4 new Trident submarines ??

Did you expect anything else?

The guy is deluded, listening to this claptrap is depressing.

The party of the "fair chance"  really ??? Especially if your name is Tarquin....

Oct 7, 2015 -- 12:25PM, Pounf wrote:

The party of the "fair chance"

More than likely to be discriminated against if your name was Tarquin I'd have thought.

the party of no chance

The party for everyone and that's a fact whether you like it or not.
A Tory government will operate policies that safeguard the country and the economy and allow us things like the NHS and old age pensions.
Whilst a Labour government would set us on the road to gloom and destruction and put these everything and everyone at risk.

Everybody prospers when the Tories are in power whilst Labour governments get us into more and more debt.

The party for everyone that's a fact ! run along you arrogant fool

Why do you lefties resort to personal insults rather than facts to try and win an argument.
This current Labour party is in disarray and would struggle badly if, god forbid, they ever got into power.
FFS sake look at the calibre of your leader and most of the cabinet. Clueless wonders hanging on to their hippy past.

The Labour Party is fkd  but your still arrogant and foolish FACT

At least he can spell you're tonks. There's only so many excuses we can make for your debauched lifestyle and posting with hookers knickers on your head whilst licking the gusset isn't really multi tasking so no excuses really.

This thread has cheered me up.

everyone prospers when the tories are in power-

anxious  • October 12, 2015 12:45 AM BST 
everyone prospers when the tories are in power

I'm glad you've seen the light anxious.

I see the costs of replacing Trident recently went up from £100 billion by a massive 67% to £167 billion.
It would be quite normal, the way these things go, that these costs will continue to escalate.

They have doubled in. Few years and may double again, with the eventual cost being more like £400 billion. Okay £400 billion is a figure plucked from the air, but it's already far closer than the original estimates.

Now I am sure some would see the need for the UK to have a nuclear arsenal to be worth any cost the Americans choose to charge us whether it is £167, £400 or £800 billions. However one thing we have all learned since our financial friends buggggered up economy so thoroughly is that our finances are limited.

Does anyone else share my concerns that we don't really know even what the real cost of Trident2 will be to within even £100 billions or what replacing trident compared to having aircraft carriers or a credible airforce is actually worth.

Not much point in having aircraft carriers of a credible airforce if uncle Vlad tells us to stop using them or he'll nuke us.

Yes I know the argument.

But what is the limit of costs to protect this country from nuclear blackmail?

So you do seem to be saying that it's good value and worth all the dosh even if we have no army or airforce or navy much left at all.

I am not convinced that Trident2 is worth everything.

My mate Petro may disagree with you.

Ruth you jump to £400 billion then quote £800 billion.
Why stop there? And btw £400 billion is not a lot closer than the original estimate.

whatever the cost the fact remains if there are 4 submarines each one would have 40 warheads, just one of these warheads has 8 times power and force of the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima, this is the tories and their warped sense of value for money

weapons of mass destruction keeping the peace, i think not.

What do you suggest in there place?

The Labour Shadow Defence minister was on the radio this morning backing the extra spending on defence.

''Mr Cameron is under pressure from some Conservatives and retired generals over the target that Nato member states should each spend a minimum of 2% of their national income - or GDP - on defence.''

The extra spending on defence would meet that target.

I know nothing about any of this nonsense, but would like to ask

where will the money come from?

They tell us all in the working class to tighten our belts, saying that cuts are needed.

Despite the constant clamour on here from the ultra conservative activists, they, the con &Unionist govt ( 2nd term - this time totally unapposed) are cutting back on Border Control bc of cost.

Those with a hotline to tory party HQ, please earn your fee by telling us where will the money come from?

The biggest threat to our national security is immigration.
Yet our borders are still open ready to accept anybody who turns up with an unsubstantiated sob story.

