard.

Mr Russia starts waving this big stick around whilst getting himself wound up.

Now, what do you do? Do you look out a big stick just incase it all kicks off or do you look in the fridge for a couple of sticky buns to throw at him incase he comes knocking at your door?

I personally would look for the biggest stick i could find, and hammer a few nails thru the end for good measure.

Don't look to be violent but make sure you can give back what MAY come your way.

Upgrade to Trident every time!

"

Great analogy. Shows exactly how futile nuclear weapons are.

I'd just keep my club out of the way of the guy with the big stick, instead of goading him..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"okay, let's kinda simplify this.

You are a member of a club, let's call it NATO. . There is a man down the road with a VERY big stick who doesn't like your club, he had his own but found his members started to visit yours.

So his went bust.

Now, Mr Russia isn't too chuffed cause Club NATO has been granted planning permission to expand. Your club is now very close to Mr Russia's back yard.

Mr Russia starts waving this big stick around whilst getting himself wound up.

Now, what do you do? Do you look out a big stick just incase it all kicks off or do you look in the fridge for a couple of sticky buns to throw at him incase he comes knocking at your door?

I personally would look for the biggest stick i could find, and hammer a few nails thru the end for good measure.

Don't look to be violent but make sure you can give back what MAY come your way.

Upgrade to Trident every time!

"
.

So by your own analogy he's mad because you've acted like a tit by building to close to him but in your mind it's him that's mad not you!.

So to protect you from his madness which you've caused you now want me to finance your ever growing list of bigger sticks!.

Thanks but no thanks, I've got a sign on my door that says no scammers

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


""So really were spending hundreds of Billon's guarding against Russia who in 2000 years has made no attempt to invade or even go to war with the uk, in fact the last major war they were probably our best Allie."

That was pre Putin."
.

Ohh pre Putin and after him it will be pre the next guy!!.

Like a war on terror or drugs it's a continuous war! Always needing more weapons and more money!.

I like to stick to facts rather than listening to government bollocks!.

If he's getting out of line, let the un deal with it on a unilateral basis, it's why we set it up in the first place

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ichaelsmyMan
over a year ago

douglas

Mutual assured destruction works as a deterrent. Though the nato fighting the warsaw pact won't happen. There are dodgy countries that have the weapons and could use as an attack.

They need to be kept

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Mutual assured destruction works as a deterrent. Though the nato fighting the warsaw pact won't happen. There are dodgy countries that have the weapons and could use as an attack.

They need to be kept "
.

Which dodgy countries do you mean and why are they dodgy

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"okay, let's kinda simplify this.

You are a member of a club, let's call it NATO. . There is a man down the road with a VERY big stick who doesn't like your club, he had his own but found his members started to visit yours.

So his went bust.

Now, Mr Russia isn't too chuffed cause Club NATO has been granted planning permission to expand. Your club is now very close to Mr Russia's back yard.

Mr Russia starts waving this big stick around whilst getting himself wound up.

Now, what do you do? Do you look out a big stick just incase it all kicks off or do you look in the fridge for a couple of sticky buns to throw at him incase he comes knocking at your door?

I personally would look for the biggest stick i could find, and hammer a few nails thru the end for good measure.

Don't look to be violent but make sure you can give back what MAY come your way.

Upgrade to Trident every time!

Great analogy. Shows exactly how futile nuclear weapons are.

I'd just keep my club out of the way of the guy with the big stick, instead of goading him..

"

In all the years before nuclear weapons we had major European wars. Since nuclear weapons, we haven't. That doesn't sound futile to me.

As for hiding from the guy with the big stick: while you're hiding, he'll be round, kicking in your door.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"okay, let's kinda simplify this.

You are a member of a club, let's call it NATO. . There is a man down the road with a VERY big stick who doesn't like your club, he had his own but found his members started to visit yours.

So his went bust.

Now, Mr Russia isn't too chuffed cause Club NATO has been granted planning permission to expand. Your club is now very close to Mr Russia's back yard.

Mr Russia starts waving this big stick around whilst getting himself wound up.

Now, what do you do? Do you look out a big stick just incase it all kicks off or do you look in the fridge for a couple of sticky buns to throw at him incase he comes knocking at your door?

I personally would look for the biggest stick i could find, and hammer a few nails thru the end for good measure.

Don't look to be violent but make sure you can give back what MAY come your way.

Upgrade to Trident every time!

"

The problem with your analogy, and why you have no understanding of the issue, is that

1) By expanding your club, you are actually waving a stick in Mr Russia's face in a threatening way

2) Mr Russia has enough nuclear weapons to wipe your club off the map for good.

So upgrading Trident is a waste of time if you are simultaneously trying to goad Mr Russia into a war where he may use nuclear weapons.

The cleverest thing to do would be to disband club NATO all together, and let the people lving on his doorstep figure out what sort of a club they want, and where the club organiser and treasurer isn't living thousands of miles away from the stick waving they are causing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"okay, let's kinda simplify this.

