[lewis111]

MPs have backed the renewal of the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system, voting 472 to 117 in favour in Parliament.

[Firewire]

A shame but not surprising

[lewis111]

The vote approves the manufacture of four replacement submarines at an estimated cost of £31bn.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told MPs nuclear threats were growing around the world and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries".
Labour was split over the issue with many of its MPs defying leader Jeremy Corbyn and backing the government.

[reece(:]

Tragic!

They should've looked for a cheaper alternative

[lewis111]

Ya know who cares about the NHs? Or homelessness? People in poverty? Education?
As long as we have weapons that can kill thousands of innocent civilians that we'll never use

[lewis111]

Just the fact she answered "Yes." When asked if she's willing to kill 100,000 thousand innocent men women and children

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by lewis111

The vote approves the manufacture of four replacement submarines at an estimated cost of £31bn.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told MPs nuclear threats were growing around the world and Trident "puts doubts in the minds of our adversaries".
Labour was split over the issue with many of its MPs defying leader Jeremy Corbyn and backing the government.

Of course it was Corbyn who was defying official Labour party policy by voting to oppose Trident. Only 34 other Labour MPs joined him

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Of course it was Corbyn who was defying official Labour party policy by voting to oppose Trident. Only 34 other Labour MPs joined him

Sort of, there is a defence review going on at present which will involve Trident and actually all nuclear policy.

Labour had a free vote on this and rightly so I say,so they could vote for, against or abstain as they wished.

More free votes on issues like this should be the norm in my view.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Of course it was Corbyn who was defying official Labour party policy by voting to oppose Trident. Only 34 other Labour MPs joined him

which funnily enough ties in with the number of MP's that didn't vote against him in the confidence vote.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Sort of, there is a defence review going on at present which will involve Trident and actually all nuclear policy.

Labour had a free vote on this and rightly so I say,so they could vote for, against or abstain as they wished.

More free votes on issues like this should be the norm in my view.

That defence review just seems like a way of dodging the issue though, and while it might be a policy under review it is still party policy to support Trident. Any decision that goes against that if this review ever concludes will infuriate the majority of Labour MPs and practically all the major Unions.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

That defence review just seems like a way of dodging the issue though, and while it might be a policy under review it is still party policy to support Trident. Any decision that goes against that if this review ever concludes will infuriate the majority of Labour MPs and practically all the major Unions.

I get that but then a free vote overrides policy and the Party whip and allows MPs to vote as they wish.
Yes it may well cover up other problems but for me it is the better way on issues like this.

[smudgie]

Common sense prevails.

[arista]

Originally Posted by reece(:

Tragic!

They should've looked for a cheaper alternative

Its a Nuke Club
no cheap way out of it


Sign Of The Times.

[Toy Soldier]

£31 Billion that we don't have on a new rubber dick to swing. Bravo.

[Northern Monkey]

Well thank feck for that.We apparently made and agreement with a load of other countries in 1968 that we would protect them with our nuclear weapons if they did'nt build their own.If we got rid of ours we could see loads of new nuclear states popping up as we would have broken our end of the bargain.

[Scarlett.]

Its a pointless system anyway, if just one nuke was launched, the world would be ash in minutes.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

£31 Billion that we don't have on a new rubber dick to swing. Bravo.

£31 billion spent on our preservation - creating thousands of jobs into the bargain - is but chickenfeed in comparison to the half a trillion pounds, which has been wasted paying for our membership of the EU, something which has been responsible for creating the problems which increasingly threaten our existence.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

£31 billion spent on our preservation - creating thousands of jobs into the bargain - is but chickenfeed in comparison to the half a trillion pounds, which has been wasted paying for our membership of the EU, something which has been responsible for creating the problems which increasingly threaten our existence.

true...well over the 40 years, the eu has costs us 100s of billiions in direct payments and way more billions more in endless fines, laws, regulations, etc etc

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

£31 billion spent on our preservation - creating thousands of jobs into the bargain - is but chickenfeed in comparison to the half a trillion pounds, which has been wasted paying for our membership of the EU, something which has been responsible for creating the problems which increasingly threaten our existence.

If we're ever in a situation involving a major nuclear state that would realistically necessitate the threat of M.A.D, the civilised world will already be over. As you well know, war has changed, and enemies like ISIS are NOT swayed by the concept of M.A.D.... It's like threatening a swarm of bees with a sledgehammer. Mutually assured destruction is an outdated political philosophy that should have died with the Soviet Union.

And let's be clear - M.A.D is the -- only -- possible reason that we could have for maintaining nukes. If anyone starts launching them, the literal world is finished. Ashes.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If we're ever in a situation involving a major nuclear state that would realistically necessitate the threat of M.A.D, the civilised world will already be over. As you well know, war has changed, and enemies like ISIS are NOT swayed by the concept of M.A.D.... It's like threatening a swarm of bees with a sledgehammer. Mutually assured destruction is an outdated political philosophy that should have died with the Soviet Union.

And let's be clear - M.A.D is the -- only -- possible reason that we could have for maintaining nukes. If anyone starts launching them, the literal world is finished. Ashes.

Very true.

I am reminded again of a song I found on a 60s compilation cd,it was called 'Eve of destruction'.

A line said, '' ...if the button is pushed there's no running away, there'll be no one to save with the World in a grave...''.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If we're ever in a situation involving a major nuclear state that would realistically necessitate the threat of M.A.D, the civilised world will already be over. As you well know, war has changed, and enemies like ISIS are NOT swayed by the concept of M.A.D.... It's like threatening a swarm of bees with a sledgehammer. Mutually assured destruction is an outdated political philosophy that should have died with the Soviet Union.

And let's be clear - M.A.D is the -- only -- possible reason that we could have for maintaining nukes. If anyone starts launching them, the literal world is finished. Ashes.

But you are a 'glass half empty' type of guy T.S. - even when it is a FULL 2 PINT STEIN in front of you.

There exists such strategies as 'Preemptive Strikes' and 'Detterent' - all good stuff.

It is total B.S. that the 'EU' has 'kept the peace' in Europe since WW2' - it is the hoorors which befell two little cities in Japan which have thus far prevented WW3, and they are called Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

But you are a 'glass half empty' type of guy T.S. - even when it is a FULL 2 PINT STEIN in front of you.

There exists such strategies as 'Preemptive Strikes' and 'Detterent' - all good stuff.

It is total B.S. that the 'EU' has 'kept the peace' in Europe since WW2' - it is the hoorors which befell two little cities in Japan which have thus far prevented WW3, and they are called Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No one who believes that we need nuclear weapons could be described as a "glass half full" person I'm afraid Kirk, it is the ultimate "last desperate contingency" of someone who believes that the world will soon collapse.

Deterrent = m.a.d, exactly what I'm talking about. It is only a deterrent to other fully-armed states. If we are ever in a military conflict that would require us to use such a deterrent it is already over. It is NOT a deterrent of any kind to groups like ISIS. As I said... Sledgehammer vs Bees. War is no longer between entrenched nation states, it is fluid guerilla style global organisations. You cannot nuke them. Your Sledgehammer becomes a rubber chicken. If we ever slide BACK to a world in which technologically advanced states are at each others throats and nukes become a realistic deterrent.. We are already completely ****ed.

If we were ever to launch a Trident nuclear weapon first in a preemptive strike, we are already ****ed. A pre-emptive strike against who??

Useless.