David Cameron - "UK must keep Trident nuclear deterrent"

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Did look around but couldn't see this on here yet.

God now we are at it!

David Cameron has said the UK would be "foolish" to abandon Trident in the face of the potential threat of nuclear attack from North Korea and Iran.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, he said the country still required the "ultimate weapon of defence".

www.bbc.co.uk...

This is getting stupid now.....
edit on 3-4-2013 by Bishbop09 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Bishbop09
 


F that!

We need to keep more meteorites and harness the power to control them.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Why would the British want to get rid of one of their most powerful deterrents?

Do they want to rely on America to protect them?

What if America is no longer there to protect them? Let me guess, the pacificts in parliament want to take the money from the Trident program and give the poor more benefits.

That's the real joke.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Why would the British want to get rid of one of their most powerful deterrents?

Do they want to rely on America to protect them?

What if America is no longer there to protect them? Let me guess, the pacificts in parliament want to take the money from the Trident program and give the poor more benefits.

That's the real joke.


From what I know, a few years back we was going to scrap it for a more powerful system, I read this almost two years ago now so I don't have any links to this information. I think the twits at the top of our poor excuse for a government are bring it up as a reminder we still have it?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Why would the British want to get rid of one of their most powerful deterrents?


Yeah, I don't understand it either. I'm British and the last thing I want if for Trident to be scrapped, it anything I think we don't have enough nuclear deterrent.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
If a small country like NK can threaten the U.S. with it's hand full of nuke warheads, how is having nuclear bombs a prevention?

If the thousands of nukes that the U.S. hold doesn't prevent the threat, how is having a nuke ""deterrent"" any use?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
If a small country like NK can threaten the U.S. with it's hand full of nuke warheads, how is having nuclear bombs a prevention?


There's a difference between threatening someone and actually carrying the threat out. North Korea isn't going to attack, they're smart enough to realise it'll be the end of the Kim dynasty if they did.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
To be honest I can't see the UK giving up it's independant nuclear deterrent in the foreseeable future.
The impression I get off people is that the majority would be against any sort of unilateral disarnament.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Wish we would bring back our nuke bombers, and i dont know why we dont build massive unmanned nuke bombers, or even just have them manned i dont care, i think we need nuke bombers as well as our subs as a deterrent.

i think we have 4 new nuke subs being built or going to be built is it? = good.
2 aircraft carriers comming in around 3-4 years too = good, i hope they have lasers and railguns built on to them by that time they really should have them or is US not sharing that tech with UK?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
DC is not speaking for me. Personally I don't give a crap if they are a deterrent. I hate the things and wish they never got invented. I am all for nuclear disarmament, not just here but globally.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
Wish we would bring back our nuke bombers, and i dont know why we dont build massive unmanned nuke bombers, or even just have them manned i dont care, i think we need nuke bombers as well as our subs as a deterrent.


Nuclear armed subs are the ultimate deterrence as, unlike Bombers, are hard to intercept, especially given we make the best damned subs in the world.


Originally posted by blobby
i think we have 4 new nuke subs being built or going to be built is it? = good.


They haven't even decided on a design yet. Construction is unlikely to start until at least after the Astute program is complete.


Originally posted by blobby
2 aircraft carriers comming in around 3-4 years too = good, i hope they have lasers and railguns built on to them by that time they really should have them or is US not sharing that tech with UK?


Nope, they won't have those. Why would they? Even the Yanks don't have lasers and railguns yet, they're all in a design phase. Lasers especially are prone to not working well at Sea.

By the way, we're not reliant on the US giving us tech, we are quite capable of designing our own toys. In fact, we share quite a bit with the Yanks as it happens. BAe were heavily involved in the F-22 and F-35 programs, plus multiple other defence systems the Americans have are not entirely home grown. The Abrams uses British designed optics and armour with German guns, for example.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Why would the British want to get rid of one of their most powerful deterrents?

Do they want to rely on America to protect them?

What if America is no longer there to protect them? Let me guess, the pacificts in parliament want to take the money from the Trident program and give the poor more benefits.

That's the real joke.


Protect them from whom?
Nobody would need protection from any perceived threat if people would quit buying into the idea that we are all going to die from attack at any moment.

Just who the hell is doing the attacking right now this minute?

USA/UK/CANADA/ etc etc.....
We are all CNN Idiots with no minds of our own.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
If a small country like NK can threaten the U.S. with it's hand full of nuke warheads, how is having nuclear bombs a prevention?

If the thousands of nukes that the U.S. hold doesn't prevent the threat, how is having a nuke ""deterrent"" any use?


Bingo.....and I agree 100%

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
There is no such thing as a nuclear deterrent, only mutually assured destruction. When a single nuke goes, chances are all of them will.

Not to mention fallout spreading around the globe.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by cconn487
 


That is why it is a deterrent.....


Nobody wants to be destroyed, hence it deters them from using their own Nukes.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Jeebus, don;t be so naive. If the UK (or anyone) disarmed themselves to the point of irrelevance, then do you honestly not think for one minute that countries like China, Russia, NK for example would not take advantage.

If it wasn't for the US military in the Pacific, China would be land grabbing like there was no tomorrow. They are already testing the water with various neighbours and how far they can push their claims as it is.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by cconn487
 


That is why it is a deterrent.....


Nobody wants to be destroyed, hence it deters them from using their own Nukes.


The whole premise of a deterrent is to keep them from constructing/obtaining them. Which hasn't worked. Deterred from using them yes, but not gaining access to them.

I see if from your viewpoint though
edit on 4-4-2013 by cconn487 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by cconn487
 


I don't think anyone ever believed that merely having nukes would deter people from having them, but it certainly does work in deterring people from using them.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Firefly_
 




I hate the things and wish they never got invented.


But we live in the real world and they were invented and we can't uninvent them.

The horrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed the world exactly what happens when nuclear weapons are used.

Mutually Assured Destruction probably prevented a full a large scale war during The Cold War and nuclear capability remains the ultimate deterrent.
China, Russia, France, the USA and UK have all shown they fully understand those consequences and the responsibility they have.

I understand the point when people say 'protect us from who?' - but who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Personally I prefer the option of having nuclear weapon capablity and not using it above the alternative options.

ETA
I would support a moratorium on all nuclear weapon testing and development.
edit on 4/4/13 by Freeborn because: Add ETA





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join