You are a member of a club, let's call it NATO. . There is a man down the road with a VERY big stick who doesn't like your club, he had his own but found his members started to visit yours.

So his went bust.

Now, Mr Russia isn't too chuffed cause Club NATO has been granted planning permission to expand. Your club is now very close to Mr Russia's back yard.

Mr Russia starts waving this big stick around whilst getting himself wound up.

Now, what do you do? Do you look out a big stick just incase it all kicks off or do you look in the fridge for a couple of sticky buns to throw at him incase he comes knocking at your door?

I personally would look for the biggest stick i could find, and hammer a few nails thru the end for good measure.

Don't look to be violent but make sure you can give back what MAY come your way.

Upgrade to Trident every time!

Great analogy. Shows exactly how futile nuclear weapons are.

I'd just keep my club out of the way of the guy with the big stick, instead of goading him..

In all the years before nuclear weapons we had major European wars. Since nuclear weapons, we haven't. That doesn't sound futile to me.

As for hiding from the guy with the big stick: while you're hiding, he'll be round, kicking in your door."

There are a million other possible reasons why those wars haven't happened, but it's easier for the hard of thinking to to imagine they have a grasp on it if they can say 'it coz of teh nuclearz!1!', one supposes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aylor8Woman
over a year ago

Newcastle

There really is no sensible argument for unilateral disarmament, other than in the utopian leftist fantasy island. The real world is a very scary place with despotic, deranged dictators with a whole arsenal of nasty weapons pointing at the west. The French are very clear about having a nuclear deterrent and hopefully so will we continue to be clear on this matter!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"There really is no sensible argument for unilateral disarmament, other than in the utopian leftist fantasy island. The real world is a very scary place with despotic, deranged dictators with a whole arsenal of nasty weapons pointing at the west. The French are very clear about having a nuclear deterrent and hopefully so will we continue to be clear on this matter!"

Utopian CHECK

Leftist CHECK

Fantasy CHECK

Real World CHECK

Deranged Dictators. CHECK

That's strawman bingo! Where can I claim my five pounds?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *omaMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

And you think Russia will allow its neighbours to determine their own fate?

I think not.

We either have our own deterrent or we rely on Uncle Sam to watch over us.

Wether we have nuclear weapons or not the UK will be targeted As it is a major player in NATO. . .

UK stands at the gateway to the North Atlantic which is where the Russians need to be, unhindered to roam free should such a situation arise.

The scenario of MAD is our only real defense.

Yes, we will be wiped out, along with the rest of humanity, that's the only guaranteed outcome should it all kick off.

But MAD is the very thing that will ensure it doesn't happen. We know that, they know that

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"okay, let's kinda simplify this.

You are a member of a club, let's call it NATO. . There is a man down the road with a VERY big stick who doesn't like your club, he had his own but found his members started to visit yours.

So his went bust.

Now, Mr Russia isn't too chuffed cause Club NATO has been granted planning permission to expand. Your club is now very close to Mr Russia's back yard.

Mr Russia starts waving this big stick around whilst getting himself wound up.

Now, what do you do? Do you look out a big stick just incase it all kicks off or do you look in the fridge for a couple of sticky buns to throw at him incase he comes knocking at your door?

I personally would look for the biggest stick i could find, and hammer a few nails thru the end for good measure.

Don't look to be violent but make sure you can give back what MAY come your way.

Upgrade to Trident every time!

Great analogy. Shows exactly how futile nuclear weapons are.

I'd just keep my club out of the way of the guy with the big stick, instead of goading him..

In all the years before nuclear weapons we had major European wars. Since nuclear weapons, we haven't. That doesn't sound futile to me.

As for hiding from the guy with the big stick: while you're hiding, he'll be round, kicking in your door."
.

There are two factual problems with your thinking.

1 no European wars came from the madness of the 2 ww we'd already fought. After ww2 they actually did what they should have done after ww1 and that was not cripple the loser for the sake of revenge!.

2 you've got absolutely no evidence at all that Vladimir Putin is any danger to the uk population.

3 if you look at it from the Russians point of view, they've got alot more to fear from the actions of the west than the west has from their actions!.

I have absolutely no fear from Russia invading or nuking us because there's no proof of intention... To fear something for no reason is irrational

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"And you think Russia will allow its neighbours to determine their own fate?

I think not.

We either have our own deterrent or we rely on Uncle Sam to watch over us.

Wether we have nuclear weapons or not the UK will be targeted As it is a major player in NATO. . .

UK stands at the gateway to the North Atlantic which is where the Russians need to be, unhindered to roam free should such a situation arise.

The scenario of MAD is our only real defense.

Yes, we will be wiped out, along with the rest of humanity, that's the only guaranteed outcome should it all kick off.

But MAD is the very thing that will ensure it doesn't happen. We know that, they know that

"

The only thing sensible you said there is that NATO is the problem, but I don't think you actually realise that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eforfuncplCouple
over a year ago

Morecambe


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon "

It's kept the wolves from our doors for years !! You really think we'd be safe without them ! Why you think so many other countries want them ..... Keep em x

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Surely we are not so simple as to think that it is a choice between Trident or food banks?