As regards fighting foreign wars to dampen down terrorist attacks.
How much effort and know how does it take for a radicalised person living here to get a gun and let fly in a crowded area?
If we manage to run ISIL out of Syria and Iraq for the time being they'll simply set up camp in Africa, and organise strikes from there.

'Tis amazing that the well-established con&U A Team of capitalism, continue to deplete the Border boys, isn't it?

Obviously, their master, who rule, have told them to do this.

Cuts to civilian mod staff, selling off the property.

And, if these fkn tridents are in such expensive need of UPGRADING, surely they are NOT CURRENTLY FIT FOR PURPOSE  and
therefore fkn USELESS at present?

Big con trick yet again.

They cannot expect the workers to believe their lies that these redundant things are protecting us.

Cyber hackers make them good for nothing, except boosting the back-pockets of wealthy supporters of the con&U party and probably a good few of the nu-lab losers too.

Tridents purpose is to stop terrorists and conventional forces launching attacks on UK and it's allies.
  It has clearly failed to do so and is an obsolete dreadful waste of taxpayers money.

There's an opposition day debate on Trident today. Will be worth watching to see some of the loony positions the opposition benches take.

Tridents purpose is to stop us being blackmailed by a nuclear power(i.e Russia). There was a bizarre SNP opinion yesterday that was similarly made, because Trident doesn't stop cyber crime it's a waste of money.

Must be something in the water up there(Russian subs).

CJ,

I am sure you will agree with me that trident and nuclear weapons in general are there to stop other countries/terrorist forces threatening or invading our territory.
  Give me a good reason why we didn't nuke Buenos Aires when Argentina invaded the Falklands?
Or even why we didn't nuke Washington when USA invaded Grenada?

Meadow X1

It's a waste of time answering a question like that.
If you have to ask it, then you are hardly likely to listen to the answer are you?

100,000 plus deaths over the Falklands indeed.

And going to war with America over Grenada.

What a question to ask.

By the way, we couldn't launch a nuclear attack on America even if we wanted to.
Or anybody else without the Americans agreeing to it.

Would the Americans be likely to sell us nuclear weapons that could be used against themselves? 
Never mind what our PM tries to suggest.

I think Crippen sums it up.

The SNP seem to be suggesting we should be nuking Beijing for cyber attacks. A little bit more understanding would do them the world of good.

Crippen,

What's your point regarding the Falklands please?

Dr Crippen  • November 24, 2015 12:14 PM GMT 
By the way, we couldn't launch a nuclear attack on America even if we wanted to.
Or anybody else without the Americans agreeing to it

Factually incorrect.
We have a 2 way agreement with America over the use of nuclear weapons.
Both countries would consult each other but nothing to stop them acting alone other than common sense.

As regards the question (laughable at that) why we didn't 'nuke' Argentina the answer is very simple.
Having nuclear weapons is a deterrent to other countries using their nuclear weapons on us.

What's your point regarding the Falklands please?

A nuclear strike on one of Argentinas cities would have settled it with the loss of whatever the amount of dead would be, 100,000 plus at least.

Totally out of the question for the government of the day I'm sure, and not even a possibility.

Both countries would consult each other but nothing to stop them acting alone other than common sense.


So we could nuke America using missiles supplied by them?
I don't think so.

It must be abundantly clear to everyone that we are simply never going to use trident under any circumstances.  Why waste billions of our taxpayer money on a totally worthless system?

If a nuclear warhead dropped on the UK, wouldn't we use trident then?

That's why a nuclear warhead isn't going to land on Britain because we'd strike back.

Crippen is right - its a weapon of final resort. He is also correct that it would be difficult to use Trident without

US agreement - the missile is reliant on US satellites for guidance in flight.

I did try to reply but, as per usual, the post was censored and removed.

I pointed out that even IF what the rulers say were true, then, by their own admission, these so-called "deterrents" are badly in need of expensive updating and therefore NOT fit purpose ( ie. some mythical defence, that the likes of putin or saud i ar abia , would totally disregard).

