RE: For or against Trident

RE: For or against Trident (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

blnymph -> RE: For or against Trident (10/6/2015 10:59:47 AM)
thanks - what you could say was very interesting

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: For or against Trident (10/6/2015 11:41:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How long is Corbyn going to be the one in charge? How much is it going to cost to shutter the program and bring it back up after Corbyn is gone (if that's the chosen route)? I understand what you're saying, and the point you're making. I wonder if Corbyn would ever change his mind. I mean, he's a politician, right? Politicians aren't exactly known for being completely open and honest (at least in America, or, as PoliteSub has pointed out many times, if you're Cameron Blair). I firmly believe that to be a proper politician, you need to be a lying, cheating, conniving SOB with a certificate of receiving a full lobotomy. [:D] Corbyn has been a politician for decades and has always been against Trident and other nuclear weapons. I'm pretty sure he'll stick to his guns on scrapping Trident if the rest of the party let him get away with it. But he stood on that platform for the leadership vote and won a landslide victory of almost 60%. That would certainly give pause for thought at the next general election. How long Corbyn will hold the party together, or if they ever actually get into power is another ball of wax. But given the cost of refurbishing it, it is certainly raising more than a few eyebrows across the board.

DesideriScuri -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 8:07:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How long is Corbyn going to be the one in charge? How much is it going to cost to shutter the program and bring it back up after Corbyn is gone (if that's the chosen route)? I understand what you're saying, and the point you're making. I wonder if Corbyn would ever change his mind. I mean, he's a politician, right? Politicians aren't exactly known for being completely open and honest (at least in America, or, as PoliteSub has pointed out many times, if you're Cameron Blair). I firmly believe that to be a proper politician, you need to be a lying, cheating, conniving SOB with a certificate of receiving a full lobotomy. [:D] Corbyn has been a politician for decades and has always been against Trident and other nuclear weapons. I'm pretty sure he'll stick to his guns on scrapping Trident if the rest of the party let him get away with it. But he stood on that platform for the leadership vote and won a landslide victory of almost 60%. That would certainly give pause for thought at the next general election. How long Corbyn will hold the party together, or if they ever actually get into power is another ball of wax. But given the cost of refurbishing it, it is certainly raising more than a few eyebrows across the board. So, our countries share more than just language. Our politicians are similar, too! lol How long is Corbyn going to be in power, anyway? The next person might be more willing to send up a salvo or 8.

Lucylastic -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 8:12:37 AM)
All politicians are lying scumbags, no matter what country no matter what party, no matter what side. Ive been saying that for decades, Plus I was against trident back in the early 80s, the greenham commmon protests....nothing much has changed.

DesideriScuri -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 9:41:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic All politicians are lying scumbags, no matter what country no matter what party, no matter what side. Ive been saying that for decades, Plus I was against trident back in the early 80s, the greenham commmon protests....nothing much has changed. Trident is, at it's very basic, is 4 subs with nuclear-armed missiles. From what I've read, there is always at least one sub "out and about," so to speak. So retaliatory strikes are possible even if UK mainland is decimated. As far as the hardware goes, the subs belong to the UK, and were built by the UK. The missiles are leased from the US, with maintenance costs the responsibility of the US. The warheads are also the UK's, and were built by the UK. So, if they scrap the programme (see what I did there?), they will have 4 subs and many nuke warheads with no missiles. Again, I don't care one way or the other, outside of the US being "on the hook" due to the NATO treaty. But, that hook is there whether the UK has Trident or not.

Lucylastic -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 9:43:05 AM)
I meant my outlook on nukes hon:)

DesideriScuri -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 10:08:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I meant my outlook on nukes hon:) But, outlooks on nukes isn't the subject matter. Scrapping Trident doesn't scrap nuke arsenals. It just scraps the submarine delivery program. Personally, I'd rather have nukes and never need them, than to not have them and have a situation arise where their use would be warranted. Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me.

Nthrall -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 10:16:50 AM)
Please use your own brain to answer these questions.

