[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

I understand your point Vicky. It is basically a deterrent and as pricey as it is it is a needed deterrent.

So we'll spend 100bn on what is essentially a sign to plop on your front garden telling people "Bugger off! We won't do anything about you but leave us alone!!"

That is the most illogical pro-trident argument I have heard so far, but at least you admit we will never use it.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

So we'll spend 100bn on what is essentially a sign to plop on your front garden telling people "Bugger off! We won't do anything about you but leave us alone!!"

That is the most illogical pro-trident argument I have heard so far, but at least you admit we will never use it.

Russia is a major concern, read the news.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

Russia is a major concern, read the news.

A major concern to the UK's safety? Absolutely not. I have read the news and seen that to Ukraine, you may be able to make that argument, but not to us. They know that we have close relationships with the US and EU, launching an attack of any kind would be suicidal to them.

[bots]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

A major concern to the UK's safety? Absolutely not. I have read the news and seen that to Ukraine, you may be able to make that argument, but not to us. They know that we have close relationships with the US and EU, launching an attack of any kind would be suicidal to them.

That's just not true. There is no guarantee any country would come to our aid. No-one did during the Falklands war, and we were invaded then. People think every country plays nicely. They don't.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

That's just not true. There is no guarantee any country would come to our aid. No-one did during the Falklands war, and we were invaded then. People think every country plays nicely. They don't.

That was over 30 years ago, and lasted only around 70 days. You cannot use one minor war to justify owning nuclear weapons.

[bots]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

That was over 30 years ago, and lasted only around 70 days. You cannot use one minor war to justify owning nuclear weapons.

I can, and I have. You cannot say nukes have no use these days when we have not been without their protection for decades

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

That was over 30 years ago, and lasted only around 70 days. You cannot use one minor war to justify owning nuclear weapons.

That is a valid point.

I am open to keeping nuclear weapons but I do have concerns as to the costs of doing so..

The Falklands conflict could have never been settled with nuclear weaponry in 1982.
Even with them still now, a similar conflict could not be settled with them still.

However, a similar invasion of the Falklands now,would see the UK stranded in effect, not able to do what it did in 1982 at all,due to the heavy cuts to the UKs armed forces and equipment.
So having nuclear weapons wouldn't stop that if say Argentina wished to invade again,yet despite having all that might, we could do just about nothing this time to protect the Falklands.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That is a valid point.

I am open to keeping nuclear weapons but I do have concerns as to the costs of doing so..

The Falklands conflict could have never been settled with nuclear weaponry in 1982.
Even with them still now, a similar conflict could not be settled with them still.

However, a similar invasion of the Falklands now,would see the UK stranded in effect, not able to do what it did in 1982 at all,due to the ehavy cuts to the UKs armed forces and equipment.
So having nuclear weapons wouldn't stop that if say Argentina wished to invade again,yet despite having all that might, we could do just about nothing this time to protect the Falklands.

fair points....wed have to ask the yanks for another hand out and pay them back by 2074 which is about the same period it took last time

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That is a valid point.

I am open to keeping nuclear weapons but I do have concerns as to the costs of doing so..

The Falklands conflict could have never been settled with nuclear weaponry in 1982.
Even with them still now, a similar conflict could not be settled with them still.

However, a similar invasion of the Falklands now,would see the UK stranded in effect, not able to do what it did in 1982 at all,due to the heavy cuts to the UKs armed forces and equipment.
So having nuclear weapons wouldn't stop that if say Argentina wished to invade again,yet despite having all that might, we could do just about nothing this time to protect the Falklands.

The point I was making when I mentioned the Falklands is that we went to the UN and asked for assistance, and even our closest allies told as to **** off, you are on your own. That was an invasion of sovereign British territory, and no-one gave a damn. The point being, you can't rely on anyone else to have your back in a war situation, you may get help and assistance, you may not. Thats why you need all the protective measures you can get.