Tridents not going to protect a soul from a rucksack full of explosives or a group of Mumbai style gunmen in a shopping centre.
no. But it might stop the ruskis from rolling over here!
Agree kentaddick, I'm certainly concerned about Putin's stance and the rise of Russian nationalism but I do feel that that the financial cost of Trident is disproportionate to the threat currently posed. I personally feel that the biggest, most imminent threat to our nations citizens is from homegrown terrorism and I'd prefer MI5 be given everything they need to counteract that.
If it's truly about deterrent how come France or the Netherlands or Sweden aren't spending that much to protect their citizens?
At the launch of the Lib Dems Manifesto, I noticed on th TV coverage, Clegg stopping to kiss a strategically placed disabled person on his way across the stage. Said person appeared to be waiting there and, once kissed by Clegg, zoomed off, stage right, in an electric wheelchair. I don't imagine that was anything but a set-up.
Am I alone in finding that sort of set-up deeply patronising, cynical and exploitative?
At the launch of the Lib Dems Manifesto, I noticed on th TV coverage, Clegg stopping to kiss a strategically placed disabled person on his way across the stage. Said person appeared to be waiting there and, once kissed by Clegg, zoomed off, stage right, in an electric wheelchair. I don't imagine that was anything but a set-up.
Am I alone in finding that sort of set-up deeply patronising, cynical and exploitative?
This year it all seems a bit plastic to me Bri pal
I find the whole thing very very patronising and cynical, I hate the way all sides suggest things and act in a way that as a whole is dishonest, so many things they all say are unachievable without severe consequences to the population as a whole and to specific groups, I am not niave enough to fail to understand that the whole purpose of different parties is to get the votes of different groups of people and hope that you can canvas enough to get into power, the dividing and polarisation of neighbours, friends, families is getting worse and worse, it was more understandable when there was clear social divides and classes, those days are so far gone the parties are so far from the way they were when created, if they can get such movement to be so close to being the same then why at a time when we have had to have collation rule they can't just sort the whole sorry state of shit out
At the launch of the Lib Dems Manifesto, I noticed on th TV coverage, Clegg stopping to kiss a strategically placed disabled person on his way across the stage. Said person appeared to be waiting there and, once kissed by Clegg, zoomed off, stage right, in an electric wheelchair. I don't imagine that was anything but a set-up.
Am I alone in finding that sort of set-up deeply patronising, cynical and exploitative?
The Trident debate is an interesting one. Without reading too much about it I did just believe the sensationalist stories about the huge amounts of money it costs. However, after reading a bit about it today it seems that those costs are total for a 30 year period which per year aren't that high in comparison to other expenditures. The one thing that is hard to quantify though is what would happen without it? Sure we'd save money but with no nuclear deterrent who is to say what would happen? From what I've seen the worst estimates say it costs about £1.6bn a year to maintain Trident. Given our expenditure over the next year is expected to be near £750bn it's a small price to pay for our only nuclear deterrent imo.
And it surely must have a lot of people involved via the military and civil service, that would be unemployed if it was lost, it's not all about the cost of keeping, but the amount it will cost if it went,
I'd imagine that there are towns and shopping areas that are only there due to the amount generated by those involved in it,
Tbf a good point but as I understand it there is only one sub at any one time patrolling the waters so I'd imagine the number of personnel involved is quite small but I guess there are other teams involved and support staff etc. Our defense expenditure is well down on the other main areas of expenditure and it's probably just an easy target as such for people to suggest places to make cuts.
100 billion over 25/30 years according to Grant Chapps (spelling)
So we could fully fund A&E for 40 years instead. And have some change. I'm going to form a party that will give people a nurse each to themselves when they go to hospital after I have scrapped Trident. But I won't tell anybody I have scrapped it, so it will still be a deterrent lol.
I think you might have messed up your figures.
Trident is 100billion over 25/30 years.
The total budget of Department of Health in England in 2013/14 was £110bn, thats for one year, not 40.
What make me laugh is that the Greens wanna do away with Trident and spend the money instead on sending out more foreign aid, does she think that if we be nice, no one's gonna bomb the shit out of us?
100 billion over 25/30 years according to Grant Chapps (spelling)
So we could fully fund A&E for 40 years instead. And have some change. I'm going to form a party that will give people a nurse each to themselves when they go to hospital after I have scrapped Trident. But I won't tell anybody I have scrapped it, so it will still be a deterrent lol.
I think you might have messed up your figures.
Trident is 100billion over 25/30 years.
The total budget of Department of Health in England in 2013/14 was £110bn, thats for one year, not 40.
No labour or conservative government would scrap our independent nuclear deterrent. The notion carries far too much risk both in terms of security and politically.
That's not to say that at some point in the future some form of collaboration might not be considered. France would seem to be the obvious nation. Even then I suspect the difficulties might just prove too much.
I have been looking it up and the idea I originally posted is already in force, with Germany, Belgium, Italy, Turkey and Holland already in 'nuclear sharing' agreements with the USA. I believe you have to have a nuclear deterrent, just saying the political system prevents the main parties working together to find the best one.
