|
Tridant
Apr 28, 2005 23:05:34 GMT 1
Post by rob on Apr 28, 2005 23:05:34 GMT 1
Tridant will be up for decomission in 10-15 years, which means there will be a parlimentory debate to decide what to do-whether to replace it with another nuclear sub, ICBM, Navy ships with a Nuclear capability, simply a host of nuclear bombs that we can drop from the air (using our Eurofighter ) on countries, tactical nukes, for confined battle or plain and simply nothing. What action would you like the next government to take? Do you believe the costs of keeping a nuclear threat like Tridant are worth while considering the world we live intoday?
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 28, 2005 23:06:37 GMT 1
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 28, 2005 23:06:37 GMT 1
Rob,
are you having a drunken argument with a vegan housemate per chance?
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 28, 2005 23:10:03 GMT 1
Post by rob on Apr 28, 2005 23:10:03 GMT 1
No. I feel strongly that Britain should retain a nuclear capability,so strongly about it in fact that I'm not going to vote Greens (which is a shame as I just about agree with everything else they've said) And i was just wondering what other people thought, as its a question that divides people. I've spent many a time discussing the pros and cons of nuclear weapons with Amy. P.S-I haven't had any alcohol since yesterday evening. I was just full of rage earlier and decided it was best to let rip on here, than a) take it on my housemate-who is after all stressed and depressed or b) take it out on an unsupecting and innocent Amy
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 28, 2005 23:14:16 GMT 1
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 28, 2005 23:14:16 GMT 1
it all becomes clear well, if China, Pakistan and Israel have them, and if Iran is developing them then I am sure we will be scared into believing they are a good idea frankly I am more worried about that duffer in the White House than any of the other crackpot regimes just now
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 28, 2005 23:16:30 GMT 1
Post by pawlo on Apr 28, 2005 23:16:30 GMT 1
Pointless having weapons we CAN NEVER USE.
Typical lefty comment i know, but one trident missile costs, i think, £80 million pounds. How many doctors and nurses is that?
Time we realised, as a nation, including our politicians, that we are not a global superpower.
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 28, 2005 23:20:22 GMT 1
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 28, 2005 23:20:22 GMT 1
The whole thing is twisted
we only ever thought we could afford a welfare state if we didn;t spend so much on defence
'but there are nasty people who want to destroy us all, it is the end of the world as we know it, they are coming to get us!'
is the usual line of support of defence spending, but I always wonder if it has more to do with their cousin being a director of BAE
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 29, 2005 0:15:52 GMT 1
But surely the world we find ourselves in 15 years after the implosion of the Soviet State dictates that we need to have at least a deterrence? India,US,Israel,France,Japan (i think),China, North Korea, Russia (soon to be) Iran and Israel off the top of my head all have nuclear arms of one sort or another. There are thousands of decaying nuclear warheads unaccounted for in russia, and an active black market in which "rogue" states and terrorist organisations attempt to buy components that would enable them to poses a WMD. Why do people think having nuclear capability harks back to the good old days of trying to be a world power? Look at the list, most of those countrys arent great shakers in world politics If these less than democratic nations have nuclear capability then surely we need to maintain ours so that we at least have a strategic and effective deterrence against possible attacks? Admittedly when it comes to terrorist organisations, it is hard to apply a nuclear bomb to an organisation that has no apparant geographical base and works behind the scenes. But we could always bomb the nations who supported the terrorist organisations Incidently- has anyone read the book bu Simon kupper (SP?), Football and the Enemy. In it an official of Dynamo Kiev revelas to him that because Dynamo Kiev gave a $1million donation to the Ukraine government, in return they recieved the international rights to sell uranium amongst other things
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Apr 29, 2005 1:58:46 GMT 1
Japan certainly do not have nuclear weapons Rob.
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 29, 2005 8:48:52 GMT 1
Rob the whole ethos of Nuclear weapons is based on "deterrence". In other words, when there were basically 2 opposing "Super-powers" e.g. NATO vs the Warsaw Pact, each side was held in check by the realisation that the other had the capability to retaliate to an attack with weapons so powerful that their use was almost unconscionable.
Thankfully, neither side ever got to the point of calling the other's bluff and we now no longer have a power to rival NATO anywhere in the world.
Yes, there are Nations who either have, or would like to have a Nuclear capability, but the argument that we need to have a renewed Nuclear option is no longer that convincing. In the first place, surveillance technology makes it very difficult for powers to test Nukes without everyone knowing; secondly there are such tight restrictions on the technology and raw materials that the most likely threat is a so called "dirty bomb" being used by a terrorist organisation (i.e. a small nuclear device exploded in a densely packed area that would cause extensive destruction and collateral damage and generate a large radio-active fallout). We would not need, nor be able to use a nuclear weapon to counter such an act. That is why we have satellite and laser-guided weapons to pinpoint targets and destroy them before they can be used.
The old days of using a phenomenally powerful weapon to cripple a nation have been superceded with smaller but highly potent weapons that can put a "surgical" strike at the point of greatest threat - be it an individual, or a strategic target such as an airfield or missile launcher.
|
|
|
Post by Dicky Knee on Apr 29, 2005 9:48:10 GMT 1
If only we could foresee the future. Who is to say, for whatever reason, a major European state decides to stick 2 fingers up to the World society and take on an expansionist policy, using nuclear weapons (because the rest of us has decided they are of no use).
Even democracies can produce Communist / Fascist governments who may have hidden agendas.....and when the oil starts to run out, it will be the bully who steals it.
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 29, 2005 10:35:52 GMT 1
Post by rob on Apr 29, 2005 10:35:52 GMT 1
That is why the debate in Parliament will be so important, it will shape the British defense and foreign policy for years to come. Looks like tactical nukes it is then
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 29, 2005 12:26:54 GMT 1
Post by OldGit on Apr 29, 2005 12:26:54 GMT 1
Do you know what weapon would probably bring the US Government crashing down fastest?
A computer virus
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 29, 2005 12:49:03 GMT 1
Post by WindsorShrew on Apr 29, 2005 12:49:03 GMT 1
I'm firmly on the side of keep them as a deterrent (no surprizes there I know). We have to be able to play on a level playing field with the likes of north Korea and other interested nations such as Iran.
That said I believe we need less of them and utilize sub launched (maximum delivery range) or Aircraft launched to a lesser extent.
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 29, 2005 13:32:03 GMT 1
Post by Dicky Knee on Apr 29, 2005 13:32:03 GMT 1
Sub Launched. Air Strike would be too slow against a sophisticated enemy. Hence the rapid demise of the Vulcan Fleet etc when missile technology advanced rapidly in the late 60's.
|
|
|
Tridant
Apr 29, 2005 15:28:44 GMT 1
Post by rob on Apr 29, 2005 15:28:44 GMT 1
Well we are in the process of building two medium sized aircraft carriers so i guess we could launch the planes (and bombs ) from them
|
|