Brown move to cut UK nuclear subs

Originally posted by Haydn_17
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

I wish you wouldnt take things so literal.

well it's only in the vain hope you stop making ridiculous statements about issues you really haven't thought through.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Like what?

You have previously stated that the UK faces no threat from Muslim extremists and that Britain faces no cultural threat from immigration or the PC Brigade.

So who or what exactly does pose a threat to the UK?

1. You thought i was serious about germans invading
2. you thought i thought we still had the empire.

You seem to think as long as we have nato and the us nobody dare attack us.
Ever heard of standing up for yourself?

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Haydn_17]

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

Like what?

You have previously stated that the UK faces no threat from Muslim extremists and that Britain faces no cultural threat from immigration or the PC Brigade.

So who or what exactly does pose a threat to the UK?

I have never stated that Muslim extremism is of no threat. It obviously is. I just dont believe the EDL are the best thing for dealing with the situation and dont believe we will all be living under sharia law. EVER

other threats, include the threat of global warming, which again will be swept under the carpet at the G20. The threat of increasing civil unrest as the economy gets worse and more public workers are laid off. These are more immediate threats than attack from a foreign nation.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


But your responses to everything seems to be one of appeasement.
I'm sure you recognise the phrase.
The very policy Chamberlain used in his approach to Hitler which led directly to WWII.
Yet you constantly seem to approve of the same approach today, beit with Muslim extremists or our Armed Forces etc.

As for civil unrest, if the current policies are pursued then it is inevitable....but that is for another thread as is the whole Global Warming issue, but at least you recognise that there are some threats.

Personally I believe that Islamification and The Lisbon Treaty are the two biggest threats our nation has faced since WWII.

But surely you also recognise that the moment a nation / state drops it's guard then someone wants to attack it, history is littered with this lesson!

I note with a heavy heart, that the bickering amongst posters has started already.

If you know nothing about the subject, why bother posting such utter drivel?

For the record, we do need 4 submarines to maintain any type of deterrent, let alone a nuclear option.

We Brits agruably make the best hunter-killer submarines in the world, the Astute class. Why, it can even detect American subs leaving their bases in the US whilst it sits in dry dock at Devonport!

What we don't need, is Trident D IV or Block IV or whatever else Donald Rumsfeld's company calls them.

In buying Trident, all we are doing is creating defence jobs in the US, jobs in Devonport (owned by Rumsfeld), creating American manufacturing jobs in the US for it's citizens - all at a cost to the British economy.

Yes, we should replace Trident with another nuclear deterrent, but one which is designed, developed and built by British companies.

I suggest a British cruise missile which can mount a smaller nuclear warhead. Any nuclear warhead can destroy a city or hundreds of thousands of people - you don't need a big bomb to do that.

As I said, the Astute class of boats is the best in the world - so why can't it be refitted to take long range cruise missiles - job done!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by fritz]

reply to post by fritz


I have never professed to be an expert on nuclear weapons or on all things military, however, I do recognise the need for an independant nuclear capability and high quality submarines.

What you say makes perfect sense to me allthough I don't know how practical your suggestion would be.

Obviously it would also provide jobs from the design stage right through to manufacturing and that could only be a benefit in today's current climate.

reply to post by Freeborn


I was waiting for the appeasement charge. I just don't see a direct threat, like the one Hitler posed in the 1930-40 period not only to the UK, but the whole of Europe. times have changed.

You would like me to believe that islamofication represents the same threat today as Nazism .did proceeding ww2. I'm afraid i'm just not buying it.

Back to the debate though, I believe we should get rid of all our Nuclear weapons, spend the money on improving the country.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by woodwardjnr]

[edit on 23-9-2009 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Who knows where the threat comes from...but it is best to be prepared.

Islamification poses an internal threat...we don't know where the next external threat will come from, but as sure as night follows day there will be one soon.

The EU?
What happens if we get our democratic right and have a referendum on The Lisbon Treaty and / or continued membership of the EU and we rescind our membership?

Not saying it will happen, but.....?

I've always wanted to be able to look after myself and not rely on other people, because they rarely come through....unfortunately that is life.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


We might as well get rid of our army as well, and the TA, were never gonna get invaded by anyone after all.

