FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-04-2013, 10:53 AM | #1 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
20 Billion Pounds
now North Korea if they did fire their Nukes it would be at America. So Its Not our problem I asume the CopyCat Labour Party is the same on this spending. There is No Cold War now North Korea is dead but does have Nuke weapons is that fat kid leader Crazy? could be , So let China take him out in covert fashion. Sign Of The Times Last edited by arista; 04-04-2013 at 10:55 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
04-04-2013, 11:01 AM | #2 | |||
|
||||
שטח זה להשכרה
|
When everyone else in the world disarms, then so should we. Peace through superior firepower.
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
04-04-2013, 11:13 AM | #3 | |||
|
||||
It's lacroix darling
|
As Livia said, to cut spending on such weapons whilst others have them would be a little bit stupid.
Ideally, I'd be saying that it's wrong for Britain to keep such horribly destructive weapons around but if we lose them then it removes a major defensive part of our military. Though I hope they're never used, I do hope they remain in place to act as a deterrent.
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
04-04-2013, 11:15 AM | #4 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
04-04-2013, 11:22 AM | #5 | |||
|
||||
שטח זה להשכרה
|
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
04-04-2013, 11:44 AM | #6 | ||
|
|||
Guest
|
We should scrap the programme. Nuclear bombing the UK when we didn't have nukes would not provide the offenders with a Nuke-free consequence. America would provide us with a weapon for retaliation.
It would take a stupid country to bomb another - whether they have nuke's or not. |
||
Reply With Quote |
04-04-2013, 02:38 PM | #7 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
PM David Cameron is live on SkyNewsHD
in Glasgow talking about the Nukes Also on BBC news now Last edited by arista; 04-04-2013 at 02:39 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
04-04-2013, 02:45 PM | #8 | |||
|
||||
Lee.
|
No, the money could be better spent elsewhere
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
04-04-2013, 03:50 PM | #9 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
First of all its not our Nuclear Deterrent its the US's , we have little control over it in real terms , the targeting and control and maintenace and upkeep are all supplied by the US. We are simply the UK part of the US's overall Trident system.
Personally for vast sums involved I would prefer to have a fully independent system one that is controlled by the UK Govt in every sense of the word. So is the money we pay worth what we get in return........probably not !!!!! Would I prefer not to have any deterrent or the current system then grudingly I would still prefer to have the current system than nothing, as more and more smaller states are eventually going to aquire Nuclear weapons and must know a much bigger stick exists should they ever be mad enough to try and use any form of Nuclear blackmail on the UK. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
04-04-2013, 03:58 PM | #10 | ||
|
|||
Guest
|
Quote:
No one would threaten us if we got rid of trident. |
||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
|
|