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.
no it wouldn't. It would be a far more dangerous place. It's a deterrent not just for war but nuclear war. What if some one like north korea develops a nuke in secret and nobody else has one? They'll hold the world to ransom.
Mutually assured destruction is the deterrent, you seem to think this is a reason to get rid of nuclear weapons, it's the main reason to keep them. If you use a nuclear weapon on us, the world will end and humanity will be wiped out. No one's going to press the button for a war that they're not actually going to enjoy the victory of.
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.
no it wouldn't. It would be a far more dangerous place. It's a deterrent not just for war but nuclear war. What if some one like north korea develops a nuke in secret and nobody else has one? They'll hold the world to ransom.
Mutually assured destruction is the deterrent, you seem to think this is a reason to get rid of nuclear weapons, it's the main reason to keep them. If you use a nuclear weapon on us, the world will end and humanity will be wiped out. No one's going to press the button for a war that they're not actually going to enjoy the victory of.
Of course they would, there are people that are willing to "die for the greater good" they don't care how many they take with them, who's to say people that think like this wouldn't get hold of such weapons.
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
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.
no it wouldn't. It would be a far more dangerous place. It's a deterrent not just for war but nuclear war. What if some one like north korea develops a nuke in secret and nobody else has one? They'll hold the world to ransom.
Mutually assured destruction is the deterrent, you seem to think this is a reason to get rid of nuclear weapons, it's the main reason to keep them. If you use a nuclear weapon on us, the world will end and humanity will be wiped out. No one's going to press the button for a war that they're not actually going to enjoy the victory of.
Of course they would, there are people that are willing to "die for the greater good" they don't care how many they take with them, who's to say people that think like this wouldn't get hold of such weapons.
yes, religious extremists. Which is why need to maintain and control who has nuclear weapons. So that these weapons don't fall into the hands of terrorists.
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.
In an ideal world they would never have been dreamt of, but they were so as long as others have them we need them imo. So voting Green or Snp is out the question
I noticed on Thursdays Political discussion, the Three Witches from MacBeth (Sturgeon, Bennett and Wood) all huddled together at the end. Then went to their friends planted in the audience front row and shook their hands. Bennet and Wood completely ignored Farage, whether you like him or not. Can understand an ignorant Aussie, but not the Welsh Tart. Disgraceful manners.
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.
In an ideal world they would never have been dreamt of, but they were so as long as others have them we need them imo. So voting Green or Snp is out the question
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.
In an ideal world they would never have been dreamt of, but they were so as long as others have them we need them imo. So voting Green or Snp is out the question
Can we still vote Plaid Cymru?
Yeah if you want some Doris who reads off her notes like a 6th former in a debating competition to run the country
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.
In an ideal world they would never have been dreamt of, but they were so as long as others have them we need them imo. So voting Green or Snp is out the question
Can we still vote Plaid Cymru?
...obviously I meant out the question for meself, it weren't a order to everyone ffs
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
Total nuclear disarmament is I'm afraid a complete pipe dream. There is still a race to acquire the damned things by emerging countries and various nutters scattered around the world. Can you possibly imagine North Korea getting their hands on one or God forbid Isis.
The world is still an incredaby unstable place and until true democracies are everywhere. Poverty eradicated and religion has been consigned to the dustbin of history I'm afraid countries where freedoms are considered an absolute right must protect themselves in any way they can.
Worrying development about defects in the nuclear power stations design that the Tories have commissioned from French companies, Areva and Eléctricité de France (EDF). A reminder of the Conservatives rubbish energy deal. They are paying a massive sum to these French companies to build these supposedly safer and more efficient nuclear power stations. The whole thing is underpinned by Chinese investment at a high guaranteed cost per unit. Conservatives are not as competent as they make out. This is a good example.
First sign that ISIS has got close to a nuclear weapon, either America or Israel will use their WMD against them. Whether that leads to Armageddon depends on whether anyone else with WMD feels strongly enough about what has been done. If the "firer" is Israel I would expect it all to kick off sharpish. There has always been a strong possibility that Israel would make a pre-emotive strike against Iran. May yet happen.
At some time I believe a global nuclear war is inevitable, but so far so good. Trouble is, whilst you could de-commission all existing bombs, how do you pop the technology back into the bottle?
In terms of whether we carry on spending billions on it, I don't see this as a matter for pre-election point -scoring as it is a matter of national security. Scale it back and don't actually tell anyone. But if you de-commission the whole shooting match you can be sure all the important people in the world will know before you can say "WTF?" We need to be a bit mysterious over what we save on this, like the national equivalent of the Pink Panther.
Israel has already pre-emptively struck against Syrian reactor - Operation Orchard - to slow down N Korea/Syria joint weapon manufacture. At the time I remember hearing it was also a warning to Iran.
N Korea is estimated to have 10 warheads - not currently viable but they exist.
I noticed on Thursdays Political discussion, the Three Witches from MacBeth (Sturgeon, Bennett and Wood) all huddled together at the end. Then went to their friends planted in the audience front row and shook their hands. Bennet and Wood completely ignored Farage, whether you like him or not. Can understand an ignorant Aussie, but not the Welsh Tart. Disgraceful manners.
is a sewing circle better than an old boys club? They're both disgraceful and should be avoided at all costs.