Check their own figures - the ones issued by Dave and co.

Not fit for purpose = good for nothing

If a nuclear warhead dropped on the UK, wouldn't we use trident then?

That's why a nuclear warhead isn't going to land on Britain because we'd strike back.

Of course Dear Doctor

you make the argument for the nukes we have being a deterrent against other nuke holding powers very concisely. Yoiu sounf such a wrm cuddly sort of mature chappie as well.

I am wondering though, if having nukes is such a good deterrent to having people nuke you, why all the countries in the world without nukes, which is all the world apart from:
N Korea
Pakistan
India
Israel
France
UK
USA
China
Russia
(forgive me if I missed any out)

have not been getting them in to make them safer. After all Germany  and Italy would be so much safer if they had nukes via the deterrence argument. Theys urely have the technical ability to develop nukes if they want to.

Equally the deterrence argument is that people with nukes don't get nuked in case of retaliation. Well aside from the nuclear testing of their nukes in Japan by the USA over 70 years ago I would have thought if that argument was reaistic that some nuke power would by now have nuked a country without nukes.

All in all, aside from Israel, which obviously needs the ultimate protection for her citizens when surrounded by hostile people demanding their land back etc, I can see no evidence to justify the expenditute on nukes.

After all Germany  and Italy would be so much safer if they had nukes via the deterrence argument.

They do enjoy the nuclear deterrent argument because they're in NATO.
So are we.
Only we pay for the nukes but we couldn't use them without getting the nod from the USA.

I say no to Trident because we are paying for something that's not in our control.

How could anyone ever justify retaliating with one, and indescriminately annhialating thousands of innocent people, when we have the ability to surgically strike the bases and targets that we think fired at us?

A really poor argument Ruth as Dr C as shown. To add to it others countries would be protected for strategic reasons.

The day a nuke is used, it has become useless - as would any that, somehow, "strike back". The whole shooting match would be pointless.
The point for rulers is that big money can be made from the silly game they play. This money comes from such places as SAU DI AR ABIA , which is the number one IMPORTER  of weaponry in the world, as far as uk and usa are concerned.

The weapon makers get the politicians to test their products in desolate areas. The hope was that killing a few civilians wouldn't be noticed. Now that "the wrong people" are noticing and can get themselves armed, the game isn't so easy.

Subs are stealth vehicles of war: modern war is largely guerrilla and urban. Cyber is the new nuclear. Any man who wants to win at war, needs to get with it.

All these billions, to try update or replace his old-fashioned weapons, that Dave and George spend is almost a total waste of tax-payers' money. It is designed to help only his own - inc the likes of the ibn saud's who behead far more folk even than daesh/is il.

Meanwhile, we, in the working class, are told to tighten our belts and put up with plenty of probs in health and society.

One of the biggest and oldest con-tricks ever pulled! Same ol', same old.

Akabula
Not sure about that bula, even though I am sure you are as cute in looks as the way you write.

The trouble with the argument that we and other countries are safer with the possession of nukes is that if it applies to us, it must logically apply to other countries.

Now I do not believe that Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Latvia, Ukraine, Iceland, Venezuela,  Saudi Arabia, Brazil or any other country would be "safer" with nukes. Nor do I believe that the rest of the world would be if loads more countries have nukes either.

I don't think anyone sensibly believes that loads of countries being "protected" by possession of nukes is sensible.

The deterrence argument is essentially rubbish.

As a country we need an independent nuclear deterrent. For two reasons, One we cannot hide behind America's nuclear arsenal. Does anyone here think any American President would sacrifice Chicago for Birmingham if we were struck by a Russian strike. Two this will sound way out there but how safe would anyone feel if America was no longer the main superpower ? It would only take Yellowstone national park to erupt (super volcano) if that was to blow it would seriously deplete America's capabilities.

