Nuclear Deterrent

The Bronze

The Bronze

Rogue Demon Hunter
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
3,742
Age
40
Location
Essex
Black Thorn
There's an election coming up in the United Kingdom shortly and our nuclear deterrent system Trident has been the focus of some debate. There's only one large enough party in my area worth voting for as an alternative to the establishment parties we have at the moment but I'm not sure I agree with their policy to abandon the nuclear deterrent idea altogether. I don't want to see these weapons ever used. I don't want any more made. They're no use at all in defending against extremism or much else in all honesty. However I can't help but think that while we have them available they must act as a deterrent to an invasion from another nation. My thinking being that I can't picture the USA invading Iraq or Afghanistan if they had nuclear weapons, similarly I couldn't picture Russia invading a nuclear capable Ukraine.

So I'm interested in hearing peoples opinion on this because as much as I like the idea of nuclear disarmament I'm not convinced it's sensible given that you can't really trust anyone in the long run.
 
Personally I don't think Trident is my main concern at the movement but more trying to get the present shower of b*stards out. Imo they have done more damage and killed more people with their welfare policies then anything or anyone.
 
Mr. Pointy
Mr. Pointy
[No message]
The Bronze said:
I can't picture the USA invading Iraq or Afghanistan if they had nuclear weapons
Click to expand...
I reject that idea. I dont think nuclear weapons would stop us from invading somewhere we wanted to invade. Hell, it might be added incentive to invade.
 
Mr. Pole said:
I reject that idea. I dont think nuclear weapons would stop us from invading somewhere we wanted to invade. Hell, it might be added incentive to invade.
Click to expand...
You think so? I'm talking about armed and capable of reaching America nuclear weapons. The idea of the UK system as I understand it is that nuclear weapons will be launched from submarines should the country itself be the victim of a nuclear strike or invasion. In theory that means that should America invade then a nuclear attack would be launched against them. Not sure that would be an incentive.
 
Skanky Vamp
Skanky Vamp
Correct.. should the country be the victim of nuclear attack. Which none would do that, as they wouldnt want it onto them.
The Bronze said:
You think so? I'm talking about armed and capable of reaching America nuclear weapons. In theory that means that should America invade then a nuclear attack would be launched against them. Not sure that would be an incentive.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt a nuclear attack would be launched from an invasion. If, for instance, Afghanistan would launch a nuclear attack against the US they would have the weight of every country bearing down on them. In this day and age where everything is interconnected and reliant on one another the first country that uses nuclear weapons only dooms themselves as well. Fighting wars with nuclear weapons is really an antiquated idea.
 
Silverspike said:
Personally I don't think Trident is my main concern at the movement but more trying to get the present shower of b*stards out. Imo they have done more damage and killed more people with their welfare policies then anything or anyone.
Click to expand...
It's not mine either. I'll be voting against austerity for the poor and tax breaks for the rich. I suspect Trident will be a mute point as the four establishment parties are all broadly in favour of renewal anyway, just with slightly different ideas on the numbers. I'm just a little bit concerned about completely abandoning the deterrent if it did happen.
 
In the grand scheme of things (what with the huge cuts both the police and the army have faced under Cameron and co) it's not a major factor imo. As an armed force we're always going to be a little league.
 
You see I quite like the idea of being little league. A small defence force, not sent out roaming and causing as much problems or more than it solves. I'm just a bit concerned about aggression from larger nations in the future, obviously we'd be no match for an invasion from either Russia or America. For example we've just found a bit of oil in the East. If we weren't in America's good books and they decided they'd like that oil, our forces wouldn't match up to them. If they knew that an attempt to take it would result in a nuclear retaliation though would it make them think twice about trying?
 
I don't think owning a nuclear missile would make all that difference in the grand scheme of things really. Better to concentrate on traditional forces imo.
 
The Bronze said:
If they knew that an attempt to take it would result in a nuclear retaliation though would it make them think twice about trying?
Click to expand...
I just dont see the 'threat' of nuclear deterrent as being a deterrent. No one would take it from you because of what your allies would do. The idea that you would have someone in power WILLING to flip the switch and launch nuclear missiles I would find more scary than the idea of someone invading the country for oil.
 
Cutting Trident would be incredibly short-sighted, not for what it is but for what it represents. The UK is one of a handful of NATO nations that has nuclear weapons which gives us far more weight (both diplomatically and militaryily) on the world stage than we otherwise would have.

If we cut Trident we lose more than just those weapons, we lose all our dimplomatic pull with countries such as Iran and Russia/eastern Europe. We lose any chance of influencing/being listened to by our American/NATO allies. We become diminished in the eyes of the world.