Most of the people using food banks seem to turn up at them in a car, with the latest iphone and have the most expensive Sky package at home.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"Surely we are not so simple as to think that it is a choice between Trident or food banks?

Most of the people using food banks seem to turn up at them in a car, with the latest iphone and have the most expensive Sky package at home."

Ian Duncan Smith is on Fab?!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ELLONS AND CREAMWoman
over a year ago

stourbridge area

Isnt trident a housing association .... ??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I'm sure most of the DSS Claimants think it is and the Green Party wish it was!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"And you think Russia will allow its neighbours to determine their own fate?

I think not.

We either have our own deterrent or we rely on Uncle Sam to watch over us.

Wether we have nuclear weapons or not the UK will be targeted As it is a major player in NATO. . .

UK stands at the gateway to the North Atlantic which is where the Russians need to be, unhindered to roam free should such a situation arise.

The scenario of MAD is our only real defense.

Yes, we will be wiped out, along with the rest of humanity, that's the only guaranteed outcome should it all kick off.

But MAD is the very thing that will ensure it doesn't happen. We know that, they know that

"
.

The gateway to the north Atlantic!!.

You do know the Russians have missiles they can launch from Russia if they wanted to hit the uk.... They don't actually need submarines to do it!.

How does your theory of MAD save us from a madman who's happy to do a German pilot routine!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aylor8Woman
over a year ago

Newcastle


"Surely we are not so simple as to think that it is a choice between Trident or food banks?

Most of the people using food banks seem to turn up at them in a car, with the latest iphone and have the most expensive Sky package at home.

Ian Duncan Smith is on Fab?! "

Something very phalic about those sleek shinny powerful subs packed with fertile young seamen, don't you think?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon

It's kept the wolves from our doors for years !! You really think we'd be safe without them ! Why you think so many other countries want them ..... Keep em x "
.

Which countries.

South Africa had them and gave them up because they were expensive and useless.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

The reason we haven't had another war is because we do have them..FFS..watch the news..middle east...Russia flexing its mussels. ..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"The reason we haven't had another war is because we do have them..FFS..watch the news..middle east...Russia flexing its mussels. .."
.

What... I keep asking this and nobody gives me any facts of Russian aggression towards us...

What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"The reason we haven't had another war is because we do have them..FFS..watch the news..middle east...Russia flexing its mussels. .."
.

What if Russia just flexs it's whelks and not it's mussels, would that satisfy you!!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Surely we are not so simple as to think that it is a choice between Trident or food banks?

Most of the people using food banks seem to turn up at them in a car, with the latest iphone and have the most expensive Sky package at home.

Ian Duncan Smith is on Fab?!

Something very phalic about those sleek shinny powerful subs packed with fertile young seamen, don't you think? "

They're not all young

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *omaMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"And you think Russia will allow its neighbours to determine their own fate?

I think not.

We either have our own deterrent or we rely on Uncle Sam to watch over us.

Wether we have nuclear weapons or not the UK will be targeted As it is a major player in NATO. . .

UK stands at the gateway to the North Atlantic which is where the Russians need to be, unhindered to roam free should such a situation arise.

The scenario of MAD is our only real defense.

Yes, we will be wiped out, along with the rest of humanity, that's the only guaranteed outcome should it all kick off.

But MAD is the very thing that will ensure it doesn't happen. We know that, they know that

.

The gateway to the north Atlantic!!.

You do know the Russians have missiles they can launch from Russia if they wanted to hit the uk.... They don't actually need submarines to do it!.

How does your theory of MAD save us from a madman who's happy to do a German pilot routine!"

Yes the gateway to the north Atlantic. Russia would need this safe passage to the north Atlantic for its huge submarine fleet to go totally unhindered into where it would need to be. The role of UK in this strategic gateway is to monitor Russian sub movements. In the event of a conflict its UKs role in the alliance to close this gap.

Russian does have reason to fear just as the West does of Russian military might. . . That's what MAY just keep a lid on using these things.

Don't forget, it was only Kennedys ultimatum to Russia that averted the Cuban missile crisis from escalating. . . Now we have never been closer to the edge since.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Who was it that said "I don't know how we will fight the third world war, but the fourth will be with sticks and stones".

Wise words and very true.

Regardless, I'm for Trident.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"The reason we haven't had another war is because we do have them..FFS..watch the news..middle east...Russia flexing its mussels. ...

What... I keep asking this and nobody gives me any facts of Russian aggression towards us...

What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news"

they nuked a guy on british streets and invaded one of are allies killing 6000 people.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"And you think Russia will allow its neighbours to determine their own fate?

I think not.

We either have our own deterrent or we rely on Uncle Sam to watch over us.

Wether we have nuclear weapons or not the UK will be targeted As it is a major player in NATO. . .