Originally posted by Haydn_17
Right so when the SHTF everyone else has got thousands of nukes and we sitting here with mumbling brown " Oh we got rid ouf ours mumble mumble"

A country with no defense makes for an easy target.

Should it ever hit the fan, the number of nukes we have won't be a problem, because if we ever get to the stage where they are used we'll be more concerned with trying to rebuild whats left of civilisation.

reply to post by neformore


Should the proverbial ever fly about then it will be the very fact that we HAVE a potent nuclear capability that will stop someone from nuking us....they know we can retaliate and hurt them...if we don't have that capability what is stopping someone from nuking us without response?

It is the very existence of these weapons and knowledge of what damage they can do that has prevented any major confrontations between the superpowers for 65 years.

reply to post by Freeborn


Sorry Free, but the amount of weapons the UK holds is not going to make a blind bit of difference to someone who really wants to set one off on British soil.

Thats the cold, hard fact of it.

reply to post by neformore


Nef, for once I think we should agree to disagree.

If we had a modern and up to date independant missile system on board state of the art submarines then any possible enemy would think twice about launching a nuclear strike against us.

Let's just hope upon hope that we are never in a situation that would prove you right my friend!

Originally posted by Haydn_17
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

We might as well get rid of our army as well, and the TA, were never gonna get invaded by anyone after all.

we're talking about nuclear weapons as defense here. I never mentioned the Army, in fact if you read my first response, i said we should spend the money on our troops fighting current operations. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


It is indeed good and refreshing that you recognise the need to provide adequate kit and weaponry to our Armed Forces currently in Afghanistan.

Our Armd Forces are suffering from years and years of cutbacks and are dying needlessly because of it.

Those responsible should be tried for treason or murder!

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I was using it as a figure of speech.
Your talking as if we will never get invaded and there is no risk.

I think UK try to save some money after the economic crash.
One way to do it is to cut in the army size.

The idea as I remember it, was that having an independent nuclear deterrent would make another [nuclear] nation state think twice about attacking us.

This was what was laughingly called "Mutual Assured Destruction". A 'You attack me first and kill me, but my retaliatory strike will kill you as well!' scenario.

Nuclear weapons and the immediate threat of their deployment and use, has kept the peace in Europe since the mid 1950's.

In the 60's and 70's, smaller more accurate systems were developed and deployed, along with mobile weapons.

For the first time, the US and Russian missile forces could, in theory, launch a pre-emptive first strike that could again, in theory, destroy the target country's ability to launch a retaliatory strike.

Then in the 80's, mainly thanks to Thatcher and Reagen and the so called 'Star Wars' ho-ha, the 'West' won the arms race and bankrupted the Warsaw Pact in the process.

That created the conditions whereby Berliners pulled down the hated wall and started the collapse of the communist union across Europe.

During the late 80's and early 90's, we saw the proliferation of nuclear weapons when India and Pakistan obtained the wherewithall to obtain and indeed manufacture the centrifuges required to enrich uranium and produce weapons grade materiels thereby taking the first steps in developing nuclear weapons.

The invasion of Iraq, ostensibly to look for WMD, has done little to assure the world at large that those with nuclear weapons will not bully those without.

So just where does one see a future threat to this tiny and somewhat insignificant little island of our?

A resurgent Russia? An expanding nuclear equipped China? Perhaps, with India's backing.

I cannot see a threat from Iran, North Korea, Syria or any other Arab or nation state around the world.

I see it coming from some British born fundamentalist scumbag who detonates a home-made dirty bomb at the behest of some nutter who hates this country and all it stands for.

But, in case man does not loose his wanton ability to assure mutal destruction, we'd better have a deterrent - just in case!





[edit on 23-9-2009 by fritz]

Personally I believe that Islamification and The Lisbon Treaty are the two biggest threats our nation has faced since WWII.

And no sub will defend against those threats.

The UK should spend the money on on its most valuable military resource, its soldiers. Instead they are underpaid, under protected and generally treated with disdain.

Can someone tell me what country would have any interest in nuking the UK?? Which country would be deterred by the UK's limited amount of missiles? Sorry, but there isn't enough to mutually assure destruction.