Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You clearly have misunderstood what trident is. It is NOT a first strike weapon. Easy to do a fact check should you wish to do so." Indeed... so it is even more worrying that the Tories don't know what it is for. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You clearly have misunderstood what trident is. It is NOT a first strike weapon. Easy to do a fact check should you wish to do so." Did a search and found this http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/peace/trident-the-uks-nuclear-weapons-system | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You clearly have misunderstood what trident is. It is NOT a first strike weapon. Easy to do a fact check should you wish to do so. Indeed... so it is even more worrying that the Tories don't know what it is for. -Matt" I would class it as a luxury item.. Nice to have but can we afford it at the moment | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You clearly have misunderstood what trident is. It is NOT a first strike weapon. Easy to do a fact check should you wish to do so." You clearly fail to understand the roll of submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missile systems. They are by their very nature the ultimate first strike weapon system. That we choose to use the system as a second (retaliatory) strike system is a political choice subject to change like any political choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is not meant to be a first strike weapon, it's a nuclear deterrent. But I wouldn't have a PM dumb enough to say in advance that they wouldn't authorise their use. " That was Corbyn wasn't it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and the whole unstable psychopaths? For a whole party to be unstable is mathematically unlikely. But any leader of a country with nuclear weapons should tell you that they are prepared to use them. You'd be a psycho to say you wouldn't if you wanted to be PM!! " And that would be Jeremy Corbyn again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The whole talk of war is horrific what if this, what if that, its such a turn off, do people really get a kick out of planning nuclear attacks, kind of sickens me we should all love our neighbours, turn the other cheek" Here are a pair of simple truths... If you want peace, prepare for war. When preparing for war: Train hard, and fight easy... Both statements sound ever so wrong, but both statements have been proven absolutely true over millennia. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you admit you'd first strike... you lose the deterrent factor" Again, I ask.....where have you read this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you admit you'd first strike... you lose the deterrent factor Again, I ask.....where have you read this?" Independent online today. May said we may launch Nukes even if WE are not under Nuke attack. Dosen't go into it any deeper but I'd hazard a guess she means in aid of another Country possibly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nuclear weapons do not ensure the security of any nation. They are an inadequate and unsuitable response to the myriad threats posed to state security in the contemporary world. " Nothing can ensure the security of any nation but I do believe it helps to level out world politics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nuclear weapons do not ensure the security of any nation. They are an inadequate and unsuitable response to the myriad threats posed to state security in the contemporary world. Nothing can ensure the security of any nation but I do believe it helps to level out world politics." I reckon if only one country had them they'd be pretty safe  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nuclear weapons do not ensure the security of any nation. They are an inadequate and unsuitable response to the myriad threats posed to state security in the contemporary world. Nothing can ensure the security of any nation but I do believe it helps to level out world politics." The playing field is only level when every nation has them.The desire for a level field creates nuclear proliferation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and the whole unstable psychopaths? For a whole party to be unstable is mathematically unlikely. But any leader of a country with nuclear weapons should tell you that they are prepared to use them. You'd be a psycho to say you wouldn't if you wanted to be PM!! " You'd be a psycho to say you wouldn't slaughter millions of people? I think what you mean is 'You'd be politically unwise to say you wouldn't, if you wanted to be PM' Let's at least slag Corbyn off accurately  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and the whole unstable psychopaths? For a whole party to be unstable is mathematically unlikely. But any leader of a country with nuclear weapons should tell you that they are prepared to use them. You'd be a psycho to say you wouldn't if you wanted to be PM!! You'd be a psycho to say you wouldn't slaughter millions of people? I think what you mean is 'You'd be politically unwise to say you wouldn't, if you wanted to be PM' Let's at least slag Corbyn off accurately "I read somewhere, can't remember where now, an idea that the nuclear launch codes should be embedded in a capsule embedded near the heart of the aide to the leader. In order to get the code the leader would have to kill the aide to cut the codes out. Gruesome, but puts into perspective the consequences of the action. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Billions of money getting spent on a useless weapon yet people moan about not enough money getting put into the NHS education and helping local services out nope gonna spent billion on a damn weapon that is designed to kill and it will end up killing alot of innocent people too " Exactly.. Especially with the national debt being so large and the deficit still adding to it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you admit you'd first strike... you lose the deterrent factor Again, I ask.....where have you read this? Independent online today. May said we may launch Nukes even if WE are not under Nuke attack. Dosen't go into it any deeper but I'd hazard a guess she means in aid of another Country possibly " This all stems from an interview the Defence Secretary gave today on Radio 4 Today programme. He reiterated that Theresa May is prepared to use nuclear weapons, even as a pre-emptive strike, in very exceptional circumstances. This is consistent with Theresa May's position as given in the House Of Common's debate on renewal of Trident. This does not mean that any Tory Goverment will be slinging nukes around willy-nilly as suggested by the OP. Indeed, there are many protocols that any UK goverment has to observe regarding nuclear weapons, to make sure that they act as a deterrent only. This, of course, is probably in response to Jeremy Corbyn's rather mixed messages on Trident yesterday, messages that needed his advisors to clear up for him last night. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you admit you'd first strike... you lose the deterrent factor Again, I ask.....where have you read this? Independent online today. May said we may launch Nukes even if WE are not under Nuke attack. Dosen't go into it any deeper but I'd hazard a guess she means in aid of another Country possibly This all stems from an interview the Defence Secretary gave today on Radio 4 Today programme. He reiterated that Theresa May is prepared to use nuclear weapons, even as a pre-emptive strike, in very exceptional circumstances. This is consistent with Theresa May's position as given in the House Of Common's debate on renewal of Trident. This does not mean that any Tory Goverment will be slinging nukes around willy-nilly as suggested by the OP. Indeed, there are many protocols that any UK goverment has to observe regarding nuclear weapons, to make sure that they act as a deterrent only. This, of course, is probably in response to Jeremy Corbyn's rather mixed messages on Trident yesterday, messages that needed his advisors to clear up for him last night." Bit concerning really 2hen tbe pm and Fallon making on this country is some kind of super power like in the days of empire. We can ill afford trident with the financial mess this country is in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You clearly have misunderstood what trident is. It is NOT a first strike weapon. Easy to do a fact check should you wish to do so. You clearly fail to understand the roll of submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missile systems. They are by their very nature the ultimate first strike weapon system. That we choose to use the system as a second (retaliatory) strike system is a political choice subject to change like any political choice." Exactly, in what way is trident not a first strike capable system? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if the PM is willing to use them to strike first then anyone wanna try and hazard a guess is to why they think its a deterrent ? Who is it a deterrent to ? " It's so simple to prove that nuclear weapons aren't a deterrent, you simply list the nuclear powers who have been invaded. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and the whole unstable psychopaths? For a whole party to be unstable is mathematically unlikely. But any leader of a country with nuclear weapons should tell you that they are prepared to use them. You'd be a psycho to say you wouldn't if you wanted to be PM!! " You have just described Corbyn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nuclear weapons do not ensure the security of any nation. They are an inadequate and unsuitable response to the myriad threats posed to state security in the contemporary world. " This is true. Nothing does, if an enemy is totally determined regardless of cost to prosecute an attack it is impossible to defend against that attack. however... One has to remember that from the industrialisation of warfare (when Vickers bought out and improved Hiram Maxim company and improved the Maxim Gun until the first use in combat of an atomic weapon (1890 odd-1945). That in those less than 55 years some 85 million were officially (recorded) killed in wars, however in the 72 years since the first use of nuclear weapons some 22 million have officially (recorded) died in wars. That like it or not is about a quarter in nearly one and a half the time... Truth is, nukes save lives, and I would respectfully suggest that if The Ukraine had kept its nuclear arsenal in 1994 rather than signing the Budapest Memorandum on Security then Vlad would not have been quite so willing to annex the Crimea or to invade (by stealth) Eastern Ukraine. With respect (provided there is a credible delivery system) and a country does not totally rely on its nuclear umbrella and has sufficient conventional forces to protect against covert hostilities then atomic weapons are the ultimate guarantee of protection against overt attacks by a hostile foreign nation. Not pleasant, maybe not even moral, but it is most definitely prudent to keep and update our independent nuclear deterrent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK cannot in reality, activate Trident unilaterally. It's a US -dependent system and US chiefs of military are on record as saying they can veto their release. The UK just gets to pay for them. The US maintains them at a cost. " Not quite, the US can make an independent accurate launch a lot harder by turning off the exterior guidance system. But if a boat captain, second key and crew agree a launch there are the skills on every boomer (submarine nuclear bomber) the world over to program an internal guidance external abort override launch... That means once fired the (in our case) the warheads on the mrv's go bang. That is the whole point of the MAD doctrine. It is totally independent of outside influence and is therefore a 100% credible retaliatory strike weapons system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You clearly have misunderstood what trident is. It is NOT a first strike weapon. Easy to do a fact check should you wish to do so. Indeed... so it is even more worrying that the Tories don't know what it is for. -Matt" this.. listening the the nations Defence Minister say we could carry out a first strike on terrorists.. then clarify that if they were in Iraq or Syria.. that's ok then.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You clearly have misunderstood what trident is. It is NOT a first strike weapon. Easy to do a fact check should you wish to do so. Indeed... so it is even more worrying that the Tories don't know what it is for. -Matt this.. listening the the nations Defence Minister say we could carry out a first strike on terrorists.. then clarify that if they were in Iraq or Syria.. that's ok then.." So you don’t think they would fire a nuke at one armed with a knife inside the grounds of the palace of Westminster then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if the PM is willing to use them to strike first then anyone wanna try and hazard a guess is to why they think its a deterrent ? Who is it a deterrent to ? " Look at history and you can clearly see it is a deterrent and has kept many countries safe since 1945. There has been no other weapon in the history of the wolrd that has provided such a clear cut deterrent effect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if the PM is willing to use them to strike first then anyone wanna try and hazard a guess is to why they think its a deterrent ? Who is it a deterrent to ? Look at history and you can clearly see it is a deterrent and has kept many countries safe since 1945. There has been no other weapon in the history of the wolrd that has provided such a clear cut deterrent effect." esso there is ...money ..the real reason why counties go to war and refrain from war is economic Australia and host for other countries don't have nukes and they don't go to war | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You clearly have misunderstood what trident is. It is NOT a first strike weapon. Easy to do a fact check should you wish to do so. Indeed... so it is even more worrying that the Tories don't know what it is for. -Matt this.. listening the the nations Defence Minister say we could carry out a first strike on terrorists.. then clarify that if they were in Iraq or Syria.. that's ok then.. So you don’t think they would fire a nuke at one armed with a knife inside the grounds of the palace of Westminster then?" not personally no.. you do know that there will be some in this forum positively salivating at such a thought.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The uk can't because we only babysit them for the usa ... trump has the codes " Erm...No, he doesn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The whole talk of war is horrific what if this, what if that, its such a turn off, do people really get a kick out of planning nuclear attacks, kind of sickens me we should all love our neighbours, turn the other cheek Here are a pair of simple truths... If you want peace, prepare for war. When preparing for war: Train hard, and fight easy... Both statements sound ever so wrong, but both statements have been proven absolutely true over millennia." Dont often agree with your politics but you are totally spot on there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The uk can't because we only babysit them for the usa ... trump has the codes " Spoken as if you knew the facts outright Nope The delivery system is the USA's which we rent and America maintains, the warhead "bit that goes boom" we made and belongs to us. We have the ability to launch them, we don't have to ask Trump for the fucking 4 digit pin code  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"this is going to surprise the left leaning friends i very much respect on here...... but i am with the right leaning folks on this one..... i have no issue with trident at all......" ditto.. rather have a big stick and not need it than need it and not have it.. and yes i know the prospect of them ever being used is horrific, senseless and barbaric where it to be the case that we were retaliating like for like.. essentially having theatre nukes was what stopped the 3rd shock army heading East over the border back in the days when we had an Army of the Rhine.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The whole talk of war is horrific what if this, what if that, its such a turn off, do people really get a kick out of planning nuclear attacks, kind of sickens me we should all love our neighbours, turn the other cheek Here are a pair of simple truths... If you want peace, prepare for war. When preparing for war: Train hard, and fight easy... Both statements sound ever so wrong, but both statements have been proven absolutely true over millennia." agreed.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards" we actually have them and they don't yet ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"this is going to surprise the left leaning friends i very much respect on here...... but i am with the right leaning folks on this one..... i have no issue with trident at all......" How about the cost to an already heavily burdened public purse? Replacing a weapon system that we in the west uphold to -"defend ourselves" yet deny and threaten other countries because we decide we can have it but they can't? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"this is going to surprise the left leaning friends i very much respect on here...... but i am with the right leaning folks on this one..... i have no issue with trident at all......" How about alleviating the estimated 3 million hungry kids who rely on free school meals, n scrap the sanctions system that does nothing but trap people into a cycle of poverty and make unemployable for the sake of tory ideology? Or save the elderly from a fate of ill run and funded care system? Just a thought.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards we actually have them and they don't yet !" Unfortunately they do have Nukes Mr suit, they are just working on a delivery system that is capable of hitting the U.S. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards we actually have them and they don't yet ! Unfortunately they do have Nukes Mr suit, they are just working on a delivery system that is capable of hitting the U.S. " Last I heard they have a bomb but its too large to fit in a rocket, meant to be quite hard to make it small enough to deliver it over very large distance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus . . . some of these posts sound like something dredged up from some tattered old CND pamphlet. Sickening to think there are many who still suggest we give up our "big stick' capability and offer to any aggressor a Victoria Sponge and cup of tea. " Oh right.. So which aggressors are we talking about? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus . . . some of these posts sound like something dredged up from some tattered old CND pamphlet. Sickening to think there are many who still suggest we give up our "big stick' capability and offer to any aggressor a Victoria Sponge and cup of tea. " Plus the reason(s) for their aggression | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards we actually have them and they don't yet ! Unfortunately they do have Nukes Mr suit, they are just working on a delivery system that is capable of hitting the U.S. " Bloody hell, there's a few in here that would make good advisors to Trump | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards we actually have them and they don't yet ! Unfortunately they do have Nukes Mr suit, they are just working on a delivery system that is capable of hitting the U.S. Bloody hell, there's a few in here that would make good advisors to Trump " Which comment do you object to? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards" I haven't actually seen threats from Iran. North Korea from a paranoid stance of self defence. They are after nuclear weapons to secure their sovereignty and the way the usa the uk and the west in general behave and threaten them, their fears are justified. The expense of replacing ours when we have so many financial difficulties seems too expensive a deterrent. Would be ok if we had the money but we don't.. I know others on hete will say we can't afford not to have it but what problems are we causing by having them and making the uk a nuclear target | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"this is going to surprise the left leaning friends i very much respect on here...... but i am with the right leaning folks on this one..... i have no issue with trident at all...... How about alleviating the estimated 3 million hungry kids who rely on free school meals, n scrap the sanctions system that does nothing but trap people into a cycle of poverty and make unemployable for the sake of tory ideology? Or save the elderly from a fate of ill run and funded care system? Just a thought.. " But it's defence money, you can't just scrap a couple of tanks and take some underprivileged children out for a day trip, nice thought but it's not going to happen. What you fail to understand is that by cutting trident, you also cut the submarine that carries it, the reactor that propels the submarine dramatically cutting the engineering capacity and capabilities of the UK. On top of that you have around 600 companies in the supply chain most of which are UK companies, what do you think are going to happen to all of these? Not doing it will probably cause more economic damage than building it. Ginger | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What you fail to understand is that by cutting trident, you also cut the submarine that carries it, the reactor that propels the submarine dramatically cutting the engineering capacity and capabilities of the UK. On top of that you have around 600 companies in the supply chain most of which are UK companies, what do you think are going to happen to all of these? Not doing it will probably cause more economic damage than building it. Ginger" That's like the Third Reich justifying concentration camps because they provided employment for camp guards and contracts to German business. If a defence system is to be justified, it should be as a proven, demonstratively effective and absolutely necessary expenditure. Trident is yesterday's technology, providing zero defence against today's real (as opposed to imaginary) threats, but at a stratospheric cost to a bankrupt country which is unable to provide adequate finance to meet the health and education needs of its citizens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What you fail to understand is that by cutting trident, you also cut the submarine that carries it, the reactor that propels the submarine dramatically cutting the engineering capacity and capabilities of the UK. On top of that you have around 600 companies in the supply chain most of which are UK companies, what do you think are going to happen to all of these? Not doing it will probably cause more economic damage than building it. Ginger That's like the Third Reich justifying concentration camps because they provided employment for camp guards and contracts to German business. If a defence system is to be justified, it should be as a proven, demonstratively effective and absolutely necessary expenditure. Trident is yesterday's technology, providing zero defence against today's real (as opposed to imaginary) threats, but at a stratospheric cost to a bankrupt country which is unable to provide adequate finance to meet the health and education needs of its citizens." Trident is yesterdays technology for yesterday's wars.Guaranteed it will be completely obsolete in next ten years.The money is better