UK stands at the gateway to the North Atlantic which is where the Russians need to be, unhindered to roam free should such a situation arise.

The scenario of MAD is our only real defense.

Yes, we will be wiped out, along with the rest of humanity, that's the only guaranteed outcome should it all kick off.

But MAD is the very thing that will ensure it doesn't happen. We know that, they know that

.

The gateway to the north Atlantic!!.

You do know the Russians have missiles they can launch from Russia if they wanted to hit the uk.... They don't actually need submarines to do it!.

How does your theory of MAD save us from a madman who's happy to do a German pilot routine!

Yes the gateway to the north Atlantic. Russia would need this safe passage to the north Atlantic for its huge submarine fleet to go totally unhindered into where it would need to be. The role of UK in this strategic gateway is to monitor Russian sub movements. In the event of a conflict its UKs role in the alliance to close this gap.

Russian does have reason to fear just as the West does of Russian military might. . . That's what MAY just keep a lid on using these things.

Don't forget, it was only Kennedys ultimatum to Russia that averted the Cuban missile crisis from escalating. . . Now we have never been closer to the edge since. "
.

Kennedy agreed a deal with them that he would pull missiles out of Turkey next door to Russia if they pulled them out of Cuba... That's why the fucking Russians put them in Cuba because America had installed their missiles next to Russia.... Ring a fucking ding nobody learns shit!.

The Russians agreed to let Kennedy save face, something the yanks would never do in return.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"..........

Kennedy agreed a deal with them that he would pull missiles out of Turkey next door to Russia if they pulled them out of Cuba... That's why the fucking Russians put them in Cuba because America had installed their missiles next to Russia.... Ring a fucking ding nobody learns shit!.

The Russians agreed to let Kennedy save face, something the yanks would never do in return."

That's simply incorrect.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"The reason we haven't had another war is because we do have them..FFS..watch the news..middle east...Russia flexing its mussels. ...

What... I keep asking this and nobody gives me any facts of Russian aggression towards us...

What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news

they nuked a guy on british streets and invaded one of are allies killing 6000 people. "
.

They probably did(but there's no proof it could just have well been the uk government)nuke their own agent on British streets for which he was seeking shelter by passing on Russian secrets to the uk.

That's the spying game they play and it plays both ways!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"..........

Kennedy agreed a deal with them that he would pull missiles out of Turkey next door to Russia if they pulled them out of Cuba... That's why the fucking Russians put them in Cuba because America had installed their missiles next to Russia.... Ring a fucking ding nobody learns shit!.

The Russians agreed to let Kennedy save face, something the yanks would never do in return.

That's simply incorrect."
.

Which bit is incorrect

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"The reason we haven't had another war is because we do have them..FFS..watch the news..middle east...Russia flexing its mussels. ...

What... I keep asking this and nobody gives me any facts of Russian aggression towards us...

What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news"

You need to go to Russia, spend some time there or spend some time with and get to know a Russian.

Our values are completely different and you simply cannot apply your English mentality and values to Russians. They are capable of anything and are opportunistic. Putin illustrates the Russian mentality better than any recent Russian leader. Bullies.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"The reason we haven't had another war is because we do have them..FFS..watch the news..middle east...Russia flexing its mussels. ...

What... I keep asking this and nobody gives me any facts of Russian aggression towards us...

What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news

You need to go to Russia, spend some time there or spend some time with and get to know a Russian.

Our values are completely different and you simply cannot apply your English mentality and values to Russians. They are capable of anything and are opportunistic. Putin illustrates the Russian mentality better than any recent Russian leader. Bullies."
.

Have you ever considered that maybe seen as they've been cut off from the entire world for a hundred years since the 1918 revolution that maybe they just haven't culturally evolved!.

This means they probably haven't quite got upto western standards of brutalisation of the entire planet, so even less to fear from them than our government! .

One things for sure seen as Russia was the only country who stopped us bombing Syria and therefore helping isis take control of it, we should be thanking them for bringing some sense to a senseless un

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

To those saying its nuke weapons preventing 'major' euro wars since 45.

No, that's the EU,

Formed in 55 as the euro coal + steel community, between France + Germany- specifically to minimize the friction between those 2. Eg, thats when the communists finally won the fight that began in the 20s.

Germany in the 20s it was a close run thing between communists + fascists. Both very very popular.

Hitler hated commies, got into power+ Up to Stalingrad- was primarily trying to address the threat from Russia/communism.

He lost, and since then the pendulum swung way back to the left. So now we have this massive eu state that is communist in nature,whilst having the strings pulled by big business. Cos money talks right.

That's why you get the organized media shit storm around ukip- they seriously threaten the status quo of ever deeper euro integration. Eg 1 big state -Airstrip 1 as Orwell called it. Why should some cheap rags be bothered if we're in the EU or not?

So nuclear weapons aren't really that important, the war is being fought in other ways

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I couldn't agree more nuclear weapons are nothing more than a ticket to the big five on the un council.

