It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theresa May says "Yes," she's prepared to kill hundreds of thousands in nuke attack

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
"Which part of the non-proliferation treaty do they not understand?"

All of it. I could be mistaken but my impression is that we’re only supposed to have the one warhead we supposedly had at the time of signing the treaty. We’ve already broken it so this really comes as no surprise.




posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: awareness10

Is this an attack because she's a woman and they cant possibly make rational decisions? This whole argument seems a little sexist to me. As far as a detergent if thr other side doesn't think you will use nukes there is no detergent in having them.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

Yes, I know how they get there.

I just think that perhaps it's time to stop all that nonsense now.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: awareness10

Is this an attack because she's a woman and they cant possibly make rational decisions? This whole argument seems a little sexist to me. As far as a detergent if thr other side doesn't think you will use nukes there is no detergent in having them.


No, it has little to do with her sex. Women can make rational decisions, i do, and i too am a woman, im just not insane as she apparently is. Why did you think it had anything to do with her being a woman?

I don't think anyone should have them personally. But unfortunately that's not the kind of world in which we live.

I believe in the op, the article mentioned this whole submarine business has been bothering swathes of Scots for a long long time. Since atleast 2014.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Wasn't capping on ya, just her harsh rhetoric is to be expected with Calais on your doorstep and people being bounced from Council Flats for refugees.

To solidify her position she will HAVE to take a harsh stance.
In honesty did you think Boris wouldn't have?

Not being a UKer I value your opinion, I just found out Trump got the nomination and here we will be suffering the worlds longest dumbest cat-fight in history.
(kill me now)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Sounds like her and Trump would be an amazing Prom couple.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

See, this is the thing. I knew that Theresa May was going to be a massive cow, because I knew she was of that persuasion already, just as I am aware that for all that he can be an amusing oaf, Boris is, above all things, before his academic credentials and aparantly high IQ, a complete oaf, with all the awareness of what real life is, or means, that one expects from a root vegetable.

As for harsh stances, actually, she didn't have to do that. Solidifying her position is irrelevant. It does nothing for the people to have her bolt herself in place like a limpet with abandonment issues. Given that the opinion of the people is all that matters, all that should ever have mattered around here, her position should be the least important thing on the agenda. She should be nothing but a servant to the people, there only to manifest our will, in accordance with our instructions, and without seeking any personal honour or glory for herself in the doing of it, or her mob of gas filled morons that she has the gall to call a political party.

And for the record, Boris would not have solidified his position by being a git. He is (and I mean this by way of a compliment) far too witless to be a believable tyrant.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Yes of course she is right, we need those Nukes to defend our food banks.
The whole country is suffering from austerity. I`d rather that she spent the money on looking after the people. Not on weapons to kill thousands of other people. I read some where the other day, about how they had almost set them off 13 times in the past by mistake. 13 times? The mind boggles at the madness of it all.
edit on 19-7-2016 by illuminnaughty because: deleted



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Whats up with that?

I wouldn't worry about it. When the Muslims take over, all the women will be wearing burkas and keeping their mouths shut.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: awareness10

She has done or said nothing that any other person at that level of power hasn't done.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: antiguaEstrella

Which is precisely why she too, needs to be called out.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: antiguaEstrella

Which makes her unfit to hold the position, along with anyone else who desires to do so.

Wouldn't you agree?



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
A key part of "Mutually Assured Destruction" is well, the "mutual" part.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
She is going to be worse than Auntie Tatcher! mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, but if she brings the apocalypse, I simply can't wait to go and roleplay like Mad Max, who's with me??



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: ketsuko
Are you assuming that just because she says she's prepared to strike that means she's talking first strike?


Because revenge mass murder is so much more palatable?


Cmon Kets you're smart enough to know that nuking innocent people isn't a good or valid option.
Only to those who disregard life.

Like the sicko Theresa May.



Anyone in control of nuclear arms must be prepared to use them. It means just that, prepared. I don't see the issue as I am sure anyone given launch keys or codes is made sure they know how and are prepared in case it is needed.


Exactly. If she had answered differently, everyone would be whining that she's not fit for the position.
edit on 7/19/2016 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Substracto
She is going to be worse than Auntie Tatcher! mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, but if she brings the apocalypse, I simply can't wait to go and roleplay like Mad Max, who's with me??


She sounds worse than Thatcher or Reagan, I would be content to just be imploded in place in the first wave, I really don't want to deal with some of these asshats



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Substracto

She will have to use them to be worse than Thatcher.

As far as I know, Thatcher was the only Prime Minister to actually threaten to use them during war time.

She threatened France that if they didn't hand over the codes for the Exocet missiles they supplied the Argies with, that were being used to sink our ships in the Falklands, Argentina would bear the full force of the British nuclear arsenal.




edit on 20/7/16 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

There are a few countries right now waving nukes around and threatening this and that. It's got to be making people uneasy, just a little. It makes me uneasy knowing these people who can't run much of anything worthwhile for 'the people', talking like this openly back and forth.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Trident is not a first strike weapon.
It's a ballistic missile that can be tracked from launch and will take some time to reach target.

So May saying she is prepared to use them merely means that she will retaliate against a country that attacks us with wmd's.

It doesn't mean she is planning a sneak attack. Merely that the deterrent effect of our own nuclear arsenal will be maintained.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join