why waste oxygen asking a pacifist if he would press the nuke button,

scrap trident, invest the money saved in healthcare and education and fighting terrorism.

whats not to like.

but we must have war machines to insure the peace?

sorry i dont buy into that anymore ( i used to ), how does a foreign nation know if we have nukes or not ???  its all a game of bluff.

I'd want my 40p worth if it's all the same to you sorrow, bit like tesco every little helps

Zorro ffs spellcheck

nukes are the ultimate deterrent and 100% effective against everyone


except the lowest kuckle-dragging easily brainwashed retards who would place no value in human life (in their own) and would happily volunteer their own people's complete and utter annihilation all in the name of the hairy goat in the sky who must be obeyed.

ensure?

ALEXA why is the earth still here when I told you to fire all missiles?

Jun 4, 2017 -- 7:04AM, GLASGOWCALLING wrote:

sorry i dont buy into that anymore ( i used to ), how does a foreign nation know if we have nukes or not ???

What I WAS trying to post.... disappeared.

I read somewhere that after the Cuban Missile crisis, it was reckoned that the Russian missiles didn't actually have any nuclear warheads.
In any case if any HAD been fired, on either side, would ANYONE have benefitted?

Talks and diplomacy won the day.

Talks and diplomacy won the day.

And hopefully always will but what might the outcome have been if Russia had nuclear weapons and the USA didn't.

If they had a nutter in charge happy to press the button (I wonder if we can think of anyone like that?) it might have happened. Still, no-one would have benefitted.
How can a nuke ever solve anything?

If the world pre-emptively struck N.Korea, for example, all that would happen is that a load of, already put-upon, North Koreans would be vapourised and even more would suffer horrible lingering deaths. For what? Would it stop the idiot in charge sending any nukes of his own?
If he sent any, would sending them back un-send the ones he sent?
Does the fact that any other country has  nuclear capability bother him?
As someone said, plenty of countries have no nuclear weapons.... they've never been attacked.

Why do we need Trident/Subs. Well gents, preemptive strikes on land are infinitely easier than at sub sea level. That's why  the Ruskies were able on many occasions to have subs off the American coast, undetected for weeks, including their main Navel base, look it up, it's not my job nor inclination to educate you. Nuclear weapons, IF THEY ARE A DETERRENT?? are only an effective deterrent if in subs, as the can be released long after,..seconds to many months after the land bases have been destroyed.

Please stop talking sh*te about something you know nothing about. FINDING SUBS IS HARDER THAN FINDING NEEDLES IN A HAYSTACK, HTH.

That's nothing to do with what I posted SF.
tis a deterrent that is much needed.

So Ukraine should have kept a few and fired them off at Russia?

If anyone uses them its the end. Radiation will kill everyone and everything
only the coach-roaches will survive.

Ukraine and Russia is about different administrations in Russia.
Russia went downhill fast in the 80's - no food in shops, etc.
their economy was FKED - they had to let go of all the satellite states.
outlying territories. When they recovered economically they thought, let's
get some of it back.

'tis not a deterrent that's much needed imo.

btf, no need to educate me on the trident subs, i am simply saying i was once in favour of nuke weapons, now along with 1000s

of others i have changed my mind, the reason being warfare has changed, lone wolf, suicide bombers, etc.

scrap trident, put the money saved into health, education, oaps , more police on the beat, and anti terror funding.

Very well considered imo, Glasgow.
It'd probably still cost less.

While we're at it. HS2 another £50 billion which we cannot afford so people can get to Birmingham 15 minutes earlier..... Just leave 15 minutes fecking earlier!

Has a nuclear armed state ever been invaded? No.
If the Ukraine had kept its nuclear arms would Russia have invaded?
We will never know the answer to that one. Go on, have a guess.

Why do NATO troops play war games in northern Norway?
Is it because a Russian attack on Western Europe could be best achieved by encirclement through Norway and down through Scotland? Good luck with that one Glasgow should we unilaterally disarm.

the country is how broad? a hydrogen bomb has a diameter blast of 50 miles. 400 miles long. I think 8-16 would do the trick. Overlapped it a little.

Russia has multiple thousands, China got a few, Usa? Israel,pakistan, paris and the Shetlands. The USA i heard somewhere i heard they target us in some of their firing solutions.

so about 8000-12,000 missiles and our 40 are important? Just say we still have them.
the doubt alone will keep the wolf from the door. or have them on land carriers, trucks.