As for Europe either give me one state one law one government one tax law ie a federal state and I'll sign up tomorrow. But this half assed set up is just one big coperate run load of bollocks which is doomed to failure.

The corporations don't want a single state as it would ruin their tax avoidance, which is why we have this constant media stories that go from "Europe it's shit" to "oooo you can't live without it".... It's purposed done to keep us in half assed limbo while the big companies totally rape everyone!.

The time has come for people to be brave, educate themselves and vote the 1% out before it's too late

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield


"At least I have a fighting chance of survival. Nukes just mean nobody survives. That's just childish to the nth degree."

Which is exactly why we have been safe for the last 70 years.

The knowledge that no one survives even the leaders.

As soon as the opposition think there is a chance of winning we are in danger, that is why the Falklands were invaded

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield


"

What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news"

One public report of russian aggression is here

http://www.euronews.com/2015/01/30/only-russia-dangerously-probes-british-airspace-says-source/

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"

What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news

One public report of russian aggression is here

http://www.euronews.com/2015/01/30/only-russia-dangerously-probes-british-airspace-says-source/"
.

Last time I looked flying in international airspace is perfectly legal, we do the exact same near Russia.

Stop believing the propaganda and don't live your life in fear of baseless bullshit.

I could give you some genuine factual scientific problems of a number of environmental disasters but I guarantee your reaction will be... Oh that's all government made up rubbish!.

Look up the evidence for Russian invasion against global warming, I guarantee the latter is the bigger more pressing problem!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

If there was an incoming nuclear attack, would you press the button?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"If there was an incoming nuclear attack, would you press the button?"
.

No I wouldn't, that would be the equivalent of that German pilot taking everybody else out just because hes going out!.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

[Removed by poster at 11/04/15 14:08:51]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

Somebody actually educated on the issue was on Any Answers a moment ago. A bonafide nuclear defence researcher.

He said there was NO scenario was useful to the UK. Also, that it was harming our position in NATO, as it was conventional armed forces that the organisation needs from us, not nuclear strength.

He also pointed out that we have a permanent seat on the Security Council, and whether we have nuclear weapons or not makes no difference to that. This is a point that everyone who has mentioned it so far seems to have got wrong, so worth pointing out.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Somebody actually educated on the issue was on Any Answers a moment ago. A bonafide nuclear defence researcher.

He said there was NO scenario was useful to the UK. Also, that it was harming our position in NATO, as it was conventional armed forces that the organisation needs from us, not nuclear strength.

He also pointed out that we have a permanent seat on the Security Council, and whether we have nuclear weapons or not makes no difference to that. This is a point that everyone who has mentioned it so far seems to have got wrong, so worth pointing out."
.

Well that's a bit debatable!

Nobody is guaranteed a permanent seat and officially having nuclear weapons isn't a criteria but it sure as hell gives you leverage, they've been talking about expanding the 5 to 15 or 20 , India's been trying to get in for ages and always gets the nod from the west (yes India another nuclear power) however China isn't keen on India as India would approve Japan and China hates Japan, and China being a permanent member can veto any plans, and there you have the power that being one of the 5 gives you, the ability to veto anything you dislike.

Funnily enough China rarely uses the veto and Russia hardly much either.

However the usa uses it constantly to defeat every proposal aimed at Israel and Palestine, because everybody deserves capitalism except those fucking Palestinians!.

Now if those nuclear weapons work so brilliantly in creating peace as according to everyone on here... Spread them out in Palestine and Iran I say?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"Somebody actually educated on the issue was on Any Answers a moment ago. A bonafide nuclear defence researcher.

He said there was NO scenario was useful to the UK. Also, that it was harming our position in NATO, as it was conventional armed forces that the organisation needs from us, not nuclear strength.

He also pointed out that we have a permanent seat on the Security Council, and whether we have nuclear weapons or not makes no difference to that. This is a point that everyone who has mentioned it so far seems to have got wrong, so worth pointing out..

Well that's a bit debatable!

Nobody is guaranteed a permanent seat and officially having nuclear weapons isn't a criteria but it sure as hell gives you leverage, they've been talking about expanding the 5 to 15 or 20 , India's been trying to get in for ages and always gets the nod from the west (yes India another nuclear power) however China isn't keen on India as India would approve Japan and China hates Japan, and China being a permanent member can veto any plans, and there you have the power that being one of the 5 gives you, the ability to veto anything you dislike.

Funnily enough China rarely uses the veto and Russia hardly much either.

However the usa uses it constantly to defeat every proposal aimed at Israel and Palestine, because everybody deserves capitalism except those fucking Palestinians!.

Now if those nuclear weapons work so brilliantly in creating peace as according to everyone on here... Spread them out in Palestine and Iran I say?"

The UK is a member in perpetuity, due to being a founding member after WW2. That doesn't seem debatable at all.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Somebody actually educated on the issue was on Any Answers a moment ago. A bonafide nuclear defence researcher.

