The Conservative Party

cutting the Army again - will be 100k troops including volunteer reserve. And still those who suck the Tory cock will believe the Tories always do their best for the armed forces. Can't they see what cutting Police numbers has done? The Police force in the UK as of last year was 135k officers - says it all really
 
bluethrunthru said:
cutting the Army again - will be 100k troops including volunteer reserve. And still those who suck the Tory cock will believe the Tories always do their best for the armed forces. Can't they see what cutting Police numbers has done? The Police force in the UK as of last year was 135k officers - says it all really
Click to expand...
Boris avoiding saying job cuts would occur in parliament earlier. I expect Keith will bring it up in PMQs and be accused of wanting rid of trident.
 
mat said:
Boris avoiding saying job cuts would occur in parliament earlier. I expect Keith will bring it up in PMQs and be accused of wanting rid of trident.
Click to expand...

works on 2 levels for him - smears Starmer ( even if its lies it doesn't bother him ) whilst avoiding giving an answer to a direct question
 
Fred_Quimby said:
We have to combat China's march across the globe. They are now a major threat to the UK. Complete crap. Cybersecurity threat maybe but that doesn't need a f..king great aircraft carrier. It just sounds like trying to find an excuse for having 2 dirt great carriers.
Click to expand...
An aircraft carrier... with no planes? That'll put the wind up the Chinese. They'll just build another island.

Seriously... How many ships would we need to protect a £3bn aircraft carrier from a missile attack? Or underwater drones....
 



I'll keep an eye on how much Rabb will be rimming the US. Mitchell will give him more shit than any of ours.
 
PMSL laughing - they are all a bunch of clueless wankers that are out of their depth - history will eviscerate each and every one of them - their legacy will look like the one left by Charlie Carroli and his troop of circus clowns.....



 
Fred_Quimby said:
We have to combat China's march across the globe. They are now a major threat to the UK. Complete crap. Cybersecurity threat maybe but that doesn't need a f..king great aircraft carrier. It just sounds like trying to find an excuse for having 2 dirt great carriers.
Click to expand...
The most disturbing thing is the amount of new nuclear warheads.

I am in favour of strong conventional armed forces that are well trained and well equipped and are in good numbers. I am not in favour of nuclear weapons at all. I would scrap trident and any replacement tomorrow and use the money available to fund conventional forces.

I am fine with having aircraft carriers, they can be used for more than just war, they can be used for humanitarian reasonst as well and that is a role they can play around the world as well as helping to project British power. A load of nuclear warheads in a submarine hid under the icecap projects nothing, it does not decrease any threat to the UK it increases threat to the UK as we are then part of the MAD scenario.

All this announcement is to me is jingoistic bollox playing to the Tory base and to Johnsons ego. We don't need nuclear weapons, they are vanity projects and in the current economic climate it looks like the poor family down the street on welfare suddenly buying sports cars for their kids in a squalid attempt to impress their neighbours or in this case Johnson trying to impress the USA because he is desperate for a trade deal.

Does anybody really have pride in the fact we have Trident submarines and nuclear capability? Is there any evidence they have kept us safe? Is there any reason any country would want to invade an island with little in the way of natural resources and of little strategic importance?

Is there any real sense in us being able to destroy Beijing if China can wipe out the whole of the UK?

This is a big backward step for the UK and i hope there are massive demonstrations against nuclear proliferation

Oh wait we can't protest, they are being banned.
 
Rascal said:
The most disturbing thing is the amount of new nuclear warheads.

I am in favour of strong conventional armed forces that are well trained and well equipped and are in good numbers. I am not in favour of nuclear weapons at all. I would scrap trident and any replacement tomorrow and use the money available to fund conventional forces.

I am fine with having aircraft carriers, they can be used for more than just war, they can be used for humanitarian reasonst as well and that is a role they can play around the world as well as helping to project British power. A load of nuclear warheads in a submarine hid under the icecap projects nothing, it does not decrease any threat to the UK it increases threat to the UK as we are then part of the MAD scenario.

All this announcement is to me is jingoistic bollox playing to the Tory base and to Johnsons ego. We don't need nuclear weapons, they are vanity projects and in the current economic climate it looks like the poor family down the street on welfare suddenly buying sports cars for their kids in a squalid attempt to impress their neighbours or in this case Johnson trying to impress the USA because he is desperate for a trade deal.

Does anybody really have pride in the fact we have Trident submarines and nuclear capability? Is there any evidence they have kept us safe? Is there any reason any country would want to invade an island with little in the way of natural resources and of little strategic importance?

Is there any real sense in us being able to destroy Beijing if China can wipe out the whole of the UK?

This is a big backward step for the UK and i hope there are massive demonstrations against nuclear proliferation

Oh wait we can't protest, they are being banned.
Click to expand...
A sign of a very insecure man in a position way above his competence.
 
mat said:
A substantial amount of Tory MPs are concerned about giving Patel more powers but are too scared to vote against "The Dalek."

They want the bill shelved and taken back to joint committees.
Click to expand...


One wonders whats coming down the line that the Tories need to strengthen protest legislation ..... a raid on peoples pensions perhaps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Rascal said:
The most disturbing thing is the amount of new nuclear warheads.

