Navy Net - Royal Navy Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ballistic submarines
- Thread starter Chicogiz
- Start date
electric_chef
Badgeman
In reality we don't need any, Tony's got his head so far up Georges arse he could just ask George to be our national deterrent!
anyway where's the threat these days now the cold war is over?
anyway where's the threat these days now the cold war is over?
electric_chef
Badgeman
geoffg said:
It's no good nuke'n the Islamic countries, 'cause half of them aren't at home, they are resident in the UK being educated at the cost to the British tax payer, under the guise of clerics, and religious types.
you can't fight a guerrilla war with 50 megaton nuclear weapons.
the yanks can deal with North Korea and Iran you know they want to!
theoldti
Lantern Swinger
Without trying to sound to simplistic, the idea behind having 4 nukes is perfectly well explained above. The reason we have them at all is so this country of ours can remain a BIG TIME PLAYER. Without them we have nothing left and would very quickly get our arses kicked out of the super 7/G8 club and be on level terms with Trinindad and Tobago.
We have a big stick (Trident) and you can come and have a go if you think your hard enough!!!!
We have a big stick (Trident) and you can come and have a go if you think your hard enough!!!!
theoldti said:
Contributor Mode
A simplistic argument Theoldti
Of the G8 Members UK, USA, France and Russia, thats four, have Nuke weapons.
Italy, Canada, Japan and Germany do not, that four as well.
G7 Countries Germany, Japan, Canada and Italy do not have nuke weapons, thats four.
The minority, USA, UK and France do, thats three.
So why do you suppose, Germany, France, Italy and Japan are on par with Trinidad and Tabago and have not been kicked out of the big league.
Now if you had said the five permanent members of the UN Security Council all have nuke weapons then you could enter that as an argument. But then since Korea nearly 60 years ago was the only binding decision that the Council has ever taken that has been obeyed and that by force. The Korea decision only happened because the USSR missed the meeting and China was not a member of the UN at that time.
So that puts that one to bed now is it Independent well Electric-chef got that one correct.
I am not anti nuclear weapons I just see no need for the UK to still maintain a Strategic Intercontinental Nuclear Weapon System.
If you have a better argument I am all ears.
Nutty
PS We are still currently the fourth largest economy in the world so are hardly a minnow in the pond.
The title is fascinating. I read it and had instant visions of a boat doing a fair imitation of a Polaris/Trident missile. That or being dropped free-fall from a f*cking huge bomber.
OK why do we have such boats? I know that there was a time when they made sense. Now that the original threat has faded somewhat and their continued presence is not so easy to justify, I can only assume that the Big Boys don't want to lose their toys.
OK why do we have such boats? I know that there was a time when they made sense. Now that the original threat has faded somewhat and their continued presence is not so easy to justify, I can only assume that the Big Boys don't want to lose their toys.
OSLO
War Hero
Isn't it wonderful for e_c to guarantee that they'll never come a time when there might be a escalation of events between nations where there is a need for a deterrent like Trident? I'm not a fan of the things, but they do a job, give the UK a card at the international level and I can't divine the future.
Similar threads
Latest Threads
-
-
-
-
Plan for Jobs: Chancellor increases financial support for businesses and workers
- Started by MoD_RSS
- Replies: 0
-