The whole nuclear deterrent thing scares the hell out of me, we have scattered out around the world these weapons of mass destruction, each holder wants to be bigger and more dangerous than the last so countries don't 'pick in them' so basically they are all scare tactics, problem is it will only work for so long until someone smarter says "I don't care that you have a bomb that can wipe out a whole country or even continent because you will never used it because that would be stupid" and still do what they where threatening, other groups/countries will do the same until one of the holders says "I will use it and am going to to prove I'm not bluffing" one uses the nuclear bomb then another uses one on them to teach them a lesson and then we have world war 3 but this time there will be no winners and possibly nothing left to fight for.
The world would be a safer place with NO weapons of mass destruction anywhere, the sooner the leaders of the world can agree on that the better.
The whole nuclear deterrent thing scares the hell out of me, we have scattered out around the world these weapons of mass destruction, each holder wants to be bigger and more dangerous than the last so countries don't 'pick in them' so basically they are all scare tactics, problem is it will only work for so long until someone smarter says "I don't care that you have a bomb that can wipe out a whole country or even continent because you will never used it because that would be stupid" and still do what they where threatening, other groups/countries will do the same until one of the holders says "I will use it and am going to to prove I'm not bluffing" one uses the nuclear bomb then another uses one on them to teach them a lesson and then we have world war 3 but this time there will be no winners and possibly nothing left to fight for.
The world would be a safer place with NO weapons of mass destruction anywhere, the sooner the leaders of the world can agree on that the better.
Yes, but they won't ever agree will they. That is the point.
Putin has had planes and a ship circling GB recently. What do you think he would do, if we had no nuclear weapons.
The whole nuclear deterrent thing scares the hell out of me, we have scattered out around the world these weapons of mass destruction, each holder wants to be bigger and more dangerous than the last so countries don't 'pick in them' so basically they are all scare tactics, problem is it will only work for so long until someone smarter says "I don't care that you have a bomb that can wipe out a whole country or even continent because you will never used it because that would be stupid" and still do what they where threatening, other groups/countries will do the same until one of the holders says "I will use it and am going to to prove I'm not bluffing" one uses the nuclear bomb then another uses one on them to teach them a lesson and then we have world war 3 but this time there will be no winners and possibly nothing left to fight for.
The world would be a safer place with NO weapons of mass destruction anywhere, the sooner the leaders of the world can agree on that the better.
Yes, but they won't ever agree will they. That is the point.
Putin has had planes and a ship circling GB recently. What do you think he would do, if we had no nuclear weapons.
I know why we have them but it really won't work forever. It can only end badly.
I agree with Sadie. As a strategy it has worked for the last 60 years (either by design or accident), but it only has to fail once and that's the endgame.
After watching ISIS driving around Raqqa with their Scud missiles - I really hope that the Saddam/WMD thing really wasn't true. Because our nuclear deterrent would mean feck all to them.
I think we should keep it, just to piss off the Scottish Nationalist. Surely that's worth £1.1bn a year alone?
I agree with Sadie. As a strategy it has worked for the last 60 years (either by design or accident), but it only has to fail once and that's the endgame.
Personally, I think you've just stated why it should be kept.
I don't mean uni or once 18, I meant the those wanting 16 yr olds, there was some woman from one of the parties saying they should be allowed
If you are old enough to work, you are old enough to vote
I agree with this to an extent. old enough to get married, have sex, get a full time job, start a family, get killed on a mo-ped (sorry they make me nervous) but not old enough to vote. It's silly really. But although I agree I don't think voting age should be pulled down I think the age for all other things should be pulled up. I don't think an average 16 year old is mentally old enough to make important decisions such as giving their body away to someone and leaving school and especially shouldn't be on the road or getting married. You have to be 18 to drink, to vote and to gamble, pull it all up to 18, it is already compulsory to stay in school until you're 18 unless you've got a job but I think it should be compulsory full stop. I also think child fares and prices should go up to 18 so that it all falls in line, same for holiday companies etc some of them charge 12 or 14 year olds as adults, that's just greedy and should be outlawed.
I agree with Sadie. As a strategy it has worked for the last 60 years (either by design or accident), but it only has to fail once and that's the endgame.
Personally, I think you've just stated why it should be kept.
"It has worked for the last 60 years".
It's worked for 60 years, so let's scrap it ?
It's literally a time bomb. You can only bluff someone for so long until they want to call it.
I don't mean uni or once 18, I meant the those wanting 16 yr olds, there was some woman from one of the parties saying they should be allowed
If you are old enough to work, you are old enough to vote
But are you old enough to do something theoretically important like vote for the future of your country if you are too young and not adult enough to drive, drink legally or purchase cigarettes?
I agree with Sadie. As a strategy it has worked for the last 60 years (either by design or accident), but it only has to fail once and that's the endgame.
Personally, I think you've just stated why it should be kept.
"It has worked for the last 60 years".
It's worked for 60 years, so let's scrap it ?