He said there was NO scenario was useful to the UK. Also, that it was harming our position in NATO, as it was conventional armed forces that the organisation needs from us, not nuclear strength.

He also pointed out that we have a permanent seat on the Security Council, and whether we have nuclear weapons or not makes no difference to that. This is a point that everyone who has mentioned it so far seems to have got wrong, so worth pointing out..

Well that's a bit debatable!

Nobody is guaranteed a permanent seat and officially having nuclear weapons isn't a criteria but it sure as hell gives you leverage, they've been talking about expanding the 5 to 15 or 20 , India's been trying to get in for ages and always gets the nod from the west (yes India another nuclear power) however China isn't keen on India as India would approve Japan and China hates Japan, and China being a permanent member can veto any plans, and there you have the power that being one of the 5 gives you, the ability to veto anything you dislike.

Funnily enough China rarely uses the veto and Russia hardly much either.

However the usa uses it constantly to defeat every proposal aimed at Israel and Palestine, because everybody deserves capitalism except those fucking Palestinians!.

Now if those nuclear weapons work so brilliantly in creating peace as according to everyone on here... Spread them out in Palestine and Iran I say?

The UK is a member in perpetuity, due to being a founding member after WW2. That doesn't seem debatable at all."
.

It's an all boys club just like bullingdon!.

They have in their club who suits there club!.

Those nuclear weapons have never been about defence and always been about a big stick to bully smaller counties with!.

The only thing I ever liked about nuclear weapons is it removed the states ability to conscript me!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"If there was an incoming nuclear attack, would you press the button?"

Well on every nuclear submarine there is a letter from the Prime Minister stating what to do in the event of a nuclear attack, assuming that London and probably the rest of the UK have already been wiped out and there is no one left to send out anymore orders.

These letters are only to be opened in this situation and are destroyed once a new PM takes office and writes their own set of letters.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *inkyHnS OP   Couple
over a year ago

The Council of Elrond


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon

It's kept the wolves from our doors for years !! You really think we'd be safe without them ! Why you think so many other countries want them ..... Keep em x "

Yeah i do we would be safe without them that money could be spent on better things in Britain like NHS , Health care for young and old and to get rid of foodbanks its heart breaking to see families go into a foodbank to feed them and their children.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"Somebody actually educated on the issue was on Any Answers a moment ago. A bonafide nuclear defence researcher.

He said there was NO scenario was useful to the UK. Also, that it was harming our position in NATO, as it was conventional armed forces that the organisation needs from us, not nuclear strength.

He also pointed out that we have a permanent seat on the Security Council, and whether we have nuclear weapons or not makes no difference to that. This is a point that everyone who has mentioned it so far seems to have got wrong, so worth pointing out..

Well that's a bit debatable!

Nobody is guaranteed a permanent seat and officially having nuclear weapons isn't a criteria but it sure as hell gives you leverage, they've been talking about expanding the 5 to 15 or 20 , India's been trying to get in for ages and always gets the nod from the west (yes India another nuclear power) however China isn't keen on India as India would approve Japan and China hates Japan, and China being a permanent member can veto any plans, and there you have the power that being one of the 5 gives you, the ability to veto anything you dislike.

Funnily enough China rarely uses the veto and Russia hardly much either.

However the usa uses it constantly to defeat every proposal aimed at Israel and Palestine, because everybody deserves capitalism except those fucking Palestinians!.

Now if those nuclear weapons work so brilliantly in creating peace as according to everyone on here... Spread them out in Palestine and Iran I say?

The UK is a member in perpetuity, due to being a founding member after WW2. That doesn't seem debatable at all..

It's an all boys club just like bullingdon!.

They have in their club who suits there club!.

Those nuclear weapons have never been about defence and always been about a big stick to bully smaller counties with!.

The only thing I ever liked about nuclear weapons is it removed the states ability to conscript me!

"

Good for you...but this has nothing to do with what either of us said previously.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"If there was an incoming nuclear attack, would you press the button?

Well on every nuclear submarine there is a letter from the Prime Minister stating what to do in the event of a nuclear attack, assuming that London and probably the rest of the UK have already been wiped out and there is no one left to send out anymore orders.

These letters are only to be opened in this situation and are destroyed once a new PM takes office and writes their own set of letters.

"

Of course, whether the captain of the submarine follows those orders is another matter entirely!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate

The only real argument for nuclear weapons seems to be as a deterrent to Russia.

Well if that is genuinely the case, and the member states of NATO truly have no other Agenda. Would it not make much more sense to have a single NATO endorsed nuclear missile pointing at Moscow? Every member would have a few troops stationed on the base at all times..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon "
Us ..we would,why ditch our nuclear weapons when the likes of Pakistan now have nuclear capability ...that snp woman the fucking waste of a life should hang her head in shame,and as for food banks get out to work is the simple answer

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

I think updating Trident is the wrong use of resources for the threats we face.