spent on other areas of defence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What you fail to understand is that by cutting trident, you also cut the submarine that carries it, the reactor that propels the submarine dramatically cutting the engineering capacity and capabilities of the UK. On top of that you have around 600 companies in the supply chain most of which are UK companies, what do you think are going to happen to all of these? Not doing it will probably cause more economic damage than building it. Ginger That's like the Third Reich justifying concentration camps because they provided employment for camp guards and contracts to German business. If a defence system is to be justified, it should be as a proven, demonstratively effective and absolutely necessary expenditure. Trident is yesterday's technology, providing zero defence against today's real (as opposed to imaginary) threats, but at a stratospheric cost to a bankrupt country which is unable to provide adequate finance to meet the health and education needs of its citizens." Trident is yesterdays technology for yesterday's wars.Guaranteed it will be completely obsolete in next ten years.The money is better spent on other areas of defence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards we actually have them and they don't yet ! Unfortunately they do have Nukes Mr suit, they are just working on a delivery system that is capable of hitting the U.S. Bloody hell, there's a few in here that would make good advisors to Trump Which comment do you object to? " Comments that fly in the face of true facts that are very easily accessible to all with an internet connection | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards we actually have them and they don't yet ! Unfortunately they do have Nukes Mr suit, they are just working on a delivery system that is capable of hitting the U.S. Bloody hell, there's a few in here that would make good advisors to Trump Which comment do you object to? Comments that fly in the face of true facts that are very easily accessible to all with an internet connection "Ah i see! This one. "So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Call me ignorant and niave, but if a enemy is that dangerous and unstable, the best move is to pool every resource and disable them as best as you can! In other words without wanting to be too presumptuous - if North Korea are SO dangerous (that's the way I understand it, I'm probably wrong??) Why the hell don't the UK, US and all other alies get together and blast then off the face of the Earth, disarm them completely, remove all their capabilities with conventional weapons before they see it coming and before they destroy us?? That seems the logical thing to do to me?? Am I missing something??! " I think we can solve this without killing millions. Little kim versus trump gladiators to the death.I'd pay to view.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Call me ignorant and niave, but if a enemy is that dangerous and unstable, the best move is to pool every resource and disable them as best as you can! In other words without wanting to be too presumptuous - if North Korea are SO dangerous (that's the way I understand it, I'm probably wrong??) Why the hell don't the UK, US and all other alies get together and blast then off the face of the Earth, disarm them completely, remove all their capabilities with conventional weapons before they see it coming and before they destroy us?? That seems the logical thing to do to me?? Am I missing something??! " China, for a start. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Call me ignorant and niave, but if a enemy is that dangerous and unstable, the best move is to pool every resource and disable them as best as you can! In other words without wanting to be too presumptuous - if North Korea are SO dangerous (that's the way I understand it, I'm probably wrong??) Why the hell don't the UK, US and all other alies get together and blast then off the face of the Earth, disarm them completely, remove all their capabilities with conventional weapons before they see it coming and before they destroy us?? That seems the logical thing to do to me?? Am I missing something??! China, for a start. " What has China got to do with it?? I know that North Korea has threatened them? But if we took out the threat (North korea) that would remove the problem surely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards we actually have them and they don't yet ! Unfortunately they do have Nukes Mr suit, they are just working on a delivery system that is capable of hitting the U.S. Bloody hell, there's a few in here that would make good advisors to Trump Which comment do you object to? Comments that fly in the face of true facts that are very easily accessible to all with an internet connection
Ah i see! This one. "So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!!""Nope | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What you fail to understand is that by cutting trident, you also cut the submarine that carries it, the reactor that propels the submarine dramatically cutting the engineering capacity and capabilities of the UK. On top of that you have around 600 companies in the supply chain most of which are UK companies, what do you think are going to happen to all of these? Not doing it will probably cause more economic damage than building it. Ginger That's like the Third Reich justifying concentration camps because they provided employment for camp guards and contracts to German business. If a defence system is to be justified, it should be as a proven, demonstratively effective and absolutely necessary expenditure. Trident is yesterday's technology, providing zero defence against today's real (as opposed to imaginary) threats, but at a stratospheric cost to a bankrupt country which is unable to provide adequate finance to meet the health and education needs of its citizens." Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards we actually have them and they don't yet ! Unfortunately they do have Nukes Mr suit, they are just working on a delivery system that is capable of hitting the U.S. Bloody hell, there's a few in here that would make good advisors to Trump Which comment do you object to? Comments that fly in the face of true facts that are very easily accessible to all with an internet connection "So you don't believe that North Korea has detonated nuclear weapons? Or you believe that they already have a nuclear delivery system that can already reach the continental US? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Call me ignorant and niave, but if a enemy is that dangerous and unstable, the best move is to pool every resource and disable them as best as you can! In other words without wanting to be too presumptuous - if North Korea are SO dangerous (that's the way I understand it, I'm probably wrong??) Why the hell don't the UK, US and all other alies get together and blast then off the face of the Earth, disarm them completely, remove all their capabilities with conventional weapons before they see it coming and before they destroy us?? That seems the logical thing to do to me?? Am I missing something??! " This is exactly why they want nuclear weapons! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"one bomb alone is likely to kill 100,000 people in seconds, the cloud will travel in any direction the wind carries it and will cause vast problems for all the counties around the area... " I suggest in my post, the use of every thing we have in CONVENTIONAL weapons first to disarm them and remove the threat.....wipe out everything they have. Don't have to use nuclear weapons - but that way we remove the threat and strike before they do?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident." No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards we actually have them and they don't yet ! Unfortunately they do have Nukes Mr suit, they are just working on a delivery system that is capable of hitting the U.S. Bloody hell, there's a few in here that would make good advisors to Trump Which comment do you object to? Comments that fly in the face of true facts that are very easily accessible to all with an internet connection
So you don't believe that North Korea has detonated nuclear weapons? Or you believe that they already have a nuclear delivery system that can already reach the continental US? "No, it was the "matter of fact" statement that N Korea don't have Nukes that I was on about being totally wrong and so easy to look up before posting such incorrect statements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Call me ignorant and niave, but if a enemy is that dangerous and unstable, the best move is to pool every resource and disable them as best as you can! In other words without wanting to be too presumptuous - if North Korea are SO dangerous (that's the way I understand it, I'm probably wrong??) Why the hell don't the UK, US and all other alies get together and blast then off the face of the Earth, disarm them completely, remove all their capabilities with conventional weapons before they see it coming and before they destroy us?? That seems the logical thing to do to me?? Am I missing something??! China, for a start. What has China got to do with it?? I know that North Korea has threatened them? But if we took out the threat (North korea) that would remove the problem surely? " China don't want war with North Korea, for several reasons. Honestly I'd suggest Googling and finding out for yourself rather than asking a swinging forum... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected." So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? " I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology." I think they are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are." Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. " It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. " Are you really saying countermeasures are 100 accurate? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? " First off Iran and syria dont have the nuclear capability.The Israeli missle defence system makes a missle launch of any kind obsolete .Plus satellites watch iran 24/7 they might be a bit crazy in Tehran but they arent suicidal enough to launch anything. Didn't the USA just move its missle defence system this week onto the korean peninsula making the north Korean missles ineffective. You want an effective delivery system thats not going to be shot down be the technology comming online.Then a hyper sonic delivery system is the way forward.China successfully tested theirs last year.The USA and russia have their own programs.The counter weapon to these hyper sonic weapons is shooting them down with lasers which isnt proven technology . So yes trident is a dinosaur.Its slow and it will not reach its target therefore is no longer a deterrent .Better we create a missle defence sytstem . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? First off Iran and syria dont have the nuclear capability.The Israeli missle defence system makes a missle launch of any kind obsolete .Plus satellites watch iran 24/7 they might be a bit crazy in Tehran but they arent suicidal enough to launch anything. Didn't the USA just move its missle defence system this week onto the korean peninsula making the north Korean missles ineffective. You want an effective delivery system thats not going to be shot down be the technology comming online.Then a hyper sonic delivery system is the way forward.China successfully tested theirs last year.The USA and russia have their own programs.The counter weapon to these hyper sonic weapons is shooting them down with lasers which isnt proven technology . So yes trident is a dinosaur.Its slow and it will not reach its target therefore is no longer a deterrent .Better we create a missle defence sytstem . " So is this hypersonic munition nuclear? Where is the hypersonic gun? Is it land based? Ship based? Air launched? Submarine based? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Tories are utter unstable psychopaths. So from what i am reading UK government / Tories would really fire nuclear weapons first even if the UK is not under nuclear attack crazy!!!! So how is this different to the likes of North Korea or Iran making nuclear threats? Double standards" The tories will as they are told from the Whitehouse unfortunately | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? First off Iran and syria dont have the nuclear capability.The Israeli missle defence system makes a missle launch of any kind obsolete .Plus satellites watch iran 24/7 they might be a bit crazy in Tehran but they arent suicidal enough to launch anything. Didn't the USA just move its missle defence system this week onto the korean peninsula making the north Korean missles ineffective. You want an effective delivery system thats not going to be shot down be the technology comming online.Then a hyper sonic delivery system is the way forward.China successfully tested theirs last year.The USA and russia have their own programs.The counter weapon to these hyper sonic weapons is shooting them down with lasers which isnt proven technology . So yes trident is a dinosaur.Its slow and it will not reach its target therefore is no longer a deterrent .Better we create a missle defence sytstem . So is this hypersonic munition nuclear? Where is the hypersonic gun? Is it land based? Ship based? Air launched? Submarine based? " Two options are a hyper sonic jet to deliver the nuke.Or a hyper sonic glider released once the missle reaches space. Speeds upto mach 19 can be achieved .The glider was tested by china and Russia with success. You could google hyper sonic weapons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? First off Iran and syria dont have the nuclear capability.The Israeli missle defence system makes a missle launch of any kind obsolete .Plus satellites watch iran 24/7 they might be a bit crazy in Tehran but they arent suicidal enough to launch anything. Didn't the USA just move its missle defence system this week onto the korean peninsula making the north Korean missles ineffective. You want an effective delivery system thats not going to be shot down be the technology comming online.Then a hyper sonic delivery system is the way forward.China successfully tested theirs last year.The USA and russia have their own programs.The counter weapon to these hyper sonic weapons is shooting them down with lasers which isnt proven technology . So yes trident is a dinosaur.Its slow and it will not reach its target therefore is no longer a deterrent .Better we create a missle defence sytstem . " All that is presuming the defence missile systems are 100% reliable That's quite a big presumption isn't it ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Call me ignorant and niave, but if a enemy is that dangerous and unstable, the best move is to pool every resource and disable them as best as you can! In other words without wanting to be too presumptuous - if North Korea are SO dangerous (that's the way I understand it, I'm probably wrong??) Why the hell don't the UK, US and all other alies get together and blast then off the face of the Earth, disarm them completely, remove all their capabilities with conventional weapons before they see it coming and before they destroy us?? That seems the logical thing to do to me?? Am I missing something??! China, for a start. What has China got to do with it?? I know that North Korea has threatened them? But if we took out the threat (North korea) that would remove the problem surely? China don't want war with North Korea, for several reasons. Honestly I'd suggest Googling and finding out for yourself rather than asking a swinging forum..." Who actually wants a war? I suggest there are actually very few, with the exception of some fools and psychopaths whom I hope are in the minority. I can ask what I want, on whichever forum I want to..... I did not start this thread, I reacted to posts on it so if you wish to be obtuse, you need to direct that to everyone posting on here instead of singling out one individual. If it was not appropriate to discuss on here, there would not be a 'political' thread at all!! Thanks for the 'advice' though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? First off Iran and syria dont have the nuclear capability.The Israeli missle defence system makes a missle launch of any kind obsolete .Plus satellites watch iran 24/7 they might be a bit crazy in Tehran but they arent suicidal enough to launch anything. Didn't the USA just move its missle defence system this week onto the korean peninsula making the north Korean missles ineffective. You want an effective delivery system thats not going to be shot down be the technology comming online.Then a hyper sonic delivery system is the way forward.China successfully tested theirs last year.The USA and russia have their own programs.The counter weapon to these hyper sonic weapons is shooting them down with lasers which isnt proven technology . So yes trident is a dinosaur.Its slow and it will not reach its target therefore is no longer a deterrent .Better we create a missle defence sytstem . So is this hypersonic munition nuclear? Where is the hypersonic gun? Is it land based? Ship based? Air launched? Submarine based? Two options are a hyper sonic jet to deliver the nuke.Or a hyper sonic glider released once the missle reaches space. Speeds upto mach 19 can be achieved .The glider was tested by china and Russia with success. You could google hyper sonic weapons. "Both these systems could be taken out in the first strike though couldn’t they, and there would be no retaliatory strike capability. That would limit the UK to striking first. That would make the UK more likely to be attacked first, as that would mean that we couldn’t strike back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? First off Iran and syria dont have the nuclear capability.The Israeli missle defence system makes a missle launch of any kind obsolete .Plus satellites watch iran 24/7 they might be a bit crazy in Tehran but they arent suicidal enough to launch anything. Didn't the USA just move its missle defence system this week onto the korean peninsula making the north Korean missles ineffective. You want an effective delivery system thats not going to be shot down be the technology comming online.Then a hyper sonic delivery system is the way forward.China successfully tested theirs last year.The USA and russia have their own programs.The counter weapon to these hyper sonic weapons is shooting them down with lasers which isnt proven technology . So yes trident is a dinosaur.Its slow and it will not reach its target therefore is no longer a deterrent .Better we create a missle defence sytstem . So is this hypersonic munition nuclear? Where is the hypersonic gun? Is it land based? Ship based? Air launched? Submarine based? Two options are a hyper sonic jet to deliver the nuke.Or a hyper sonic glider released once the missle reaches space. Speeds upto mach 19 can be achieved .The glider was tested by china and Russia with success. You could google hyper sonic weapons.
Both these systems could be taken out in the first strike though couldn’t they, and there would be no retaliatory strike capability. That would limit the UK to striking first. That would make the UK more likely to be attacked first, as that would mean that we couldn’t strike back. "No trident missles would be shot down as i pointed out .Hyper sonic retaliation would prevent a first strike option anyway as we have no counter measure.Keep up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? First off Iran and syria dont have the nuclear capability.The Israeli missle defence system makes a missle launch of any kind obsolete .Plus satellites watch iran 24/7 they might be a bit crazy in Tehran but they arent suicidal enough to launch anything. Didn't the USA just move its missle defence system this week onto the korean peninsula making the north Korean missles ineffective. You want an effective delivery system thats not going to be shot down be the technology comming online.Then a hyper sonic delivery system is the way forward.China successfully tested theirs last year.The USA and russia have their own programs.The counter weapon to these hyper sonic weapons is shooting them down with lasers which isnt proven technology . So yes trident is a dinosaur.Its slow and it will not reach its target therefore is no longer a deterrent .Better we create a missle defence sytstem . So is this hypersonic munition nuclear? Where is the hypersonic gun? Is it land based? Ship based? Air launched? Submarine based? Two options are a hyper sonic jet to deliver the nuke.Or a hyper sonic glider released once the missle reaches space. Speeds upto mach 19 can be achieved .The glider was tested by china and Russia with success. You could google hyper sonic weapons.
Both these systems could be taken out in the first strike though couldn’t they, and there would be no retaliatory strike capability. That would limit the UK to striking first. That would make the UK more likely to be attacked first, as that would mean that we couldn’t strike back. No trident missles would be shot down as i pointed out .Hyper sonic retaliation would prevent a first strike option anyway as we have no counter measure.Keep up. "But these gliders or missiles would be sitting on the ground until we wanted to use them. The enemy could therefore take them out on the ground. We would then have no capability to retaliate. Therefore they are purely a first strike weapon, and if we only had those we wouldn't had a deterrent of mutually assured destruction. So seem very sure about missile defence. How did the Russian system in Syria stand up to those American cruise missiles earlier in the month? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? First off Iran and syria dont have the nuclear capability.The Israeli missle defence system makes a missle launch of any kind obsolete .Plus satellites watch iran 24/7 they might be a bit crazy in Tehran but they arent suicidal enough to launch anything. Didn't the USA just move its missle defence system this week onto the korean peninsula making the north Korean missles ineffective. You want an effective delivery system thats not going to be shot down be the technology comming online.Then a hyper sonic delivery system is the way forward.China successfully tested theirs last year.The USA and russia have their own programs.The counter weapon to these hyper sonic weapons is shooting them down with lasers which isnt proven technology . So yes trident is a dinosaur.Its slow and it will not reach its target therefore is no longer a deterrent .Better we create a missle defence sytstem . So is this hypersonic munition nuclear? Where is the hypersonic gun? Is it land based? Ship based? Air launched? Submarine based? Two options are a hyper sonic jet to deliver the nuke.Or a hyper sonic glider released once the missle reaches space. Speeds upto mach 19 can be achieved .The glider was tested by china and Russia with success. You could google hyper sonic weapons.
Both these systems could be taken out in the first strike though couldn’t they, and there would be no retaliatory strike capability. That would limit the UK to striking first. That would make the UK more likely to be attacked first, as that would mean that we couldn’t strike back. No trident missles would be shot down as i pointed out .Hyper sonic retaliation would prevent a first strike option anyway as we have no counter measure.Keep up.
But these gliders or missiles would be sitting on the ground until we wanted to use them. The enemy could therefore take them out on the ground. We would then have no capability to retaliate. Therefore they are purely a first strike weapon, and if we only had those we wouldn't had a deterrent of mutually assured destruction.