It's literally a time bomb. You can only bluff someone for so long until they want to call it.
Possibly. But a deterrant is better than not having one imo.
Is a bully more likely to attack you if they think you won't hit them back ?
I agree with Sadie. As a strategy it has worked for the last 60 years (either by design or accident), but it only has to fail once and that's the endgame.
Personally, I think you've just stated why it should be kept.
"It has worked for the last 60 years".
It's worked for 60 years, so let's scrap it ?
Sixty years is an eye blink in the terms of civilisation. Circumstances change, people change, and who honestly knows how many times we might have been close to extinction already? It just takes one escalation, one slight change of circumstance, one nutter who genuinely doesn't care for their own or others' lives for everything to disappear. For most of our nuclear history the main threat has been the Eastern Block. They may still be a threat, but personally I'd be far more worried about the Islamists these days. The nature of this threat is quite different to any conventional nationalist conflict: 1. They aren't geographically bounded to some far away place; they are spread around, world wide. Many are European Citizens, born, living and working in Britain. 2. They have a mission which defies logic, so there's no talking them out of it even if you can identify them. 3. They don't give a shit for their own mortality - in fact, for many it's the opposite, they actively want to chance to die as 'martyrs'.
This throws up two huge military issues: 1. You can't use nukes against people living on your own soil or your neighbours' soil. Nuclear weapons are completely powerless against this type of threat locally, and may stir up an absolute hornets nest if ever used or threatened against islamists in, say, the middle east or Africa. 2. Nukes are no deterrent in this scenario. 3. Merely owning such capability poses a massive security threat. How do you defend the defence? I wouldn't be surprised if there as islamists trying to infiltrate the military, trying to hack systems, trying to find ways of turning the sights on us.
It may sound like some wild apocalyptic novel, but it only has to happen once. No-one in August 2001 ever considered that terrorists would use planes as weapons.
After watching ISIS driving around Raqqa with their Scud missiles - I really hope that the Saddam/WMD thing really wasn't true. Because our nuclear deterrent would mean feck all to them.
I think we should keep it, just to piss off the Scottish Nationalist. Surely that's worth £1.1bn a year alone?
Can't tell if this is tongue in cheek or not, but if he had wmds would they not have been found in the last 15 years ? It was a lie to go to war and some people still believe it.. Utter madness.
Theoretically important ? .... Like join the army and potentially sacrifice your life for the country ? Er I'd say yes, if a 16 year old is trusted to kill in the countries name... They should be trusted to tick a box responsibly
I don't mean uni or once 18, I meant the those wanting 16 yr olds, there was some woman from one of the parties saying they should be allowed
If you are old enough to work, you are old enough to vote
But are you old enough to do something theoretically important like vote for the future of your country if you are too young and not adult enough to drive, drink legally or purchase cigarettes?
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Am I alone in finding that sort of set-up deeply patronising, cynical and exploitative?
I'd imagine that there are towns and shopping areas that are only there due to the amount generated by those involved in it,
The knock on effect would be huge,
Would be a very narrow sighted decision
Trident is 100billion over 25/30 years.
The total budget of Department of Health in England in 2013/14 was £110bn, thats for one year, not 40.
That's not to say that at some point in the future some form of collaboration might not be considered. France would seem to be the obvious nation. Even then I suspect the difficulties might just prove too much.
The world would be a safer place with NO weapons of mass destruction anywhere, the sooner the leaders of the world can agree on that the better.
Putin has had planes and a ship circling GB recently. What do you think he would do, if we had no nuclear weapons.
If you are old enough to work, you are old enough to vote
I think we should keep it, just to piss off the Scottish Nationalist. Surely that's worth £1.1bn a year alone?
"It has worked for the last 60 years".
It's worked for 60 years, so let's scrap it ?
Is a bully more likely to attack you if they think you won't hit them back ?
I'm certain the answer is yes.
1. They aren't geographically bounded to some far away place; they are spread around, world wide. Many are European Citizens, born, living and working in Britain.
2. They have a mission which defies logic, so there's no talking them out of it even if you can identify them.
3. They don't give a shit for their own mortality - in fact, for many it's the opposite, they actively want to chance to die as 'martyrs'.
This throws up two huge military issues:
1. You can't use nukes against people living on your own soil or your neighbours' soil. Nuclear weapons are completely powerless against this type of threat locally, and may stir up an absolute hornets nest if ever used or threatened against islamists in, say, the middle east or Africa.
2. Nukes are no deterrent in this scenario.
3. Merely owning such capability poses a massive security threat. How do you defend the defence? I wouldn't be surprised if there as islamists trying to infiltrate the military, trying to hack systems, trying to find ways of turning the sights on us.
It may sound like some wild apocalyptic novel, but it only has to happen once. No-one in August 2001 ever considered that terrorists would use planes as weapons.
That's for England the Scottish and Welsh still have a leaving age of 16.
Theoretically important ? .... Like join the army and potentially sacrifice your life for the country ? Er I'd say yes, if a 16 year old is trusted to kill in the countries name... They should be trusted to tick a box responsibly