Dec 4, 2015 -- 9:06PM, cryoftruth wrote:

AkabulaNot sure about that bula, even though I am sure you are as cute in looks as the way you write.The trouble with the argument that we and other countries are safer with the possession of nukes is that if it applies to us, it must logically apply to other countries.Now I do not believe that Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Latvia, Ukraine, Iceland, Venezuela,  Saudi Arabia, Brazil or any other country would be "safer" with nukes. Nor do I believe that the rest of the world would be if loads more countries have nukes either.I don't think anyone sensibly believes that loads of countries being "protected" by possession of nukes is sensible. The deterrence argument is essentially rubbish.

You don't think Ukraine would have been safer with the nuclear arsenal it gave up?

Did you miss Russia annexing Crimea?

So lets say NATO gets rid of it's Nuclear weapons.
Would you say we are in the same position as before, better off or would you say we were now in danger from the countries that have maintained them.
Not forgetting that other countries are trying to develop their own Nuclear weapons.

The problem with you and your likes Cryoftruth is that you don't think things through.
Nuclear weapons are a necessity unfortunately given the mindset of other countries outside our pact.

Well, I've thought it through for decades and I can clearly see that in an age of

CYBER WARFARE
and
guerrilla tactics involving suicidal fkn bombers

Trident and nukes are no deterrent at all.

They are yet another money-making racket for the benefit of the ruling classes all across the globe, and in almost all cases are paid for by the TAXPAYERS.

If they were that essential, old Donny Trump would have his own.

Think about it, gals.

How naïve are you Sean. FFS if NATO gave up it's Nuclear weapons we'd be the target for every rogue state out their.

Get a grip, acca, and keep up!

Nato includes one of the biggest aiders and dangerous corruptors of the lot, ie. TURKEY.

At present, I'd guess the only two "rogue states" who might target the UK are North Korea ( unstable tyrant, but lacks the capacity to get a bomb that far, imo) and

the United States.

However, as the aftermath is so bad, I can see no earthly reason why any would. Ultra- conservative haters have more efficacious results with the modern methods of warfare.

Is every gal as silly as ye in that sixthform college?

Btw, when one of your nuclear subs went to the Malvinas, it took out an Irish fishing boat and dragged it along for a mile or so. At first ye denied it, then ye grudgingly had to admit it. Not sure if ye ever properly compensated the fishermen for the loss of nets etc.

At present, your boats are probably well out of position. They cannot even help agin the poxy daesh, let alone deal with any nuclear attack.

Total waste of money, but I guess your mammy and daddy have their share money invested in this fiasco, so ye have a vested interest in furthering the myth.

Anyone who thinks nuclear weapons will not be used in a future war does not know their history, or the nature of man.

bearkn-ed:

so ye think that history shows that nukes will be used again?

Are ye a part-time student, btw?

Its inevitable that nuclear weapons will be used.

sean rua what you have to see if that there is an epidemic of madness sweeping the world.

When Oppenheimer saw the first nuclear bomb explosion in new Mexico he remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita...

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

If the world got rid of it's nuclear weapons that maniac in North Korea would be doin cartwheels. If I ruled the world.

Plenty of "ifs and buts". This uncertainty is what capitalism thrives on, so fairplay to its followers with their family investment in warfare and scare-mongering for sticking up for something far more redundant than the coal-mines, which their rulers closed.

--
Beark'ned:

I realise that ye are greatly influenced by those shipyard workers and military types from the Six Counties, but, surely, the English language or, at least, intelligible reasoning, should have spread to your part of the Mersey?

Wtf does this mean:

""
sean rua what you have to see if that there is an epidemic of madness sweeping the world."

I suppose the "if" is a typo for "is", but I cannot be sure.

What I see rising yet again ( it happens in cycles under capitalism) is
an increased fervourt and panic stirred up by ultra conservatives
which include

sa udi insired daesh
and all
the various reactionary " fronts".

These rivals are all evil. They make a lot of money for themselves and do a terrible amount of harm to the workers of the world.
The rulers love 'em.