Let's suppose North Korea fired a missile towards the UK. it's going to get a response from other countries. And do we have independent firing solutions. Or do we ring up the Whitehouse as our missiles are USA designed. Get a b52?

The loonie left pose as big a threat to this countries security as does any terrorist.
No deterrent no security it's as simple as that.

Germany disnae need nukes but Scotland dizz..aye right enough ackie ya bam.

Had to wait til I stopped laughing before replying kennybhoy.
Our nuclear capacity spend is part of our commitment to NATO.
It is part of NATOs overall strategy and obviously protects all NATO members.
So as part of NATO Germany does indeed have a nuclear deterrent as does Greece, Norway and all other members.

Do you really believe that if we don't have nuclear weapons, then nuclear weapons will be used on us?
Simple question

sofiakenny
Germany disnae need nukes but Scotland dizz..aye right enough ackie ya bam.

worth highlighting.

It's actually a silly question SF.

No it isn't.
In order to be a deterrent it must be stopping anyone else nuking us!

If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter if we don't have any.

Tell me what I'm missing.

So what would you do SF?
Get rid of it and see who's right?
Yes that would be a great strategy.
Tis a deterrent we all hope will never be used.

Jun 5, 2017 -- 2:19PM, STUDYFORM wrote:

Tell me what I'm missing.

A deterent deters.  What don't you get SF?

STUDYFORM
Tell me what I'm missing.

All pleased with myself that I resisted the temptation.

Well? You can't answer me can you?

If it "DETERS" - and I believe I AM using English - Then the reason for it's doing so is simply that it (Nuclear weaponry) does so is that it stops opposing Nuclear weapons being used on us.
Is THAT right?
IN WHAT OTHER WAY DOES IT DETER ANYTHING?

SO.... If we don't have nuclear weapons, will another country use theirs on us because we don't have them?
Do you REALLY believe that having nuclear weapons actually stops others using theirs on us?

SAME QUESTION

Instead of blindly reciting the mantra, see if you can show a little understanding.

I'm explaining what a deterrent deters means.
My question is:
Do you REALLY believe that we'll be nuked if we don't have them?

So Norway is paying for Trident?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

sofiakenny
So Norway is paying for Trident

kennybhoy best you read up on NATO before commenting further.

I have answered you SF but will do so again.
Tis a deterrent.
Is it needed? Well the only way to know would be for the west to give up all it's nuclear weapons and see what happens.
Bit risky as imo we could then either face an attack or the threat of one.

Which one of my posts offended you SF?
And is not standing for that a euphemism for I'm reporting you?
I heard yer karaoke number was that old Tom Jones classic The Green Green Grass of B/Fair.

Calling me a tw4t and a **** but I've crossed the line.

When wee Nicki kicks the nukes out of Scotland we will be defenceless?

Not as easy as that kennybhoy.
Wee Nicki wants to remain in NATO so will have to accept Trident.

maybe she will change her mind like that Theresa wifie does.

The English dont want the nukes in their country..i wonder why.

I thort wee Nicki sayed she wanted the safe removal of them...no?

does anyone know why Russia has them?

sofiakenny
The English dont want the nukes in their country..i wonder why.

There are 3 RN naval baes in the UK.
Faslane, Devonport and Portsmouth.
Faslane was chosen for both it's geographical position and the deep waters surrounding the base.

Nicki says a lot of things but does very little.

So we can give Pompey or Davenport the nukes.
Who exactly are we afraid of?...Iraq North Korea China Russia???

What would happen to all those employed at Faslane or the small local businesses that rely on them.
The area would be destroyed. Given the state of our economy can we really consider getting rid of Trident given that it would be relocated to another part of the UK.

Afraid of no one whilst we have Trident.

Russua will have a reason for having them.

They would be unemployed and would have to get on their bikes
Did you have such concerns when Thatcher destroyed mining communities?

Does anyone know what that is ?

If we don't know why Russia has nuclear weapons then I would agree, there is no point in having them.
Does anyone know why Russia has them.. before we make any decisions.

Labour closed more mines than Thatcher.

ok you may say an independent Scotland may not need them .
Of course Ireland didn't have any nuclear weapons, or any army or airforce to speak off ?
And then again an independent Ireland didn't fight in WW2, but then again it didn't have to
Britain did , and that was lucky for Ireland , and other countries .
Who could deny that ?

If Kenny Hill keeps digging he'll have dug his own opencast mine

Labour closed more mines than the Tories???...really?????

Aye ackie..you need those massive nukes to feel safe in your midge infested midden.