I noticed on Thursdays Political discussion, the Three Witches from MacBeth (Sturgeon, Bennett and Wood) all huddled together at the end. Then went to their friends planted in the audience front row and shook their hands. Bennet and Wood completely ignored Farage, whether you like him or not. Can understand an ignorant Aussie, but not the Welsh Tart. Disgraceful manners.
I would imagine, as they have four tits between them they saw no need to engage with another one.
Did anyone see BBC Newswatch this morning? Sue Inglish the BBC's head of political affairs saying that ALL parties on the show the other night were present at the meeting before the general election campaigns started and ALL agreed that this was to be a "challengers debate" the Cameron and Clegg were never going to be involved from the start, which just goes to show that ALL those leaders on that stage tother night a fuckin liars and not worth a tuppence between em.
Did anyone see BBC Newswatch this morning? Sue Inglish the BBC's head of political affairs saying that ALL parties on the show the other night were present at the meeting before the general election campaigns started and ALL agreed that this was to be a "challengers debate" the Cameron and Clegg were never going to be involved from the start, which just goes to show that ALL those leaders on that stage tother night a fuckin liars and not worth a tuppence between em.
Actually it was only agreed after Cameron said that he would not be doing anymore televised debates.
I was fascinated by the way Sue English talked - there had obviously been an agreement with Cameron and Clegg about the wording to be used, which she couldn't deviate from.
Did anyone see BBC Newswatch this morning? Sue Inglish the BBC's head of political affairs saying that ALL parties on the show the other night were present at the meeting before the general election campaigns started and ALL agreed that this was to be a "challengers debate" the Cameron and Clegg were never going to be involved from the start, which just goes to show that ALL those leaders on that stage tother night a fuckin liars and not worth a tuppence between em.
Actually it was only agreed after Cameron said that he would not be doing anymore televised debates.
And (don't take this too seriously). Was sat next to a load of Leeds on the train. Couple of them startee talking about signing on and all the crap jobs they had been offered. Must have downed God knows how many beers on the train - never mind the bloody travel and tickets. No wonder the twats celebrate every goal like they won the champs league. Other than watching Jeremy Kyle all week they have nothing else to concentrate on!
One of my mates said he was a floating voter - joked when he got off the train that he was Tory confirmed now!
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm sorry, but that's just unacceptable. You cannot, in all honesty, be suggesting that the "body language" of a woman makes them "more likely to be attacked". Maybe you posted this by mistake. If so, and if you delete it, I will certainly delete this post. But if you genuinely and deliberately posted that, it's an outrageous suggestion. It's saying "if a woman gets attacked, she might have been culpable, depending on what her body language was". And, by extension, "her attacker's guilt is lessened by the way she was acting before it happened".
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.
It is the vulnerable that get attacked I'm afraid, in this unfair world.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid. The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim". The house that isn't alarmed. The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
I'm sorry, but that's just unacceptable. You cannot, in all honesty, be suggesting that the "body language" of a woman makes them "more likely to be attacked". Maybe you posted this by mistake. If so, and if you delete it, I will certainly delete this post. But if you genuinely and deliberately posted that, it's an outrageous suggestion. It's saying "if a woman gets attacked, she might have been culpable, depending on what her body language was". And, by extension, "her attacker's guilt is lessened by the way she was acting before it happened".
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.
It's a FACT that muggers, rapists, bag snatchers and general scum bags DO look for 'victims' who look timid or scared, a person with poise and who looks prepared to defend themselves is obviously a less attractive 'target' .. don't ask for my 'proof' just check for yourself .. how you can be so dismissive and critical of C E's post is ridiculous, verging on the naïve and totally uninformed
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.
Comments
Mutually assured destruction is the deterrent, you seem to think this is a reason to get rid of nuclear weapons, it's the main reason to keep them. If you use a nuclear weapon on us, the world will end and humanity will be wiped out. No one's going to press the button for a war that they're not actually going to enjoy the victory of.
The smallest kid at school, rather than the biggest kid.
The woman walking down the street, who's body language says "victim".
The house that isn't alarmed.
The car that isn't alarmed.
If you make yourself vulnerable, you are more likely to be attacked. It is unfortunately a fact, we do not live in an ideal world.
The world is still an incredaby unstable place and until true democracies are everywhere. Poverty eradicated and religion has been consigned to the dustbin of history I'm afraid countries where freedoms are considered an absolute right must protect themselves in any way they can.
Worrying development about defects in the nuclear power stations design that the Tories have commissioned from French companies, Areva and Eléctricité de France (EDF). A reminder of the Conservatives rubbish energy deal. They are paying a massive sum to these French companies to build these supposedly safer and more efficient nuclear power stations. The whole thing is underpinned by Chinese investment at a high guaranteed cost per unit. Conservatives are not as competent as they make out. This is a good example.
At some time I believe a global nuclear war is inevitable, but so far so good. Trouble is, whilst you could de-commission all existing bombs, how do you pop the technology back into the bottle?
In terms of whether we carry on spending billions on it, I don't see this as a matter for pre-election point -scoring as it is a matter of national security. Scale it back and don't actually tell anyone. But if you de-commission the whole shooting match you can be sure all the important people in the world will know before you can say "WTF?" We need to be a bit mysterious over what we save on this, like the national equivalent of the Pink Panther.
N Korea is estimated to have 10 warheads - not currently viable but they exist.
First thing I think of is this bloody thread!
One of my mates said he was a floating voter - joked when he got off the train that he was Tory confirmed now!
I really hope you posted it by mistake and it's not what you really meant to imply.