If the money has to stay in the Defence budget then put it to good use tackling the current threats of "hybrid-warfare", the use of online threats and individualised acts of terror. None of which can be dealt with by a nuclear submarine that can't even deploy without the American guidance systems.

Use the budget to make us as future-proof as possible.

Of course it could be a great bluff and we don't have any real nuclear arms at all.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"If there was an incoming nuclear attack, would you press the button?

Well on every nuclear submarine there is a letter from the Prime Minister stating what to do in the event of a nuclear attack, assuming that London and probably the rest of the UK have already been wiped out and there is no one left to send out anymore orders.

These letters are only to be opened in this situation and are destroyed once a new PM takes office and writes their own set of letters.

"

There was a play on R4 about this. An interesting look at what you would write and whether anyone would follow the instructions.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon Us ..we would,why ditch our nuclear weapons when the likes of Pakistan now have nuclear capability ...that snp woman the fucking waste of a life should hang her head in shame,and as for food banks get out to work is the simple answer "

Hmmm, funny that the biggest slice of the welfare bill is for pensioners and those in work. Funny that the food banks are being used by those in work.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon Us ..we would,why ditch our nuclear weapons when the likes of Pakistan now have nuclear capability ...that snp woman the fucking waste of a life should hang her head in shame,and as for food banks get out to work is the simple answer

Hmmm, funny that the biggest slice of the welfare bill is for pensioners and those in work. Funny that the food banks are being used by those in work.

"

Exactly! People who read the Sun don't know any better though..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon Us ..we would,why ditch our nuclear weapons when the likes of Pakistan now have nuclear capability ...that snp woman the fucking waste of a life should hang her head in shame,and as for food banks get out to work is the simple answer

Hmmm, funny that the biggest slice of the welfare bill is for pensioners and those in work. Funny that the food banks are being used by those in work.

Exactly! People who read the Sun don't know any better though.."
Too busy working to look for a food bank,dont read newspapers as full of other peoples opinions so not sure why your implying were sun readers

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon Us ..we would,why ditch our nuclear weapons when the likes of Pakistan now have nuclear capability ...that snp woman the fucking waste of a life should hang her head in shame,and as for food banks get out to work is the simple answer

Hmmm, funny that the biggest slice of the welfare bill is for pensioners and those in work. Funny that the food banks are being used by those in work.

"
So those out of work are supplying the baked beans and spagetti hoops then,feel edumacated now

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate


"

Exactly! People who read the Sun don't know any better though..Too busy working to look for a food bank,dont read newspapers as full of other peoples opinions so not sure why your implying were sun readers "

I wasn't implying you were anything.. Out of interest where DO you get your opinions from then?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"I think updating Trident is the wrong use of resources for the threats we face.

If the money has to stay in the Defence budget then put it to good use tackling the current threats of "hybrid-warfare", the use of online threats and individualised acts of terror. None of which can be dealt with by a nuclear submarine that can't even deploy without the American guidance systems.

Use the budget to make us as future-proof as possible.

Of course it could be a great bluff and we don't have any real nuclear arms at all. "

The lifetime cost of a replacement Trident system is roughly £100 million for 30 years service (although if you spend a bit more upfront you can extend the lifespan) working out at about £3 million a year.

Less than half what Cameron has 'magicked' up today for the NHS.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I wonder what the cost of decommissioning them would be and how much we would get for the the subs if we decided we didn't need them anymore and the cost of closing the bases that support them and the loss to local shops and businesses that get custom from those bases and how many sailors etc would lose their jobs?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aylor8Woman
over a year ago

Newcastle

Yes to strong defence, yes to Trident and it's eventual replacement!

Alternatively...

Let's build houses with no roofs, it might not rain after all!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

I'm all for renewing Trident...

I'm all for increasing our defense spending...

I'm all for rebuilding our arms industries...

Fact is without a strong military (Navy, Army and Air Force) that is fully supported by our own defense industries we are at the mercy of those who have strong military forces and own the arms companies that supply our forces.

Only a fool fails to protect themselves and their property in their home because it costs too much to buy locks for the doors and windows. The military are the locks that protect our collective home.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate


"I'm all for renewing Trident...

I'm all for increasing our defense spending...

I'm all for rebuilding our arms industries...

Fact is without a strong military (Navy, Army and Air Force) that is fully supported by our own defense industries we are at the mercy of those who have strong military forces and own the arms companies that supply our forces.

Only a fool fails to protect themselves and their property in their home because it costs too much to buy locks for the doors and windows. The military are the locks that protect our collective home."

Protect from what though..

We already are at the mercy of the arms companies that supply our troops! That's the whole reason for all the fear mongering!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"I think updating Trident is the wrong use of resources for the threats we face.

If the money has to stay in the Defence budget then put it to good use tackling the current threats of "hybrid-warfare", the use of online threats and individualised acts of terror. None of which can be dealt with by a nuclear submarine that can't even deploy without the American guidance systems.

Use the budget to make us as future-proof as possible.

Of course it could be a great bluff and we don't have any real nuclear arms at all.

The lifetime cost of a replacement Trident system is roughly £100 million for 30 years service (although if you spend a bit more upfront you can extend the lifespan) working out at about £3 million a year.

Less than half what Cameron has 'magicked' up today for the NHS."

Er...that figure is actually £100 BILLION, not million.

You might find that makes a slight difference.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

[Removed by poster at 11/04/15 19:11:21]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon Us ..we would,why ditch our nuclear weapons when the likes of Pakistan now have nuclear capability ...that snp woman the fucking waste of a life should hang her head in shame,and as for food banks get out to work is the simple answer "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"Yes to strong defence, yes to Trident and it's eventual replacement!

Alternatively...

Let's build houses with no roofs, it might not rain after all!"

Where your analogy fails spectacularly is that rather than a roof, Trident is a swimming pool filled with barbed wire.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield


"

What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news

One public report of russian aggression is here

http://www.euronews.com/2015/01/30/only-russia-dangerously-probes-british-airspace-says-source/.

Last time I looked flying in international airspace is perfectly legal, we do the exact same near Russia.

Stop believing the propaganda and don't live your life in fear of baseless bullshit.

I could give you some genuine factual scientific problems of a number of environmental disasters but I guarantee your reaction will be... Oh that's all government made up rubbish!.

Look up the evidence for Russian invasion against global warming, I guarantee the latter is the bigger more pressing problem!"

You asked "What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news" I gave you some.

By the way the aircraft were not in international airspace.

Yes I know we do the same in Russian airspace but you did not ask about our aggression but Russia's aggression .

I don’t live my life in fear but I do acknowledge what tactics governments all over the world use.

Don’t make assumptions about someone you know virtually nothing about

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"We need them, they are our last defence, somebody fires one at us, we fire them back, its a good deterrent to have!

Stops the world becoming like a mad max movie "

But if they've already fired on us then how have they been deterred?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"We need them, they are our last defence, somebody fires one at us, we fire them back, its a good deterrent to have!

Stops the world becoming like a mad max movie

But if they've already fired on us then how have they been deterred? "

Or that we have the time to return fire?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate


"

You asked "What scenario of Russia aggression towards the uk have you seen on the news" I gave you some.

By the way the aircraft were not in international airspace.

Yes I know we do the same in Russian airspace but you did not ask about our aggression but Russia's aggression .

I don’t live my life in fear but I do acknowledge what tactics governments all over the world use.

Don’t make assumptions about someone you know virtually nothing about

"

You missed the point..

What about flying in Russian airspace is aggressive?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"

The lifetime cost of a replacement Trident system is roughly £100 million for 30 years service (although if you spend a bit more upfront you can extend the lifespan) working out at about £3 million a year.

Less than half what Cameron has 'magicked' up today for the NHS.

Er...that figure is actually £100 BILLION, not million.

You might find that makes a slight difference."

You're right. BOTH figures are in billions.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"We need them, they are our last defence, somebody fires one at us, we fire them back, its a good deterrent to have!

Stops the world becoming like a mad max movie

But if they've already fired on us then how have they been deterred?

Or that we have the time to return fire?

"

Maybe their first targets would be our own nuclear stocks/subs.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"

The lifetime cost of a replacement Trident system is roughly £100 million for 30 years service (although if you spend a bit more upfront you can extend the lifespan) working out at about £3 million a year.

Less than half what Cameron has 'magicked' up today for the NHS.

Er...that figure is actually £100 BILLION, not million.

You might find that makes a slight difference.

You're right. BOTH figures are in billions."

Another important difference is that Call Me Dave's Magic NHS billions are from money already spent. So they don't actually exist.

But that Trident money...that is real. Real wasteful.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *gNeMan
over a year ago

Harrogate


"We need them, they are our last defence, somebody fires one at us, we fire them back, its a good deterrent to have!

Stops the world becoming like a mad max movie

But if they've already fired on us then how have they been deterred?

Or that we have the time to return fire?

Maybe their first targets would be our own nuclear stocks/subs. "

I think technically we have early warning systems that notify us if a nuke has been launched, so yes we would be able to retaliate in time.

Still doesn't change the fact that the whole thing would be fruitless though..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Is it chewing gum?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By *inkyHnS OP   Couple
over a year ago

The Council of Elrond


"Just a wee question as im wondering how many people actually would be ok with the renewal of trident? With britan using food books more and more that money could be spent on better things that a nuclear weapon Us ..we would,why ditch our nuclear weapons when the likes of Pakistan now have nuclear capability ...that snp woman the fucking waste of a life should hang her head in shame,and as for food banks get out to work is the simple answer "

Its comments like that about Nicola Sturgeon why Britain is not better together yes there was no vote but if the rest of Britain wanted us to stay so why shouldnt SNP have a say.

As for trident this is a question for all if they go ahead and renew trident do you think every country that is in Britain should have the right to say if they want trident ? and not just westminster saying yes to renewal and every country cant have there say ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top