STUDYFORM
05 Jun 17 20:31
Joined: 26 Jan 05 | Topic/replies: 16,529 | Blogger: STUDYFORM's blog
Well? You can't answer me can you?

If it "DETERS" - and I believe I AM using English - Then the reason for it's doing so is simply that it (Nuclear weaponry) does so is that it stops opposing Nuclear weapons being used on us.
Is THAT right?
IN WHAT OTHER WAY DOES IT DETER ANYTHING?

It also deters an invasion with conventional forces.
An invader can not know at what stage the war would go nuclear so don't invade.
Each Polaris missile has multiple warheads which can be independently targeted.
Just one submarine could potentially destroy every major city in Russia. How many missiles would you want? The Russian stockpile represents massive overkill (pardon the expression).

Foinavon

Corbyn has ruled out a first strike. This tells Russia that it could invade and overwhelm our conventional forces with little danger to itself. Tempting to a man like Putin if he could come to a deal with Donald.

Indeed the replacement trident has 4 new submarines with 160 warheads in total , just 1 warhead has 8 times the capability as the one that landed on Hiroshama , if this started a tit for tat battle mankind would be wiped out as well as everything else , money well spent eh

Russia must have some reason for spending that sort of money, they will have a reason and if  we could understand what it is we will be able to make a better decision about ours.

Either Russia has a reason or it doesn't , perhaps anxious knows ?

You miss the point anxious.
It will be money well spent in avoiding that scenario.
Unless the whole world disarms, and how could you prove it, then nuclear weapons are a necessity for us.

Exactly if we all disarmed we would still have the knowledge to make another bomb there's no going back

That's the problem though isn't it , how can the threat of war be reduced by spending bilions on more dangerous nuclear weapons

It doesn't make sense at all , its like playing Russian Roulette

anxious you go on about the old days with Utd so in football terms would you go down to the old Den with a bunch of shirts or a bunch of fellas who are going to stand their ground ?

So you think we should disarm and hope the rest of the world does likewise?
That makes no sense.

Well yes in reverse , you have to fire the gun with bullets , or he has to fire it without.
If he has some and you have none who wins in Russian roulettete?

If we could get rid of all nuclear weapons, and I'm not sure how that could happen, the money saved and more would be spent on conventional forces with an even greater chance of WW3 taking place.

No I never said that , but surely the most rational thing to do is to try to come to agreement and try to reduce the madness of the Arms race

I don't want the ruskies handing me a loaded gun for Russian roulette,
and us handing them an empty revolver.
That only ends one way .

You have to ask as well who profits from the Arms race ?

Reducing nuclear weapons if 500 of them went off out of the thousands on each side we'd still be fu cked

I think in spite of Nuclear weapons there have been plenty of horrific wars in the last 50 years

Arms dealers?

The Middle East , The Balkans , Africa

There is no difference between being killed by a piece of shrapnel from a conventional bomb and being vaporised by a nuke except the former is likely take longer and be more painful.

But anxious who's attacked us................no one.

Well we are being attacked now aren't we

Yep three cu nts  turned up to a gun fight with knives and look how that ended up. You and Jeremy had your way that's what we'd be doing with Russia, China, North Korea etc

Russian and China are you sure I doubt it , as for North Korea the most dangerous influence in that little conflict is the  new all American hero in the White House Donny Saudi Trump

That's the point they won't because we have the ability to inflict a very high price for them if they did.

TBF anxious saying you doubt it isn't a very compelling argument.

Of course im not a an International nuclear arms correspondent , I know that

It's ok anxious we know what you are

Steady Steady now

WHO wants to press the button?

what? we want someone in office 'prepared' to press the button.
maybe practice it? once or twice a day...

nuclear war is insane. there are no winners. ffs you dilberts. there
won't be survivors.

  nuclear war is insane. there are no winners. ffs you dilberts. there
won't be survivors.


   well said.

Rather be dead than occupied

Agreed GC but it's still no argument for giving up our nuclear capacity.

The main drawback with nukes is the massive indiscriminate collateral damage.

We have brimstones that could take out numerous military targets with less danger to civilians.

When would anyone ever use the former over the latter apart from a lunatic first strike?

radiation ? it's the most lethal poison known to man. lasts for thousands of years.

rather be dead that occupied?

romans, normans, vikings etc.

did all the French during the war kill themselves?

Did anyone see the last season of leftovers, the french sailor who launches the Nuclear missile? hilarious. the season was very poor, but that five minutes was mad.