Trident replacement.... why do you think its require?
Trident replacement.... why do you think its require?
Author
Discussion

Tony*T3

Original Poster:

20,911 posts

277 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
I see the lib dems want to cancel the Trident replacement. I assume this makes pretty good economic sense (anyone care to say how much?).

So why so many objections? Who are the current nukes 'deterring'and who do the future nukes need to keep us safe from?

JakeS

2,270 posts

215 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
North Korea, China & Russia.

Eric Mc

125,737 posts

295 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Do you not think that the UK is still a potential target of a nuclear strike?

Tony*T3

Original Poster:

20,911 posts

277 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
JakeS said:
North Korea, China & Russia.
Really? NK? really? Not just a bit paranoid. Not sure China would ever want to attack us either? FOr what reason exactly? Russia, hmmm, could go back to communism I suppose.

Still cant think of any reason why they would attack us either.

Tony*T3

Original Poster:

20,911 posts

277 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Do you not think that the UK is still a potential target of a nuclear strike?
Only from terrorists. Cant think of any country that has anywhere near the capability to attack us that would actually want to.

Puggit

49,820 posts

278 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Because we don't know the future - and if something happens we can't just buy one and have it ready on the next day!

The real Apache

39,731 posts

314 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
JakeS said:
North Korea, China & Russia.
Why would any of these countries attack the UK?

Don

28,378 posts

314 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
JakeS said:
North Korea, China & Russia.
North Korea and Iran particularly.

Aids diplomacy with China, Russia and, yes, the US.

We need to retain the ability to blow the st out of anyone prepared to do it to us...because with some of them it's only the prospect of their country being reduced to molten glass that is stopping them.

Don

28,378 posts

314 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Puggit said:
Because we don't know the future - and if something happens we can't just buy one and have it ready on the next day!
This, too.

Tangent Police

3,097 posts

206 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Because the lib dems are a bunch of student tossers with no fking idea. smile

That's about as concise as I can be.

Tony*T3

Original Poster:

20,911 posts

277 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Don said:
JakeS said:
North Korea, China & Russia.
North Korea and Iran particularly.

.
WTF would Iran attack the UK with Nukes? And NK will never have the capability.


So is being 'in the nuke club' really worth it these days?




JakeS

2,270 posts

215 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Tony*T3 said:
JakeS said:
North Korea, China & Russia.
Really? NK? really? Not just a bit paranoid. Not sure China would ever want to attack us either? FOr what reason exactly? Russia, hmmm, could go back to communism I suppose.

Still cant think of any reason why they would attack us either.
hehe Not at the moment, But obviously the Lib Dems want to scrap a nuclear deterrent for the future. In 30-40 years North Korea may well have the ability to launch a Nuclear missile some distance. If they don't all die of starvation first anyway.

I would say our biggest threat would come from Russia. Perhaps not the Government, but I would imagine there are a fair few Russian military types who would quite like to see the Motherland returned to full strength.

Edited by JakeS on Tuesday 4th May 13:44

Carfiend

3,186 posts

239 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Just because things are relatively stable today doesn't mean that it will be in 20 years time. While alarmist things like Man Made Global Warming are of questionable validity to the cynical thinking man there is still the fact that resources are stretched and short of an event to reduce the population they will continue to be.

An event say like an Nuclear War?

Tony*T3

Original Poster:

20,911 posts

277 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Seems that 'paranoia' is the most reasonable arguement being made so far.

£100 billion for paranoia and muscle flexing.


Well heres a couter arguement for you,. We're probably morer at risk from our own nuke weapons than we are from any other countries nukes. Obviosuly, dis-regarding terrorism.

Jinx

12,021 posts

290 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
We would have to give up our permanent seat on the UN security councl.

DangerousMike

11,327 posts

222 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
because we have to make a decision now about what kind of defense our country needs in 30 years or so.

what will the world look like in 30 years?

I don't know.

best be on the safe side then.

CzechItOut

2,156 posts

221 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
I wonder how the people of Denmark, Spain and Netherlands sleep at night knowing their country has no nuclear deterrent.

SmoothRB

1,700 posts

202 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
Nuclear deterrent.


The real Apache

39,731 posts

314 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
CzechItOut said:
I wonder how the people of Denmark, Spain and Netherlands sleep at night knowing their country has no nuclear deterrent.
hehe

JakeS

2,270 posts

215 months

Tuesday 4th May 2010
quotequote all
CzechItOut said:
I wonder how the people of Denmark, Spain and Netherlands sleep at night knowing their country has no nuclear deterrent.
None of these countries are so "fond" of America as we are. In my opinion the country Russia, Iran, NK dislike the most is the States. If your missiles can't reach them, We would make a nice half-way house hehe

Edited by JakeS on Tuesday 4th May 13:53