Reply With QuoteAgree, but we don't feel important enough if we leave it to others. We want to pretend we're still a big fish.Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Maybe they already do this
Ultimate cost is likely to be in excess of £200bn not £30bn alsoIt has crossed my mind before.
Agree, but we don't feel important enough if we leave it to others. We want to pretend we're still a big fish.
I thought £31bn sounded cheap, and can remember reading £200bn.Maybe they already do this
Ultimate cost is likely to be in excess of £200bn not £30bn also
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ts-for-against
Suggests £205bn over 30 years.
For just 215 warheads. Fewer than Russia, the US, France and China.
They might as well just tell people we have them and spend the money on the NHS, would any of us know any know any different?
None at the moment, however the world is constantly changing. Just because the threat isn't here right now doesn't mean it won't always be.
Yes well done for voting in a weapon of mass distruction.
Only costs about 32 billion so they say with 2.5 billion a year to run
Great news
Well done Corbyn for sticking to his guns I'm starting to like him
Aren't you always saying we shouldn't worry about what might happen and all that jazz?
I've certainly never seen it.
A few questions as so many seem to have their minds made up ?
What was the alternative in terms of a deterrent defense ?
Surely it's better to have a powerful weapon to put people off attacking you than not ?
If so, what alternative plan was there ?
Secondly won't the money spent on this end up going to UK companies?
I know plenty of engineering businesses who depend heavily on work carried out for the MOD ?
I say things usually work themselves out. Only because in general the right options are chosen.Aren't you always saying we shouldn't worry about what might happen and all that jazz?
Don't you think we are more vulnerable in other ways?
it wasn't just the Tories who voted for this, a lot of modern socialist did as well
Modern socialists = tories with a red rosette.
Spot on mate, makes perfect sense what you just said.
aye a know. cheers pal.
Through the streets in mah kilt I'll gooo
Its also a worry that Isis almost created a state ,and were earning revenues ,and money can buy you anything , not just crap danish strikers.
What is the collective noun for Nuclear Supporting people.
A Shite ?
Exactly.
Sounds a good idea.....but unrealistic.
The one thing I don't understand with Trident is that, if a country wants to nuke us and they (as it were) "press the button", we'll all be dead long before we get the chance to deploy it. It might act as a deterrent but if another country decides to nuke us we're ****ed whether we have trident or not.
And yet no one has nuked those countries without Trident equivalents since the only time they were used on people over seventy years ago. You saw Russia as a potential nuclear threat which justified Trident, but they didn't use their nuclear weapons against Czechoslovakia in 1968 or against Afghanistan (a conflict they are generally reckoned to have lost), so I'm not sure how and why they would do so against a country that is thousands of miles further away than either of those two - surely even Boris Johnson wouldn't think of invading Russia would he?
As BIS says, we'd be much better off if we just accepted our current position in the world and stopped behaving as if we still had an empire.
They wouldn't get the submarine which is stationed in the ocean somewhere in the world,so they are aware we could retaliate.
Posting Permissions
