Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 73 comments are related to the topic:
Trident renewal
Trident renewal
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 73
|
By:
feck off, i want ivana trump lookalike caddies
 |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
we voted for thermonuclear war.
instead of new air craft carriers + planes + more stuff for our troops. |
|
By:
Vote to Renew goes through !
|
|
By:
vote to burn money - nothing for healing people - only for
fireballs. sanity loses. judgement day draws closer. |
|
By:
Does anyone remember the film Fail Safe (1960s) but remade more recently with George Clooney involved - as the result of a mistake the USA destroyed Moscow - the Russians were intent on retaliation which would have meant all out nuclear war but the US president ordered the dropping of a bomb on to New York to keep the "peace" - even if millions died
Purely hypothetical (the problem is with the nuclear weapon all scenarios are just that because nobody knows what would really happen) - if the USA inadvertently destroyed London because of a calamitous mistake - would they permit us to destroy a major American city as a means to retain the status quo - somehow I doubt it - frightening thought |
|
By:
Surely the debate about Trident and nuclear weapons is a bit like the gun debate in the United States the more guns people have the more they are likely to be used often with tragic circumstances , the more nuclear weapons and another arma race surely with somed crazed fanatics getting hold of them the more likely something disastrous might happen , you dont have less nuclear weapons by threatening someone with more or mass murder, one warhead would cause 8 times the carnage that Hiroshama suffered does the human race really want that to happen again never mind the financial cost
|
|
By:
^ That. Having them is a countdown to someone using one and the first one wont be justified and will be a nutter.
Also cant think of any valid circumstances for using one. If someone fired one at us, then given the choice between a surgical strike to take out their military or a big fat nuke that will indiscriminately kill thousands of innocents, how is the nuke retaliation ever going to be justified? |
|
By:
video recorders used to cost $10,000
now you can get one for £25. dvd players were £500 now £25 used to be 2 atom bombs in 1945 over 20,000 now. can you keep track of 20,000 items? in any secure location. like a vault. wars? conflicts? - some stuff is gonna go south. sunami hits and earthquake a meteor strike. someone - a nut will get one. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I am sure MI6 are considering taking out Trump if he gets any where near power.....they wouldn't want that deranged chimp within a mile of the Nuke buttons !
|
|
By:
Ukraine had the third-biggest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Gave them all up in return for guarantees of peace, cooperation and territorial integrity from Russia, the US, the Uk and France. |
|
By:
Russia have been warned.....Any more sh*t from them and they will get a big slap !
(They have been very quite lately) |
|
By:
glad to see someone else has picked up on Momentum jumper, they need closer scrutiny.
|
|
By:
The Scottish people don't want 'em. If you lot want them, take them and put them on the Thames, and pay for 'em yourselves.
|
|
By:
Russia 7,000
UK 215 what happens when we have shot our load? |
|
By:
Nothing much, I would have thought. Multiple hydrogen bombs have that sort of effect.
|
|
By:
It has been reported that a significant poll places support for Trident in Scotland ahead of opposition to the system.
[i]Results from an ICM poll have been circulating in the press and on social media and here they are: Follow Britain Elects @britainelects Scotland // On keeping Trident: Support: 43% Oppose: 42% (via ICM) 12:44 PM - 22 May 2016 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poll-suggests-scots-back-keeping-trident/ Link goes on to explain why the myth has arisen that the US has control over the UK deterrent, and why the myth is b0ll0cks. |
|
By:
seems to be a few on here under that illusion screaming
|
|
By:
Ukraine had the third-biggest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Gave them all up in return for guarantees of peace, cooperation and territorial integrity from Russia, the US, the Uk and France. Spot on. There wouldn't be a war in Europe at the moment if Ukraine had have kept it's nuclear weapons. Fair enough if you are against renewal because you are of the view that Nuclear weapons themselves should not exist but to be against renewal because at this current moment in time there are more significant security risks which nuclear weapons do not assist us with is naive in the extreme. It's laughable to hear that Mhairi Black give a speech in parliament quoting the 2015 National Security strategy and saying that nuclear weapons do not prevent the 3 biggest threats to UK security. The very fact that she quotes the '2015 review' is acknowledgement that this strategy is updated on an annual basis and that the main threats can change on a yearly basis so to try and use this as a reason to not bother with a replacement which in itself can take 17 years to complete is simply bizarre. |
|
By:
"It's laughable to hear that Mhairi Black give a speech in parliament .."
You do realise the entire rest of your post is redundant and you could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing |
|
By:
MP asked the PM is she willing to fire a Atomic Missile at
a city of with expected casualties of 100,000 if she has to? Theresa says - yes. It's a hydrogen bomb? what major city is going to have such a low population? London is 8.6 million. NewYork the same. Moscow is 12 million. Maybe they are targeting cities like Edinburgh? ( the russians not our mob ). |
|
By:
They can chose the target and AFAIK dial the size of the boom.
|
|
By:
if you use one. that's one.
immediately the other side fires all of theirs. to think they are gonna fire one back at you is a nice thought. delusional. |
|
By:
She answered the question given, what more can she do?
|
|
By:
anxious 18 Jul 16 16:25
Is it worth nearly 40 billion to renews weapons of mass destruction ? £40bn is the cost of 1 sub. 4 subs + upkeep = £205bn Obscene |
|
By:
Yes i did use that as lower scale figure, furthermore 4 subs with a total of 160 warheads is complete madness , just one warhead has 8 times the power the bomb which dropped on Hiroshama
|
|
By:
Mankind would be destroyed by one or two warheads its truly unbelievable that people seem to revel in these weapons of mass destruction and murder
|
|
By:
I guess however if you listen to the likes of the Sun, the Daily mail, the Torygraph you will be persuaded by such absurd arguments.
|
|
By:
No, when you're arguing with the sort of people who say 40 billion is the cost of one sub (wrong), quote CND figures, or asy that we need to ask the US for permissiong to use them (total rubbish) or don't understand why we need 4 subs when it's very simple to understand, that's when smart people who know anything about the subject know you guys will never be persuaded by logical arguments...
|
|
By:
Just checking is that the kind of world you want for children and grandchildren one where countries stockpile nuclear weapons, the more you have the more likely they will be used by some maniac, the arms race as it is called is the race to oblivion.
|
|
By:
Genie is out of bottle. The numbers of them has been going down not up. Wanting unilateral disarmament is a simple proof of having no sense, look at the typical CND protestor, I rest my case.
|
|
By:
after Polaris? or even during - why didn't we design our own missiles?
why rely on foreign technology ? we build the warheads - why not the missiles? seems odd. more jobs? |
|
By:
If we were china ? or the soviet union?
we would reverse engineer a missile and build our own. russia reverse engineered the fiat car into the lada. it's all under wraps so the americans would never see how we came up with them? so why are we still paying a tax? to america? unless it's all a bluff.  |