I am in favour of strong conventional armed forces that are well trained and well equipped and are in good numbers. I am not in favour of nuclear weapons at all. I would scrap trident and any replacement tomorrow and use the money available to fund conventional forces.

I am fine with having aircraft carriers, they can be used for more than just war, they can be used for humanitarian reasonst as well and that is a role they can play around the world as well as helping to project British power. A load of nuclear warheads in a submarine hid under the icecap projects nothing, it does not decrease any threat to the UK it increases threat to the UK as we are then part of the MAD scenario.

All this announcement is to me is jingoistic bollox playing to the Tory base and to Johnsons ego. We don't need nuclear weapons, they are vanity projects and in the current economic climate it looks like the poor family down the street on welfare suddenly buying sports cars for their kids in a squalid attempt to impress their neighbours or in this case Johnson trying to impress the USA because he is desperate for a trade deal.

Does anybody really have pride in the fact we have Trident submarines and nuclear capability? Is there any evidence they have kept us safe? Is there any reason any country would want to invade an island with little in the way of natural resources and of little strategic importance?

Is there any real sense in us being able to destroy Beijing if China can wipe out the whole of the UK?

This is a big backward step for the UK and i hope there are massive demonstrations against nuclear proliferation

Oh wait we can't protest, they are being banned.
Click to expand...
IMG_1289.jpg
 
Rascal said:
The most disturbing thing is the amount of new nuclear warheads.

I am in favour of strong conventional armed forces that are well trained and well equipped and are in good numbers. I am not in favour of nuclear weapons at all. I would scrap trident and any replacement tomorrow and use the money available to fund conventional forces.

I am fine with having aircraft carriers, they can be used for more than just war, they can be used for humanitarian reasonst as well and that is a role they can play around the world as well as helping to project British power. A load of nuclear warheads in a submarine hid under the icecap projects nothing, it does not decrease any threat to the UK it increases threat to the UK as we are then part of the MAD scenario.

All this announcement is to me is jingoistic bollox playing to the Tory base and to Johnsons ego. We don't need nuclear weapons, they are vanity projects and in the current economic climate it looks like the poor family down the street on welfare suddenly buying sports cars for their kids in a squalid attempt to impress their neighbours or in this case Johnson trying to impress the USA because he is desperate for a trade deal.

Does anybody really have pride in the fact we have Trident submarines and nuclear capability? Is there any evidence they have kept us safe? Is there any reason any country would want to invade an island with little in the way of natural resources and of little strategic importance?

Is there any real sense in us being able to destroy Beijing if China can wipe out the whole of the UK?

This is a big backward step for the UK and i hope there are massive demonstrations against nuclear proliferation

Oh wait we can't protest, they are being banned.
Click to expand...
we still have a week or so. ;-)
 
Rascal said:
The most disturbing thing is the amount of new nuclear warheads.

I am in favour of strong conventional armed forces that are well trained and well equipped and are in good numbers. I am not in favour of nuclear weapons at all. I would scrap trident and any replacement tomorrow and use the money available to fund conventional forces.

I am fine with having aircraft carriers, they can be used for more than just war, they can be used for humanitarian reasonst as well and that is a role they can play around the world as well as helping to project British power. A load of nuclear warheads in a submarine hid under the icecap projects nothing, it does not decrease any threat to the UK it increases threat to the UK as we are then part of the MAD scenario.

All this announcement is to me is jingoistic bollox playing to the Tory base and to Johnsons ego. We don't need nuclear weapons, they are vanity projects and in the current economic climate it looks like the poor family down the street on welfare suddenly buying sports cars for their kids in a squalid attempt to impress their neighbours or in this case Johnson trying to impress the USA because he is desperate for a trade deal.

Does anybody really have pride in the fact we have Trident submarines and nuclear capability? Is there any evidence they have kept us safe? Is there any reason any country would want to invade an island with little in the way of natural resources and of little strategic importance?

Is there any real sense in us being able to destroy Beijing if China can wipe out the whole of the UK?

This is a big backward step for the UK and i hope there are massive demonstrations against nuclear proliferation

Oh wait we can't protest, they are being banned.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure hiding under the icecap is a good idea if you want to shoot nuclear-armed missiles upwards.

Other than that, you're right. Spending money on nuclear weapons just makes us even poorer and of less strategic importance. We're a long way from when the UK was America's unsinkable aircraft carrier, and Eastern Europe was the target.

Even with deterrence theory it doesn't hold up. The nuclear arms race got a boost with the idea that parity ("the balance of terror") was not enough - if the USA didn't have the superiority to "win" a nuclear war then the USA would deter itself from using nuclear weapons, i.e. "the self-deterrence inherit in such a strategic strategy" (Mutually Assured Destruction). "Winning" meant having as few as 20 million dead Americans. And of course there were also those arguing that the survivors should be the great and the good (the "great redwoods" rather than the "brushwood").

But it's blindingly obvious that what's left of the UK * will not be at "parity". It sounds more like this is just crawling to the USA in sharing the cost of developing the W93 warheads.

* Add the cost of building a new port for Trident subs if Scotland leaves.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top