On a separate point, I would never vote for the party who utterly bankrupted our economy as opposed to the party that's trying to get the economy back on track. Miliband was absolutely part of the problem since he (and Ed Balls) were part of PM Brown's masterful economic crapfest.

I wonder which one of them wrote the 'Good luck. All the money's gone' note for those that came after.
 
It's just like owning a gun. You own a gun NOT to use it. And hoping you never have to, but with the understanding of what it means when you do. It's the same thing with nuclear weapons but on a much larger scale. 
thetopher said:
Cutting Trident would be incredibly short-sighted, not for what it is but for what it represents. The UK is one of a handful of NATO nations that has nuclear weapons which gives us far more weight (both diplomatically and militaryily) on the world stage than we otherwise would have.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
"On a separate point, I would never vote for the party who utterly bankrupted our economy as opposed to the party that's trying to get the economy back on track. Miliband was absolutely part of the problem since he (and Ed Balls) were part of PM Brown's masterful economic crapfest."

Oh jesus and you think the Tories are doing such a bang up job then? I think you might want to do more research...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/
 
Last edited:
Silverspike said:
Oh jesus and you think the Tories are doing such a bang up job then?
Click to expand...

Do you remember what Labour did to this country? The state they left us all it? Utterly broke, borrowed up to the hilt, housing crash, a bloated state and high unemployment.
13 years of (stealth) tax and spend, selling off most of our gold reserve when the value of Gold was at a low point (short-sighted) and more people on welfare than every before.
5 year isn't enough time for them to see what they've done wrong because they still don't see it.

The Tories (and the LimDems lest we forget) haven't done everything right, but the economy IS improving and there are signs of recovery in the housing and jobs market.
You vote in Labour you get more of the same of what they did before. Even if you think they have the right strategy (and I don't) they've shown themselves to be woefully incompetent and unprincipalled when it comes to policy.
Example- in January Ed Balls was utterly opposed to abolishing non-doms because they would cost the country more than it would bring in. 3 months later and now he's all for it. 🙄
Basically I don't trust them.
 
Sorry but you truly believe that the economy is on the up, then you're a bigger fool then I took you for. It means you've obviously swallowed all the hype and propaganda that this hideously cruel government has drip fed people like you and that makes me feel very sad and incredibly worried.

Normally I don't trust any political party, labour included, but at the moment I would vote for Satan himself If he promised to get this disabled killing/NHS destroying /party out of office.

Many people I know won't be able to survive another 5 year term like the last one. Myself included.
 
Silverspike said:
Sorry but you truly believe that the economy is on the up, then you're a bigger fool then I took you for.
Click to expand...

So within three posts you've resorted to name-calling after I, very mildly, stated a reasonable case for not returning one truly awful govenment to power over another.

The sad thing is, I'm not even surprised. And if you can't even attempt to be civil I'm not going to waste my time responding to any more of your posts.
 
Thing is I take this election VERY seriously and It disturbs me when I see people believing the hype, but If me calling you a fool in the heat of the moment is all you want to take away from this encounter, then so be it.

All I will say is I hope you and yours never become old, become ill or disabled or ever loose their job.
 
thetopher said:
So within three posts you've resorted to name-calling after I, very mildly, stated a reasonable case for not returning one truly awful govenment to power over another.

The sad thing is, I'm not even surprised. And if you can't even attempt to be civil I'm not going to waste my time responding to any more of your posts.
Click to expand...

Oh and to add I apologize for calling you a fool. That was uncalled for. I should have just used the phrase 'very ill informed imo'.

The Bronze. I totally agree. It's either the rabid full on psycho Tories or Labours Tory light imo. I would vote for the Greens, but at this moment in time I know they haven't got a hope in hell of getting in, and I'm after any party that stands a chance of blocking the Tories from getting another 5 years.
 
Last edited:
The Bronze said:
@thetopher I'd give this article a read if I were you.
Click to expand...

Well I'll give it a read it but I don't tend to get my info from bloggers.
I read newspapers (the Guardian, the FT and the DT) which pretty much gives me a very balanced view of the left-and right wing view of things. I watch the BBC and Sky for how they deal with the issues of the day.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm some hard-liner- I voted for the Lim Dems and they''ve turned out to be bigger liars that either the Tory's or Labour.
Bottom line is- I'm not going to trust Ed Balls on anything, the guy is an arrogant, incompetent fool.

That's my last word on the subject- political discussions can get very ugly very quickly (as I have discovered on many occassions) and I'd rather stick to the topic of the thread. 🙂
 
GwenRaiden
GwenRaiden
Ooh, Taffy! I enjoyed your hot-headed political rants!
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom