Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 Jun 17
22:21
Joined:
Date Joined:
11 Jan 11
why should he or anyone bother pressing it. !!
does it make a blind bit of difference, the only people to lose out if trident is scrapped are the inhabitants of barrow in furness.
does it make a blind bit of difference, the only people to lose out if trident is scrapped are the inhabitants of barrow in furness.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 102
|
By:
As a kid, I was told by my mate, now in charge of a university department in Glasgow University. Who read about Nukes. that 16 nukes positioned at the right points on the planet would be enough to destabilize the planet in some way as to destroy it.
He was one of those kids who passed with 100 percent marks in every exam. They have tens of thousands of HYDROGEN bombs, not atom bombs? Hydrogen Bombs. Anyone launching more than a dozen and radiation will be the big killer. It's stupid to even talk about this crappola. it'll be the end. Do we need subs? we can fire from land. we have about forty missiles? american 3,500? how do we matter in this future conflict? if you look at it as money we have 40p, America has £35. |
|
By:
ALEXA... fire all missiles.
thus the human race was ended. |
|
By:
scrap trident, invest the money saved in healthcare and education and fighting terrorism.
whats not to like. |
|
By:
but we must have war machines to insure the peace?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
I'd want my 40p worth if it's all the same to you sorrow, bit like tesco every little helps
 |
|
By:
Zorro ffs spellcheck
 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
ensure?
ALEXA why is the earth still here when I told you to fire all missiles? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
That's nothing to do with what I posted SF.
tis a deterrent that is much needed. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
'tis not a deterrent that's much needed imo.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Germany disnae need nukes but Scotland dizz..aye right enough ackie ya bam.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Do you really believe that if we don't have nuclear weapons, then nuclear weapons will be used on us?
Simple question |
|
By:
sofiakenny Germany disnae need nukes but Scotland dizz..aye right enough ackie ya bam. worth highlighting.  |
|
By:
It's actually a silly question SF.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Tell me what I'm missing.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
STUDYFORM
Tell me what I'm missing. All pleased with myself that I resisted the temptation. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
So Norway is paying for Trident?
 |
|
By:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
|
|
By:
sofiakenny
So Norway is paying for Trident kennybhoy best you read up on NATO before commenting further. |
|
By:
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. |