Lucylastic -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 10:18:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I meant my outlook on nukes hon:) But, outlooks on nukes isn't the subject matter. Scrapping Trident doesn't scrap nuke arsenals. It just scraps the submarine delivery program. Personally, I'd rather have nukes and never need them, than to not have them and have a situation arise where their use would be warranted. Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me. oh good gawd.. Im against trident... OK??? THAT IS THE TOPIC

DesideriScuri -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 3:52:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I meant my outlook on nukes hon:) But, outlooks on nukes isn't the subject matter. Scrapping Trident doesn't scrap nuke arsenals. It just scraps the submarine delivery program. Personally, I'd rather have nukes and never need them, than to not have them and have a situation arise where their use would be warranted. Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me. oh good gawd.. Im against trident... OK??? THAT IS THE TOPIC "I meant my outlook on nukes..." "I'm against trident..." I gathered you were opposed to Trident. Then you came back with it being your views on nukes. Now, it's back to Trident? Regardless of which you're opposed to in any given post, the facts remain. If Trident is shuttered, you will still have 4 submarines and a whole lot of nuke warheads. You just won't have the missiles that carry those warheads and are launched from those subs. In your opinion, is NATO membership enough of a deterrent to prevent attacks on the UK? Is there really any more deterrence gained with the Trident program? If you think NATO is enough, and that Trident isn't going to materially get you to a higher level of deterrence, then shutter Trident.

PeonForHer -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 4:33:56 PM)
quote: It is a deterent, from anyone who has nuclear missiles. I dont think it hurts to keep it. It hurts our pockets. A hundred billion to replace Trident - just imagine how that could be spent. It could pay for as many as a thousand of the pensions of the City bankers who've worked so tirelessly to fuck up our economy to date.

kdsub -> RE: For or against Trident (10/7/2015 8:34:09 PM)
I agree that without the UK bearing its share of defense you have lots of good things to spend the money on... But do you believe there is no threat of aggression contrary to your way of life where a nuclear deterrent is needed? I think you would be very naive to think this... and history would agree with me. I am tired of my tax money protecting you...and the UK not taking responsibility in your own defense will just take more money from my pocket. I would love for the US to provide free healthcare... fix our roads and bridges... but we spend now more than twice the percent of our GPS on defense than the UK. Rather than less you should provide more. I am all for world wide nuclear disarmament ... this is what should be worked on then we could all spend money on what is important. Butch

blnymph -> RE: For or against Trident (10/8/2015 4:05:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I meant my outlook on nukes hon:) But, outlooks on nukes isn't the subject matter. Scrapping Trident doesn't scrap nuke arsenals. It just scraps the submarine delivery program. Personally, I'd rather have nukes and never need them, than to not have them and have a situation arise where their use would be warranted. Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me. In my humble knowledge your remark (I underlined) just describes the situation we are in for quite a while (decades ...?)

DesideriScuri -> RE: For or against Trident (10/8/2015 6:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me. In my humble knowledge your remark (I underlined) just describes the situation we are in for quite a while (decades ...?) I'm not sure if you meant "we have been in for quite a while" (past tense), or the future tense you used. Both are correct, mind you. Even in the 80's Cold War time, I didn't understand why the USSR and the US were building stockpiles to one-up the other in the number of times they could destroy the Earth. I mean, I could see being capable of destroying it twice, as you might be accounting for misfires, but more than that? Wholly unnecessary. We've been past that point for decades, and we'll likely continue to be past that point for decades to come, unless something replaces nukes (in which case, we'll likely have enough of that new weapon to destroy the world multiple times).

blnymph -> RE: For or against Trident (10/9/2015 4:16:49 AM)
oh past, present, and foreseeable future ... the overall overkill capacity has been reduced after the 1990s to my knowledge, but there still is a multiple overkill capacity (and within this the french and british nukes contribute only a small percentage)

bounty44 -> RE: For or against Trident (10/9/2015 5:13:00 AM)
a small aside...if anyone is into reading fiction and finds the topic of the thread worth thinking about some more, let me recommend Patrick robinson. he is a british author who writes naval thrillers with a strong submarine component and a fair amount of interaction between the usa and the uk. ive read 5-6 of his books and have thoroughly enjoyed each one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Robinson_(author)

Politesub53 -> RE: For or against Trident (10/11/2015 4:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I agree that without the UK bearing its share of defense you have lots of good things to spend the money on... But do you believe there is no threat of aggression contrary to your way of life where a nuclear deterrent is needed? I think you would be very naive to think this... and history would agree with me. I am tired of my tax money protecting you...and the UK not taking responsibility in your own defense will just take more money from my pocket. I would love for the US to provide free healthcare... fix our roads and bridges... but we spend now more than twice the percent of our GPS on defense than the UK. Rather than less you should provide more. I am all for world wide nuclear disarmament ... this is what should be worked on then we could all spend money on what is important. Butch If you think the US government happily tax you so they can defend everyone else, you are fucking deluded. The US defence industry has two aims, one is make money, two is protect US interests,

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02