[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.

[Vicky.]

Personally I would do away with nukes and train up the army better with some of the savings, and invest more in weapons (not nukes...). Army is our only realistic way to fight. If a nuclear war is started, it matters not who has the bigger explosives...we all will die..and the leaders know that. So why the **** keep stuff that we can't even use.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Personally I would do away with nukes and train up the army better with some of the savings, and invest more in weapons (not nukes...). Army is our only realistic way to fight. If a nuclear war is started, it matters not who has the bigger explosives...we all will die..and the leaders know that. So why the **** keep stuff that we can't even use.

These days nukes don't have to devastate, they can dial in the size of the explosion. We also have tactical nukes that are short range missiles designed for the battlefield

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

These days nukes don't have to devastate, they can dial in the size of the explosion. We also have tactical nukes that are short range missiles designed for the battlefield

However a fullout nuclear war would wipe out the majority (if not all)of the world

I know its not a popular opinion I hold on this though, but I honestly do not see the point in paying so much money for stuff we can't/will never use.

[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

[Jack_]

Tweet of the ****ing campaign.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Tweet of the ****ing campaign.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Tweet of the ****ing campaign.

LMAO

[Kizzy]

[kirklancaster]

I've nearly fainted -- WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT AT SOMETHING!!

[MTVN]

**** off fat Brenda

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Tweet of the ****ing campaign.

classic

[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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

Absolutely,I agree with you. I see both points.
That is why I said I am open to keeping nuclear weapons,I just can see the arguments on the other side too.

[the truth]

so in the end were an open target to enemies because 1) weve allowed the nhs to go bankrupt 2) because we allowed the bankers rob us and the bailed the banks with our money and 3) new labour wasted the rest with their mental burocracy cover ups corruption quangos and waste

[empire]

nigel farage speaks the truth again, but we close are ears again, he wins the debate

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by MTVN

**** off fat Brenda

FFS This thread gets better and better.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Absolutely,I agree with you. I see both points.
That is why I said I am open to keeping nuclear weapons,I just can see the arguments on the other side too.

I am beginning to wonder how we ever came to argue Joey - apart from the EU we're not THAT different really.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I am beginning to wonder how we ever came to argue Joey - apart from the EU we're not THAT different really.

I think overall we have tried to see each others point too Kirk.

Arguing does become part of debate, I have never seen so much dispute for instance between some of my family like I have on this election.
That is because the majority of them are moving from their usual bases as to political support and heading off in all directions.

The real truth is in essence,all parties have some good people and policies and bad people and policies, if all the good in all parties were put together as to their policies and they all worked together, really for the good of the nation, then problems would be fewer and fewer.

It may make for more boring politics but the UK and its citizens would in fact really be the winners for once.

I respect your views Kirk even when they are completely opposite to what I look for in a political party and its policies.