No Nukes for Nick Clegg

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Pete_N, Jun 17, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Nick Clegg (the leader of the Lib Dems) last night stated that he would not renew the Trident missile system when it expires in 2024. Fortunately for the UK and the safety of its citizens the Lib Dems are so highly unlikely to get into power that this news story almost becomes a non-event, but the fact that a high profile politician is quite happy to tell the country that we don't need a nuclear deterrent concerns me quite considerably. It won't be long before a few more of the Westminster set jump on the bandwagon and decide that its too expensive to run Trident when its due for renewal, and that is a major worry for me.

    Successive governments have massacred our armed forces for decades through budget cuts and mis-management, and the MoD is in the immediate firing line yet again for reductions to the kitty. We have barely enough manpower for our current committments and now this clown wants to increase the demands placed on the three services furthermore by removing the most potent weapon in our arsenal. Surely any decision not to renew Trident would mean that the money saved has to be spent on recruiting more troops/sailors/marines/airmen to compensate for our vastly weaker defences, but I'm not nearly stupid enough to think that the MoD would see any of the Trident monies. All the government see is a weapon that we haven't used since we bought it (which in my opinion proves that it has been 100% effective) which costs a lot and is an easy target to reduce costs, with scant regard for the wider repercussions of a UK without nuclear armament.
     
  2. He’s not just telling the Country, though; he’s telling the entire bloody World.

    He’s one of the many pink and fluffy politicians who can’t see past the £ signs (or, more likely, Euro signs) inside their idealistic heads. He thinks we can get away with being a cog in a wheel and not a wheel; and still keep the wealth our influence attracts. He has the mentality that would have ensured parity with Portugal, Italy (or collection of States, thereof) and Greece in the late 18th Century. Fortunately, at that time, we had men of vision and stature.
     
  3. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

  4. Perhaps a friendly neighbourhood Mod would kindly bandbox the Threads? Like myself, Pete_N, probably didn’t associate “What has changed?†with Cleggie and our Untersee sunshine generator.
     
  5. Pete_N

    but the fact that a high profile politician is quite happy to tell the country that we don't need a nuclear deterrent concerns me quite considerably. It won't be long before a few more of the Westminster set jump on the bandwagon and decide that its too expensive to run Trident when its due for renewal, and that is a major worry for me.

    Where've you been mate? Westminster is hooching with them - and there are plenty on here who'd get shot as well - particularly those who subscribe to the conspiracy theory / US controlled PoV......
     
  6. I find it very hard to form a conclusive opinion on this issue. Primarily I think that nuclear weapons are an abominable product of man's scientific advancement outstripping his moral maturity. That exterminating what may currently be the only sapient life in the universe is even considered as a means of defending an idea as crass as tribe appals me. There absolutely needs to be a unified and sincere nuclear disarmament of all powers and joint endeavour, including the use of forced regime change to prevent the development of weapons of that order of magnitude.

    However, back in the real world the difficulty presents itself that morally immature powers would not disarm and would have a significant advantage over those higher minded states that did and that this would be a significant step back for humanity as a whole.

    Thus, while I hope that Britain would never use her nuclear weapons even in a tactical situation, (which I feel sets a precedent and ultimately leads to strategic use,) or a situation where nuclear weapons had been used against her it is obvious that their presence is diplomatically significant.

    I think that the only realistic path to sincere and unified global disarmament is to educate (and by educate I mean engrave onto their fucking souls,) children on a global scale as to the barbarity of such weapons and wait for them to inherit the civilizations of their fathers.

    Too Long, Didn't Read: Nick Clegg's mind being open to nuclear disarmament is good, but to disarm now would only empower the barbaric and ignorant. Also, of all the noble reasons for nuclear disarmament he wants to do it because we are skinters. Are you fucking serious?

    Edit: And my post is rendered totally meaningless by posting it in the wrong thread. Self Five! [Prokofiev High Fives Himself.]
     
  7. Prokofiev. Good Post. You're not on the wrong Thread; just the alternative right one.
     

Share This Page