So seem very sure about missile defence. How did the Russian system in Syria stand up to those American cruise missiles earlier in the month? "Your first paragraph is incomprehensible . Was the Russian missle defence system used and failed ? Assad just today put in an order for the Russian system to boost defences.He has faith in it... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trident is not yesterday's technology, as said before, submarine launched nuclear weapons are the best delivery system as they can't be taken out in a pre-emptive strike as the enemy doesn't know where they are. The other options are a missile based system, which the enemy can pre-target and eliminate in a first strike, or a bomber based system. A bomber based system would traditionally be with the bombs and bombers on the ground which can be eliminated in a first strike, or alternatively you can have nuclear armed bombers in the skies over the UK every minute of every hour of everyday, forever. Then if the UK is attacked those planes can then go and strike back. The Americans did this for years. To have the right amount of planes and crews and redundancy for such a mission would soon become more expensive than Trident. No, you're wrong there (according to defence experts and former military commanders). Old technology and, what's more, the submarines will not enjoy the advantage of stealth once the submarine tracking technology currently in development is perfected. So what is the "new" technology then if submarine launched multiple independently targetable warheads are "old" technology? I think their getting new counter measure technology mixed up with current offensive technology. I think they are.Its old technology if its no longer effective.Whats the use of a missile that can't reach its target.Or a submarine that can be tracked.No confusion over whats about to happen to warfare.The US navy have a 3 billion budget for underwater autonomous drones and the plan is for hundreds of drones to roam the seas for years at a time. To track enemy submarines.You can bet Russian and china are in are game also. It's old technology if its replaced by new technology. The US, Russia and China having sea drones doesn't make a difference if you are hitting Syria or north Korea or Iran does it? So what has replaced submarine launched MIRV as the best delivery system for nuclear weapons? First off Iran and syria dont have the nuclear capability.The Israeli missle defence system makes a missle launch of any kind obsolete .Plus satellites watch iran 24/7 they might be a bit crazy in Tehran but they arent suicidal enough to launch anything. Didn't the USA just move its missle defence system this week onto the korean peninsula making the north Korean missles ineffective. You want an effective delivery system thats not going to be shot down be the technology comming online.Then a hyper sonic delivery system is the way forward.China successfully tested theirs last year.The USA and russia have their own programs.The counter weapon to these hyper sonic weapons is shooting them down with lasers which isnt proven technology . So yes trident is a dinosaur.Its slow and it will not reach its target therefore is no longer a deterrent .Better we create a missle defence sytstem . So is this hypersonic munition nuclear? Where is the hypersonic gun? Is it land based? Ship based? Air launched? Submarine based? Two options are a hyper sonic jet to deliver the nuke.Or a hyper sonic glider released once the missle reaches space. Speeds upto mach 19 can be achieved .The glider was tested by china and Russia with success. You could google hyper sonic weapons.
Both these systems could be taken out in the first strike though couldn’t they, and there would be no retaliatory strike capability. That would limit the UK to striking first. That would make the UK more likely to be attacked first, as that would mean that we couldn’t strike back. No trident missles would be shot down as i pointed out .Hyper sonic retaliation would prevent a first strike option anyway as we have no counter measure.Keep up.
But these gliders or missiles would be sitting on the ground until we wanted to use them. The enemy could therefore take them out on the ground. We would then have no capability to retaliate. Therefore they are purely a first strike weapon, and if we only had those we wouldn't had a deterrent of mutually assured destruction.
So seem very sure about missile defence. How did the Russian system in Syria stand up to those American cruise missiles earlier in the month? Your first paragraph is incomprehensible .
Was the Russian missle defence system used and failed ?
Assad just today put in an order for the Russian system to boost defences.He has faith in it... "Gliders and missiles do not fly around in the air 24/7. They sit on the ground until they are needed. If they are sitting on the ground, the enemy know where they are and can destroy them in a first strike. If they are destroyed in a first strike, they can't be used in a retaliatory strike. That's why missiles and bombers have been replaced with sunmarines. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is based upon the notion of mutually assured destruction. "If you nuke me, ill nuke you back" the submarines hide in a big ocean, and the theory is that you can't be assured that you would be able to take out all their subs in a first strike. So to only have a bomber/glider/missile system, that would only be suitable for a first strike, not a retaliatory strike. You therefore lose the mutually assured destruction, now the equation for the enemy becomes "if I nuke the UK, they can't nuke me back". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These Russian missiles only have a 400km range too " Thats a safe distance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These Russian missiles only have a 400km range too " So no need to worry about their topol mobile launched ICBM's (range about 7000 nautical miles) then...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These Russian missiles only have a 400km range too So no need to worry about their topol mobile launched ICBM's (range about 7000 nautical miles) then... "Nah their obsolete now according to bobbangs same as Trident because the missile defence systems are 100% perfect at stopping all incoming Nukes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These Russian missiles only have a 400km range too So no need to worry about their topol mobile launched ICBM's (range about 7000 nautical miles) then...
Nah their obsolete now according to bobbangs same as Trident because the missile defence systems are 100% perfect at stopping all incoming Nukes."So I don't know why anyone would worry about Iran or NK having nukes then, we can just shoot them down out the air, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The whole system works on mutually assured destruction so whining about innocent lives blah blah blah just makes you should like a school kid. Yes it's very expensive and id rather they spent the money on conventional weapons. But don't underestimate the usefulness to the economy of the nuclear industry. "Or underestimate the value of mutually assured destruction | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The whole system works on mutually assured destruction so whining about innocent lives blah blah blah just makes you should like a school kid. Yes it's very expensive and id rather they spent the money on conventional weapons. But don't underestimate the usefulness to the economy of the nuclear industry.
Or underestimate the value of mutually assured destruction "That as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. " can't use this one i am afraid that actually under there own laws and surrender agreements after WW2 they are actually not allowed to have any.... don't worry.... pres. trump didn't know either when he started talking about how he would change foreign relations...... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How have the media managed to convince most people that nuclear weapons make us all safer? It's the same logic as the 2nd Amendment argument the gun-lobby in America uses to say that they need guns to defend themselves and keep themselves safer. None of the logic holds up, for the following reasons: 1 - the astronomical cost: they say that it will cost £200bn! When we are arguing about £3bn cuts in schools, £10bn needed for the NHS and pay freezes for nurses, doctors, teachers and fire officers, to be wasting many many times that on weapons is crazy. 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. 3 - if they were ever to be used they would certainly kill many hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people and probably destroy large parts of the planet. What kind of psychopath would use them? 4 - they are not independent anyway. They rely on an American delivery system so need their say so anyway. 5 - How can we argue that North Korea, or any other nation can't develop them whilst we hold on to them. It's a hypocritical position to hold. If you are happy for the UK to have them you have to be OK with Kim Jong Un or any other dictator getting them. 6 - the presence of nuclear weapons brings us closer to accidental annihilation. Why not be the second nation to unilaterally destroy all of their nuclear arms, make the world that little safer, and set an example for others to follow. Corbyn is not the psychopath for saying he wouldn't use a weapon that would incinerate innocent children. May and Fallon are the crazy ones for saying they would." Corbyn stated he wouldn't authorise the use of our nuclear arsenal EVEN IF we were attacked by them ourselves. . .I for one don't ever want to be part of that man's UK. We should be in a situation where we can defend ourselves with like for like weapons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Corbyn stated he wouldn't authorise the use of our nuclear arsenal EVEN IF we were attacked by them ourselves. . .I for one don't ever want to be part of that man's UK. We should be in a situation where we can defend ourselves with like for like weapons." But what's the point? If we're already under nuclear attack then what in reality is the point of using the weapons. The whole failure of the 'mutually assured destruction' tactic that you are all so keen on is that it totally falls down once one nation fires. If we were to hypothetically fire back then we'd escalate to all out nuclear war. Brilliant. We'd all be happier then, for four minutes anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. can't use this one i am afraid that actually under there own laws and surrender agreements after WW2 they are actually not allowed to have any.... don't worry.... pres. trump didn't know either when he started talking about how he would change foreign relations...... "Don't worry, I do know the reason they don't have them, but I am sure secretly they are very happy they can save hundreds of billions of dollars! Just imagine how well funded our health service, our schools, our communities could be if we didn't piss away £200bn on weapons we'll never use. Do you realise that it works out over £6,800 For every tax payer in the UK. Are you happy that nearly £7,000 of your money will be wasted on nuclear arms? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. can't use this one i am afraid that actually under there own laws and surrender agreements after WW2 they are actually not allowed to have any.... don't worry.... pres. trump didn't know either when he started talking about how he would change foreign relations......
Don't worry, I do know the reason they don't have them, but I am sure secretly they are very happy they can save hundreds of billions of dollars!
Just imagine how well funded our health service, our schools, our communities could be if we didn't piss away £200bn on weapons we'll never use.
Do you realise that it works out over £6,800 For every tax payer in the UK. Are you happy that nearly £7,000 of your money will be wasted on nuclear arms?"Yep. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Corbyn stated he wouldn't authorise the use of our nuclear arsenal EVEN IF we were attacked by them ourselves. . .I for one don't ever want to be part of that man's UK. We should be in a situation where we can defend ourselves with like for like weapons. But what's the point? If we're already under nuclear attack then what in reality is the point of using the weapons. The whole failure of the 'mutually assured destruction' tactic that you are all so keen on is that it totally falls down once one nation fires. If we were to hypothetically fire back then we'd escalate to all out nuclear war. Brilliant. We'd all be happier then, for four minutes anyway. " If the uk got nuked we're already in an all out nuclear war | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. can't use this one i am afraid that actually under there own laws and surrender agreements after WW2 they are actually not allowed to have any.... don't worry.... pres. trump didn't know either when he started talking about how he would change foreign relations......
Don't worry, I do know the reason they don't have them, but I am sure secretly they are very happy they can save hundreds of billions of dollars!
Just imagine how well funded our health service, our schools, our communities could be if we didn't piss away £200bn on weapons we'll never use.
Do you realise that it works out over £6,800 For every tax payer in the UK. Are you happy that nearly £7,000 of your money will be wasted on nuclear arms?"Btw. £6800! Where did you get that crap from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. can't use this one i am afraid that actually under there own laws and surrender agreements after WW2 they are actually not allowed to have any.... don't worry.... pres. trump didn't know either when he started talking about how he would change foreign relations......
Don't worry, I do know the reason they don't have them, but I am sure secretly they are very happy they can save hundreds of billions of dollars!
Just imagine how well funded our health service, our schools, our communities could be if we didn't piss away £200bn on weapons we'll never use.
Do you realise that it works out over £6,800 For every tax payer in the UK. Are you happy that nearly £7,000 of your money will be wasted on nuclear arms?
Btw. £6800! Where did you get that crap from? "Why is it crap? It's the stated cost divided between the number of taxpayers in the UK. I'd ask where you got all your crap from, but I wouldn't really want to know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. can't use this one i am afraid that actually under there own laws and surrender agreements after WW2 they are actually not allowed to have any.... don't worry.... pres. trump didn't know either when he started talking about how he would change foreign relations......
Don't worry, I do know the reason they don't have them, but I am sure secretly they are very happy they can save hundreds of billions of dollars!
Just imagine how well funded our health service, our schools, our communities could be if we didn't piss away £200bn on weapons we'll never use.
Do you realise that it works out over £6,800 For every tax payer in the UK. Are you happy that nearly £7,000 of your money will be wasted on nuclear arms?
Btw. £6800! Where did you get that crap from?
Why is it crap? It's the stated cost divided between the number of taxpayers in the UK.
I'd ask where you got all your crap from, but I wouldn't really want to know."How many tax payers are there in the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. can't use this one i am afraid that actually under there own laws and surrender agreements after WW2 they are actually not allowed to have any.... don't worry.... pres. trump didn't know either when he started talking about how he would change foreign relations......
Don't worry, I do know the reason they don't have them, but I am sure secretly they are very happy they can save hundreds of billions of dollars!
Just imagine how well funded our health service, our schools, our communities could be if we didn't piss away £200bn on weapons we'll never use.
Do you realise that it works out over £6,800 For every tax payer in the UK. Are you happy that nearly £7,000 of your money will be wasted on nuclear arms?
Btw. £6800! Where did you get that crap from? "And where did you get 200 billion from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. can't use this one i am afraid that actually under there own laws and surrender agreements after WW2 they are actually not allowed to have any.... don't worry.... pres. trump didn't know either when he started talking about how he would change foreign relations......
Don't worry, I do know the reason they don't have them, but I am sure secretly they are very happy they can save hundreds of billions of dollars!
Just imagine how well funded our health service, our schools, our communities could be if we didn't piss away £200bn on weapons we'll never use.
Do you realise that it works out over £6,800 For every tax payer in the UK. Are you happy that nearly £7,000 of your money will be wasted on nuclear arms?
Btw. £6800! Where did you get that crap from?
Why is it crap? It's the stated cost divided between the number of taxpayers in the UK.
I'd ask where you got all your crap from, but I wouldn't really want to know.
How many tax payers are there in the UK?"Taken from HMRC data quoted in the Guardian Other figure of 200bn came from other research quoted in the Guardian which uses figures by the Tory Chair of the Foreign Affairs Cttee in Parliament | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But what's the point? If we're already under nuclear attack then what in reality is the point of using the weapons. The whole failure of the 'mutually assured destruction' tactic that you are all so keen on is that it totally falls down once one nation fires. " So some guy gives you a smack in the face you wouldn't bother giving them a smack back because you've already being smacked right ? so what's the point! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But what's the point? If we're already under nuclear attack then what in reality is the point of using the weapons. The whole failure of the 'mutually assured destruction' tactic that you are all so keen on is that it totally falls down once one nation fires. So some guy gives you a smack in the face you wouldn't bother giving them a smack back because you've already being smacked right ? so what's the point!" stupid analogy. Firing a nuclear weapon in retaliation of somone fireing a nuclear weapon on us means the destruction and murder of millions of innocent men women and children who shouldnt be punished because of the 0.1% that make up their psychotic goverment. So if we was doomed and a nuclear was on its way I would not want any leader of my country fireing our nukes in a revenge attack killing millions. a little bit different from your smack in the face scenerio dont you think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 2 - they do not make us safer or more prosperous. Germany or Japan don't have them and both have larger GDP than the UK. can't use this one i am afraid that actually under there own laws and surrender agreements after WW2 they are actually not allowed to have any.... don't worry.... pres. trump didn't know either when he started talking about how he would change foreign relations......
Don't worry, I do know the reason they don't have them, but I am sure secretly they are very happy they can save hundreds of billions of dollars!
Just imagine how well funded our health service, our schools, our communities could be if we didn't piss away £200bn on weapons we'll never use.
Do you realise that it works out over £6,800 For every tax payer in the UK. Are you happy that nearly £7,000 of your money will be wasted on nuclear arms?
Btw. £6800! Where did you get that crap from?
Why is it crap? It's the stated cost divided between the number of taxpayers in the UK.
I'd ask where you got all your crap from, but I wouldn't really want to know.
How many tax payers are there in the UK?
Taken from HMRC data quoted in the Guardian
Other figure of 200bn came from other research quoted in the Guardian which uses figures by the Tory Chair of the Foreign Affairs Cttee in Parliament "The guardian seems to be reporting that some anti trident campaigners quoted 205 billion. Also these costs, over what time frame? Obviously more than 12 months, id expect to pay many thousands towards the armed forces over my working life. I just don't see the issue here. Yes id like to see more money spent on the NHS and education, but clearly we need more people to pay tax for that to happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But what's the point? If we're already under nuclear attack then what in reality is the point of using the weapons. The whole failure of the 'mutually assured destruction' tactic that you are all so keen on is that it totally falls down once one nation fires. So some guy gives you a smack in the face you wouldn't bother giving them a smack back because you've already being smacked right ? so what's the point! stupid analogy. Firing a nuclear weapon in retaliation of somone fireing a nuclear weapon on us means the destruction and murder of millions of innocent men women and children who shouldnt be punished because of the 0.1% that make up their psychotic goverment. So if we was doomed and a nuclear was on its way I would not want any leader of my country fireing our nukes in a revenge attack killing millions. a little bit different from your smack in the face scenerio dont you think." You're a big Trump supporter. Do you think he would fire back if the US was nuked? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But what's the point? If we're already under nuclear attack then what in reality is the point of using the weapons. The whole failure of the 'mutually assured destruction' tactic that you are all so keen on is that it totally falls down once one nation fires. So some guy gives you a smack in the face you wouldn't bother giving them a smack back because you've already being smacked right ? so what's the point! stupid analogy. Firing a nuclear weapon in retaliation of somone fireing a nuclear weapon on us means the destruction and murder of millions of innocent men women and children who shouldnt be punished because of the 0.1% that make up their psychotic goverment. So if we was doomed and a nuclear was on its way I would not want any leader of my country fireing our nukes in a revenge attack killing millions. a little bit different from your smack in the face scenerio dont you think. You're a big Trump supporter. Do you think he would fire back if the US was nuked? " correction I am not a big trump supporter at all. if you had seen my posts when he fired on syria when there was no independent investigation first. I criticised him and said hes done a total 180 on what he said during the election campaign. Only reason I was in favour of trump over hillary was because he said he wasnt going to medal in the middle east any more, better relations with russia which was opppsite of hillary but hey ho hes done what she would have done... so no im no big trump supporter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to answer your questiom _lcc... Unfortunately I do think he would. as much as no one wants to hear it but only jeremy corbyns stance on nuclear weopons makes sense to me." So why shouldn't Trump retaliate? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But what's the point? If we're already under nuclear attack then what in reality is the point of using the weapons. The whole failure of the 'mutually assured destruction' tactic that you are all so keen on is that it totally falls down once one nation fires. So some guy gives you a smack in the face you wouldn't bother giving them a smack back because you've already being smacked right ? so what's the point! stupid analogy. Firing a nuclear weapon in retaliation of somone fireing a nuclear weapon on us means the destruction and murder of millions of innocent men women and children who shouldnt be punished because of the 0.1% that make up their psychotic goverment. So if we was doomed and a nuclear was on its way I would not want any leader of my country fireing our nukes in a revenge attack killing millions. a little bit different from your smack in the face scenerio dont you think. You're a big Trump supporter. Do you think he would fire back if the US was nuked? " dont think he would be alive to make the decision tbh nobody is going to use icbms as a first strike weapon as they give to much time for retaliation .a nuclear attack is more likely to be with nuclear warhead equiped cruise missiles or what is called a low oblique attack from close in shore both of which the first knowledge that you are under attack is when they go bang .the chinese in particular have developed the latter as a doctrine for there submarine fleet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to answer your questiom _lcc... Unfortunately I do think he would. as much as no one wants to hear it but only jeremy corbyns stance on nuclear weopons makes sense to me. So why shouldn't Trump retaliate?" retaliate in what regard? Are we talking hypothetically if a country fired all its nukes at america and america and every person there was doomed in the next 30 mins or so or how ever long the nukes takes to get there? If you and your country are doomed no matter what, theres no point in retaliation unless you want the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocents on your hands just to get back at the handful of people that made the decision to fire their nukes. Only somone evil would condemn millions of innocents to their deaths. ..and ive no idea what comes after this life if anything at all but I wouldnt wanna put it to the test. Every leader of every nation should just say hey we will get rid of our nukes if no one else developes them and lets put a world wide ban on any production of nukes. nukes are extinctuon level weaponry and no country should have them. corybn on this particular subject is correct...to do away with trident and use that 200 billiom on things the people need. health education etc etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And to answer your questiom _lcc... Unfortunately I do think he would. as much as no one wants to hear it but only jeremy corbyns stance on nuclear weopons makes sense to me. So why shouldn't Trump retaliate? retaliate in what regard? Are we talking hypothetically if a country fired all its nukes at america and america and every person there was doomed in the next 30 mins or so or how ever long the nukes takes to get there? If you and your country are doomed no matter what, theres no point in retaliation unless you want the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocents on your hands just to get back at the handful of people that made the decision to fire their nukes. Only somone evil would condemn millions of innocents to their deaths. ..and ive no idea what comes after this life if anything at all but I wouldnt wanna put it to the test. Every leader of every nation should just say hey we will get rid of our nukes if no one else developes them and lets put a world wide ban on any production of nukes. nukes are extinctuon level weaponry and no country should have them. corybn on this particular subject is correct...to do away with trident and use that 200 billiom on things the people need. health education etc etc." Ah, you're cute. X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So we're we wrong to bomb German cities in retaliation to the London blitz in WW2 then. Do we just sit and take any form of attack and shrug our shoulders and say "well we've been fucked and had hundreds or thousands killed but hey ho what's the point bombing back" we'll just sit here and get fucked over ? " Yes, we (the UK) were absolutely wrong to bomb German cities in retaliation for the Blitz, or whatever reason it was. It was a war crime and the deliberate murder of civillians. It doesn't matter what the other side has done, and they did do some horrendous things obviously, but your limits shouldn't be set by what others have done, but by the rule of law and what you know is right. To deliberately target civilians, as they did in Dresden, is a horrendous War Crime which the UK should be rightly ashamed of. By all means continue to fight militarily, and to target military institutions, but to target civilians was a War Crime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, we (the UK) were absolutely wrong to bomb German cities in retaliation for the Blitz, or whatever reason it was." Crap! It was total war, like it or not the noncombatants in cities were manufacturing the weapons and munitions that were being used to kill our service personnel and our war workers, so were legitimate targets. "It was a war crime and the deliberate murder of civillians" No, it is and was a war crime to deliberately target those not involved in war work. There is a big difference between being a non combatant and not being involved in war work. "It doesn't matter what the other side has done, and they did do some horrendous things obviously, but your limits shouldn't be set by what others have done, but by the rule of law and what you know is right." There I agree with you, but in total war it is very difficult to separate non combatants from non belligerents. All you have to do is look at the 'Bevin boys' 1 in 10 of all male conscripts were sent down the mines. Or the 'land girls' conscripted to work on farms. All war work and all legitimate targets both in their places of work and rest. "To deliberately target civilians, as they did in Dresden, is a horrendous War Crime which the UK should be rightly ashamed of. By all means continue to fight militarily, and to target military institutions, but to target civilians was a War Crime." See above, you may not like the realities of total war but just because you feel that you have some sort of moral superiority that gives you the right to convict your forebears of war crimes does not mean you are correct. In fact you are totally wrong in just about everything you say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So we're we wrong to bomb German cities in retaliation to the London blitz in WW2 then. Do we just sit and take any form of attack and shrug our shoulders and say "well we've been fucked and had hundreds or thousands killed but hey ho what's the point bombing back" we'll just sit here and get fucked over ? Yes, we (the UK) were absolutely wrong to bomb German cities in retaliation for the Blitz, or whatever reason it was. It was a war crime and the deliberate murder of civillians. It doesn't matter what the other side has done, and they did do some horrendous things obviously, but your limits shouldn't be set by what others have done, but by the rule of law and what you know is right. To deliberately target civilians, as they did in Dresden, is a horrendous War Crime which the UK should be rightly ashamed of. By all means continue to fight militarily, and to target military institutions, but to target civilians was a War Crime." This is an interesting short article about Dresden, https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dresden-ww2-bombing-raids-killed-5159536.amp | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well that May be your opinion Will but that doesn't make it fact. You may well disagree with me but to call it 'crap' or to just state that I am wrong, when ours are both opinions, is not a useful way to hold a debate. I disagree with you on most of your points, but most of all on your total war argument. In a total war you seem to argue that all rules go out of the window, and the carpet bombing of Dresden, which we know resulted in a firestorm incinerating children so much that nobody even counted the bodies, is a perfect example.of something that in my opinion can never be justified. The point is that where is the line between war and total war? The Iraqi army would have felt that loss in either Gulf war would be the end of their state and existence so that would lead them to see it as total war. You could. make the same argument about any war, and therefore all rules of war and combat go out of the window. Surely we have to hold ourselves to a standard? Don't we? Or is everything permitted? Targeting civilians? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons? Land mines? Is all justified in war or do we have to say, not in our name? " You may disagree with me, but I notice you don' contradict what I said about our Bevin boys or the land army. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you understand what war is? Forget the Hollywood films and all the rest of the bullshit spouted by propagandists and politicians. Do you understand the realities of war? War is the total breakdown of international law and a life and death struggle, war is the road of death out of Kuwait. War is r@pe of thousands of German women and the death of 50000 soviet troops in the storming of Berlin. War is genocide in Rwanda. War is the killing fields of Cambodia. War is the West Side boys of Sierra Leone. War is Stalingrad and Leningrad and the elimination of the Warsaw ghetto. War is the extermination of Carthage and the salting of the ground to stop anyone ever living there again. War is what is happening in Syria today. In war you either survive or die. A nasty truth is the rules of war are a fiction used by winners to eliminate any surviving losers that the winners deem dangerous. Regardless of your fine morals If you ever find yourself at war you will quickly learn the truth of what I say or you will be dead. This is not an opinion, it is the stark reality of war, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge these simple fact is delusional. Another unspoken reality of war that most refuse to acknowledge is it is always better to fight your wars on your enemies land and in their homes than on your land and in your homes. As for what is permitted or not there is another simple rule, if you have a weapon that the enemy has not and it will reduce your losses and increase enemy losses you use it, and you use it without mercy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well that May be your opinion Will but that doesn't make it fact. You may well disagree with me but to call it 'crap' or to just state that I am wrong, when ours are both opinions, is not a useful way to hold a debate. I disagree with you on most of your points, but most of all on your total war argument. In a total war you seem to argue that all rules go out of the window, and the carpet bombing of Dresden, which we know resulted in a firestorm incinerating children so much that nobody even counted the bodies, is a perfect example.of something that in my opinion can never be justified. The point is that where is the line between war and total war? The Iraqi army would have felt that loss in either Gulf war would be the end of their state and existence so that would lead them to see it as total war. You could. make the same argument about any war, and therefore all rules of war and combat go out of the window. Surely we have to hold ourselves to a standard? Don't we? Or is everything permitted? Targeting civilians? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons? Land mines? Is all justified in war or do we have to say, not in our name? You may disagree with me, but I notice you don' contradict what I said about our Bevin boys or the land army. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you understand what war is? Forget the Hollywood films and all the rest of the bullshit spouted by propagandists and politicians. Do you understand the realities of war? War is the total breakdown of international law and a life and death struggle, war is the road of death out of Kuwait. War is r@pe of thousands of German women and the death of 50000 soviet troops in the storming of Berlin. War is genocide in Rwanda. War is the killing fields of Cambodia. War is the West Side boys of Sierra Leone. War is Stalingrad and Leningrad and the elimination of the Warsaw ghetto. War is the extermination of Carthage and the salting of the ground to stop anyone ever living there again. War is what is happening in Syria today. In war you either survive or die. A nasty truth is the rules of war are a fiction used by winners to eliminate any surviving losers that the winners deem dangerous. Regardless of your fine morals If you ever find yourself at war you will quickly learn the truth of what I say or you will be dead. This is not an opinion, it is the stark reality of war, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge these simple fact is delusional. Another unspoken reality of war that most refuse to acknowledge is it is always better to fight your wars on your enemies land and in their homes than on your land and in your homes. As for what is permitted or not there is another simple rule, if you have a weapon that the enemy has not and it will reduce your losses and increase enemy losses you use it, and you use it without mercy!" Testify ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well that May be your opinion Will but that doesn't make it fact. You may well disagree with me but to call it 'crap' or to just state that I am wrong, when ours are both opinions, is not a useful way to hold a debate. I disagree with you on most of your points, but most of all on your total war argument. In a total war you seem to argue that all rules go out of the window, and the carpet bombing of Dresden, which we know resulted in a firestorm incinerating children so much that nobody even counted the bodies, is a perfect example.of something that in my opinion can never be justified. The point is that where is the line between war and total war? The Iraqi army would have felt that loss in either Gulf war would be the end of their state and existence so that would lead them to see it as total war. You could. make the same argument about any war, and therefore all rules of war and combat go out of the window. Surely we have to hold ourselves to a standard? Don't we? Or is everything permitted? Targeting civilians? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons? Land mines? Is all justified in war or do we have to say, not in our name? You may disagree with me, but I notice you don' contradict what I said about our Bevin boys or the land army. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you understand what war is? Forget the Hollywood films and all the rest of the bullshit spouted by propagandists and politicians. Do you understand the realities of war? War is the total breakdown of international law and a life and death struggle, war is the road of death out of Kuwait. War is r@pe of thousands of German women and the death of 50000 soviet troops in the storming of Berlin. War is genocide in Rwanda. War is the killing fields of Cambodia. War is the West Side boys of Sierra Leone. War is Stalingrad and Leningrad and the elimination of the Warsaw ghetto. War is the extermination of Carthage and the salting of the ground to stop anyone ever living there again. War is what is happening in Syria today. In war you either survive or die. A nasty truth is the rules of war are a fiction used by winners to eliminate any surviving losers that the winners deem dangerous. Regardless of your fine morals If you ever find yourself at war you will quickly learn the truth of what I say or you will be dead. This is not an opinion, it is the stark reality of war, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge these simple fact is delusional. Another unspoken reality of war that most refuse to acknowledge is it is always better to fight your wars on your enemies land and in their homes than on your land and in your homes. As for what is permitted or not there is another simple rule, if you have a weapon that the enemy has not and it will reduce your losses and increase enemy losses you use it, and you use it without mercy!" Well that may be your morals, but it's certainly not mine. I could never use such weapons that would indiscriminately target. Is it worth to win a war if you lose every principle you have to win that war? There seems to be a lack of principles in your outlook. There is nothing that is beyond the pale. There's a long tradition in philosophy through Plato and Hobbes that there should be some ethics, even in conflict, and in that sense I would totally agree. You specifically mention 'land girls'. I do not think thay they represent a legitimate target at all. To shoot a combatant on the field of conflict, or to shoot a woman who works on a farm, can not be compared, surely. By the argument that her work helps the state during war, what you are doing is erasing any line of distinction between soldiers and civilians,and I totally disagree. This is the logic of the terrorist, That any civilian is as culpable as an active fighter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it worth to win a war if you lose every principle you have to win that war?" Yes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you admit you'd first strike... you lose the deterrent factor" How does being willing, or at least saying that you may be willing, to strike first reduce the deterrent value. Surely, if anything, not having a 'no first strike' policy extends the deterrent to cover not just possible nuclear but conventional attack also. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it worth to win a war if you lose every principle you have to win that war? Yes. " Then what are you fighting for? Some abstract notion of the state? I would not fight for the state in such a circumstance. I would fight for a principle. And I would fight against my state should they be on the wrong side of the principle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it worth to win a war if you lose every principle you have to win that war? Yes. Then what are you fighting for? Some abstract notion of the state? I would not fight for the state in such a circumstance. I would fight for a principle. And I would fight against my state should they be on the wrong side of the principle." During the balkan war, some serb soldiers "forced themselves upon" local girls. They also placed small explosive charges into some of their vaginas before detonating them. I would do horrible things to a man to stop him doing that to my daughter. Id do it to him, and everyone he knows if i could. It's got nothing to do with "state". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it worth to win a war if you lose every principle you have to win that war? Yes. Then what are you fighting for? Some abstract notion of the state? I would not fight for the state in such a circumstance. I would fight for a principle. And I would fight against my state should they be on the wrong side of the principle. During the balkan war, some serb soldiers "forced themselves upon" local girls. They also placed small explosive charges into some of their vaginas before detonating them. I would do horrible things to a man to stop him doing that to my daughter. Id do it to him, and everyone he knows if i could. It's got nothing to do with "state"." Well exactly. So it is a principle of what is right and wrong in your mind. I agree. So therefore my point is that would you go beyond what your principles are just to win a war. I wouldn't. I'd prefer to die and lose a war than to live with myself having done things I fundamentally disagree with. It seems you agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you admit you'd first strike... you lose the deterrent factor Again, I ask.....where have you read this? Independent online today. May said we may launch Nukes even if WE are not under Nuke attack. Dosen't go into it any deeper but I'd hazard a guess she means in aid of another Country possibly " Britain, France, The USA and NATO have never had a 'no first strike' nuclear policy. The policy of deterrents is not meant to be a policy to deter nuclear war, in fact quite the opposite, the policy of deterrents is designed to escalate any war against a NATO member into a nuclear war, and hence unwinnable, as quickly as possible. Making any war unwinnable against us, or our NATO allies, is the deterrent, whether an enemy attacks with conventional, nuclear or any other sort of weapon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it worth to win a war if you lose every principle you have to win that war? Yes. Then what are you fighting for? Some abstract notion of the state? I would not fight for the state in such a circumstance. I would fight for a principle. And I would fight against my state should they be on the wrong side of the principle. During the balkan war, some serb soldiers "forced themselves upon" local girls. They also placed small explosive charges into some of their vaginas before detonating them. I would do horrible things to a man to stop him doing that to my daughter. Id do it to him, and everyone he knows if i could. It's got nothing to do with "state". Well exactly. So it is a principle of what is right and wrong in your mind. I agree. So therefore my point is that would you go beyond what your principles are just to win a war. I wouldn't. I'd prefer to die and lose a war than to live with myself having done things I fundamentally disagree with. It seems you agree" I vehemently disagree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The whole talk of war is horrific what if this, what if that, its such a turn off, do people really get a kick out of planning nuclear attacks, kind of sickens me we should all love our neighbours, turn the other cheek" The very reason that we can talk about this subject so candidly is because we have not lived through a war or conflict. I've read harrowing accounts of the US final push on Japan culminating in the use of nuclear strikes. Genocide on that scale is truly scary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well that May be your opinion Will but that doesn't make it fact. You may well disagree with me but to call it 'crap' or to just state that I am wrong, when ours are both opinions, is not a useful way to hold a debate. I disagree with you on most of your points, but most of all on your total war argument. In a total war you seem to argue that all rules go out of the window, and the carpet bombing of Dresden, which we know resulted in a firestorm incinerating children so much that nobody even counted the bodies, is a perfect example.of something that in my opinion can never be justified. The point is that where is the line between war and total war? The Iraqi army would have felt that loss in either Gulf war would be the end of their state and existence so that would lead them to see it as total war. You could. make the same argument about any war, and therefore all rules of war and combat go out of the window. Surely we have to hold ourselves to a standard? Don't we? Or is everything permitted? Targeting civilians? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? Biological weapons? Land mines? Is all justified in war or do we have to say, not in our name? You may disagree with me, but I notice you don' contradict what I said about our Bevin boys or the land army. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you understand what war is? Forget the Hollywood films and all the rest of the bullshit spouted by propagandists and politicians. Do you understand the realities of war? War is the total breakdown of international law and a life and death struggle, war is the road of death out of Kuwait. War is r@pe of thousands of German women and the death of 50000 soviet troops in the storming of Berlin. War is genocide in Rwanda. War is the killing fields of Cambodia. War is the West Side boys of Sierra Leone. War is Stalingrad and Leningrad and the elimination of the Warsaw ghetto. War is the extermination of Carthage and the salting of the ground to stop anyone ever living there again. War is what is happening in Syria today. In war you either survive or die. A nasty truth is the rules of war are a fiction used by winners to eliminate any surviving losers that the winners deem dangerous. Regardless of your fine morals If you ever find yourself at war you will quickly learn the truth of what I say or you will be dead. This is not an opinion, it is the stark reality of war, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge these simple fact is delusional. Another unspoken reality of war that most refuse to acknowledge is it is always better to fight your wars on your enemies land and in their homes than on your land and in your homes. As for what is permitted or not there is another simple rule, if you have a weapon that the enemy has not and it will reduce your losses and increase enemy losses you use it, and you use it without mercy!" I hate what you say but, unfortunately, I also know it to be true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hate what you say but, unfortunately, I also know it to be true." I hate what I say too. But I would do anything to ensure that my family, friends, country men and women survive. There are no morals when the choice is: Do what is required or extinction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
