General Election - December 12th, 2019

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

We pay for it but we don't get told how or whether we can use it.

I have a German car but the Germans don't tell me when or where I can drive.



Not true either, it is independent and the PM makes the decision (something Corbyn refuses to do).

If that is compromised and the PM can't decide then the sub captain follows the orders from the PM that are locked in the safe on the sub.

But doesn't it rely on American GPRS? .and if we exit the Eu we will not be able to use Galileo .... and just what happens if the Americans say no ?

 

[BobKowalski]

Not true either, it is independent and the PM makes the decision (something Corbyn refuses to do).

If that is compromised and the PM can't decide then the sub captain follows the orders from the PM that are locked in the safe on the sub.

In a fast moving, constantly escalating crisis where the use of nuclear weapons is becoming likely the idea that a letter written months ago is the basis of a Captain’s decision is not reassuring.

Seriously can we stop playing fantasy ‘Submarine Commander’ and get back to reality?

 

[purplenose]

The concept of MAD I don’t have an issue with. The issue is with the U.K. having a deterrence. It’s pointless. We are not a superpower. Trident is a vanity project.

Agreed we are not a super power. We are however important enough politically and strategically to be a target for most questionable nations and indeed organisations that may see fit to do us harm.

If we have no nuclear weapons away we are pretty much open to attack with the enemy knowing we have little or nothing to respond with.

With respect Bob I think you are way wide of the mark in suggesting Trident is a vanity project. In the ideal world there would be no need for it, infact there would no no nuclear weapons, no conventional weapons as there would be no conflict. Sadly the real world has very little in common with the ideal world and thus I am afraid I believe strongly that this country must retain a potent and credible nuclear threat to anyone who potentially pose a threat.

 

[BobKowalski]

Just heard Bone on the radio saying he supports Boris because Boris told him if we haven't agreed a deal by next December we'll leave with no deal. Don't believe Boris would myself so Bone is being misled IMO.

Yeah. Johnson has sold them a pup. He’s sold them May’s pup minus NI.

 

[Ban-jani]

Suspicious package found at Jo Swindon’s office, lets all hope it’s fuck all.

 

[BobKowalski]

Agreed we are not a super power. We are however important enough politically and strategically to be a target for most questionable nations and indeed organisations that may see fit to do us harm.

If we have no nuclear weapons away we are pretty much open to attack with the enemy knowing we have little or nothing to respond with.

With respect Bob I think you are way wide of the mark in suggesting Trident is a vanity project. In the ideal world there would be no need for it, infact there would no no nuclear weapons, no conventional weapons as there would be no conflict. Sadly the real world has very little in common with the ideal world and thus I am afraid I believe strongly that this country must retain a potent and credible nuclear threat to anyone who potentially pose a threat.

Any organisation that does us harm is not going to face nuclear retaliation. The same is true of any questionable nation. We are more likely to invite attack through the neglect of our conventional forces to the point we can barely put a handful of ships to sea at any one time.

Trident is an illusion for domestic consumption. Trident is nothing more than an extension of US armed forces and will only be used in cooperation with the US and for the benefit of the US.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Agreed we are not a super power. We are however important enough politically and strategically to be a target for most questionable nations and indeed organisations that may see fit to do us harm.

If we have no nuclear weapons away we are pretty much open to attack with the enemy knowing we have little or nothing to respond with.

With respect Bob I think you are way wide of the mark in suggesting Trident is a vanity project. In the ideal world there would be no need for it, infact there would no no nuclear weapons, no conventional weapons as there would be no conflict. Sadly the real world has very little in common with the ideal world and thus I am afraid I believe strongly that this country must retain a potent and credible nuclear threat to anyone who potentially pose a threat.

Just a few questions

Whose going to attack us?

Who potentially poses a threat to us?

Who are the enemy?

At which point will you agree that one submarine with the capability of launching two missiles with 40 war heads each will actually not bother your 'enemy'


There is treatment available for paranoia

 

[bronco]

Every NATO country has them because the US, UK or France has to protect them with theirs.

US nukes are stationed in Europe for this reason.



The number of attacks the UK has had proves the point of it.

They also pose a useful blackmail tool which Ukraine and states like Georgia can attest to.

Not every member of NATO pays for the privilege though ( certainly not on the scale Britain does ). ?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Agreed we are not a super power. We are however important enough politically and strategically to be a target for most questionable nations and indeed organisations that may see fit to do us harm.

If we have no nuclear weapons away we are pretty much open to attack with the enemy knowing we have little or nothing to respond with.

With respect Bob I think you are way wide of the mark in suggesting Trident is a vanity project. In the ideal world there would be no need for it, infact there would no no nuclear weapons, no conventional weapons as there would be no conflict. Sadly the real world has very little in common with the ideal world and thus I am afraid I believe strongly that this country must retain a potent and credible nuclear threat to anyone who potentially pose a threat.

Totally agree with you. Bob's logic is flawed IMO because he hasn't asked the one extremely important question: Could we be sufficiently sure of our allies' (i.e the US') commitment to defend the UK, if their doing so was to necessarily involve hundreds of thousands or even millions of US lives lost?

I think the answer to that is a resounding "no". And once you realise that, then you understand why we MUST have our own deterrent.

EDIT: And incidentally, anyone coming to that conclusion must also therefore come to the conclusion that Jeremy Corbyn cannot be Prime Minister, since if he is, then we have no nuclear deterrent. His Prime Ministership renders the weapons useless since every would-be aggressor knows he would never fire them.

 

[purplenose]

Just a few questions

Whose going to attack us?

Who knows for sure, things can change quickly in the world

Who potentially poses a threat to us?

Russia, N Korea, Iran, would all be quite possible potential candidates.

Who are the enemy?

Current or potential?

At which point will you agree that one submarine with the capability of launching two missiles with 40 war heads each will actually not bother your 'enemy'

Any nuclear threat will bother the vast majority of potential enemies.



There is treatment available for paranoia

I am sure there is, it is a shame they have yet to develop one for stupidity.