Nuclear deterrent

A farty little country like the UK with an effective navy of 6 ships, a tiny army and an airforce dependent on Yank technology has absolutely no need or possible use of a nuclear deterrent other than to keep colonel Blimps happy.

There is not one circumstance where we would deploy ours without the US and France deploying theirs. A complete waste of money.

It's a complete waste of money just like supporting British Steel is although those of the Corbyn variety seem to split the two....

When you realize there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs supporting defence it changes things somewhat. There are some things that are just worth the money because of the impact removing it would have.

For every £1 spent on defence we still get 36p back in tax too not to mention it provides a defence and knowledge capability that only a handful of countries have.

Whilst the threats currently don't require nuclear weapons, what about the threats in 30 years time? That is how long it takes to develop a nuclear missile system.

The new system will cost what £100bn over 30 years? Would you pay £3bn a year to keep tens of thousands of jobs safe?
 
One modern nuke can obliterate an entire city killing millions.

One.

A dozen can obliterate a country the size of France. You can strike a nation and kill millions, and that nation will respond by turning your nation into radioactive glass. It's a pretty good deterrant if you ask me, hence why no-one has been foolish enough to attack one of these "nuclear powers" since. Nagasaki's Fat Man was a pimple compared to the power of a Minuteman or Satan.
Or we could all just expect each country to act maturely and resolve things democratically.
 
Or we could all just expect each country to act maturely and resolve things democratically.
Would be nice wouldn't it.

But some nations have nukes and others don't. Notice the ones who don't have nukes don't start problems on the ones that do. Terror cells on the other hand...
 
Would be nice wouldn't it.

But some nations have nukes and others don't. Notice the ones who don't have nukes don't start problems on the ones that do. Terror cells on the other hand...

It's usually the ones with nukes who have started the wars in the last 25 years
 
USA
UK


Between them happily waided in to the Falklands, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan.
 
USA
UK


Between them happily waided in to the Falklands, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan.
Falklands was:

1) 37 years ago, not 25.
2) A reaction to the Argentinian Junta illegally invading and the citizens of the Falklands, a British dependency, asking the British Government for help, which it supplied. Fail

Iraq 1

1) response to the ILLEGAL invasion by Saddam Hussein into US supported Kuwait and the Kuwaiti Govt asking the US for help. Fail 2

Afghanistan

1) War against terror cells such as the Taliban operating in the region, after having announced it's involvement in the attack on the US in 2001, not on the nation itself. US supported by the Afghan Government. Uber fail.

Iraq 2

About the only justfied response, although it did come after the US announced it's "War on Terror" initiative after having been attacked despite being peaceful. I'll let this one slide. Barely.
 
Last edited:
We are probably not worth nuking the way it's going.


The present system is a waste of money, there are more efficient modern deterent than a big fuck off sub .

A deterent may be necessary, trident and it's cost isn't
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.