Rasmie Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 Sweden? I don't think so....................... ask a Norwegian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeMascus Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 Just a few little notes on BAE, to show what a good and dependable company they are:[*:b9394b218c]Nimrod (£0.7bn over a £2.8bn budget and 7½ years late)[*:b9394b218c]Astute Submarine (£1bn over a £2.6bn budget and 3½ years late)[*:b9394b218c]Type 45 Destroyers (£635m over a £5.5bn budget and 2 years late)[*:b9394b218c]Eurofighter (£???bn over a £17bn budget and 5 year late)The Eurofighter overrun is not cited due to "commercial confidentiallity." No wonder the MoD needs the budget increase, it has to look after the people who are "looking after" our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 I reckon we should keep them. Its all very well arguing that its a lot of money that could be spent on better things, but there are more important things than health and education. Their can be no national health service without a nation. The current threats that we face from relatively small scale terrorist attacks aren't something which can be defended using nukes, but with the number of psycho heads of state around it's surely just a matter of time before one of them has the capability to do Britain some serious harm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudias Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 If Britain wasn't a threat it woud not have to fear retaliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 If Britain wasn't a threat it woud not have to fear retaliation. Who was Chechzlovakia threatening in 1938? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargon Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Except now Britain is the aggressor. Replacing of Trident, the building of new aircraft carriers, the building of super-destroyers, the purchase of a load of F-35 Lightnings. That doesn't seem like defense to me, more like force projection which is another word for aggression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Sweden? I don't think so....................... ask a Norwegian I don't think Sweden has treated Norway quite as badly as the UK has treated Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petergear Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 I'm just not sure, but George Monbiot wrote an interesting piece in the Guardian last week: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/29/defence-against-what/ Enjoyed the article McFly. I've quoted a small section below: "A report published by the Oxford Research Group this summer argues that our defence policies are self-defeating. They concentrate on the wrong threats and respond to them in a manner which is more likely to exacerbate than to defuse them. The real challenges to world peace, it contends, are presented by climate change, competition over resources, the marginalisation of the poor and our own military deployments." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 What if in 10 years time. one of your brothers or sisters or mother and father was killed in London by some extremist terrorist with a nuke in a suitcase. And they say the fools in the UK gave up there nukes thinking we would do the same what stupid infidels they were the same people who criticisedThe government for giving up the nukes would be the first to criticise the same government for not keeping them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 What if in 10 years time. one of your brothers or sisters or mother and father was killed in London by some extremist terrorist with a nuke in a suitcase. And they say the fools in the UK gave up there nukes thinking we would do the same what stupid infidels they were the same people who criticisedThe government for giving up the nukes would be the first to criticise the same government for not keeping them Er... why do you think a suicide bomber with a nuke in a suitcase is going to be deterred by submarine-based nuclear missiles ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 The suicide bomber might not be deterred, but the country which supplied the suitcase nuke might think twice about it. The nuclear material used in any suitcase bomb can be traced back to the reactor which produced it by analysing the impurities in the material (not all of it is destroyed in the explosion). If London or New York, for instance, were attacked the bomb would be traced back to it's makers. Of course, this would be meaningless if it turned out to be an old Soviet bomb from the Cold War, stolen during the breakup of the USSR, but that just emphasises the need for security and policing of nuclear storage sites and borders. As I've said before in this thread, Trident was never about protecting us from terrorists. It is to prevent other countries from threatening us with nuclear weapons. Look at North Korea, detterrance works! P.S A suitcase nuke is unlikely. The US produced some in the sixties, but they were BIG suitcases which required several men to lift. Any attack is more likely to be delivered by truck or ship. (So thats all right then!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFly Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 "The real challenges to world peace, it contends, are presented by climate change, competition over resources, the marginalisation of the poor and our own military deployments." Amen to that Mr Gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Of course, this would be meaningless if it turned out to be an old Soviet bomb from the Cold War, stolen during the breakup of the USSR Yes, there's the theft angle or, indeed, nukes sometimes get lost. Pakistan and even the US Airforce are prone to this, it would seem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 What if in 10 years time. one of your brothers or sisters or mother and father was killed in London by some extremist terrorist with a nuke in a suitcase. And they say the fools in the UK gave up there nukes thinking we would do the same what stupid infidels they were the same people who criticisedThe government for giving up the nukes would be the first to criticise the same government for not keeping them Er... why do you think a suicide bomber with a nuke in a suitcase is going to be deterred by submarine-based nuclear missiles ? My point was that some day a terrorist just mite attack us with a nuke, be it in a truck or ship we don’t know what’s possible just remember 9/11 and the miniaturisation of mobile phones who is to say that they cant get a nuke in a suitcase. After all they went from flying 200 feet. (Wright brothers) 1903 to putting a man on the moon in 1969. If you had said to Alexander Graham Bell that we would all be carrying a phones in our pockets every where we went you would have bee locked up in the nearest nut house. If we give up our nukes I don’t think that the terrorists one man or a whole country of them are going to say well not get them then. Being deterred is hardly the point they mite not be but some mite think twice just Incas at lest we would have the option with out them there is no option osama bin liner is proof that army’s or the CIA cant find him they want to die for there god a few warheads mite get them all there quicker with out killing our own forces Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 this is my hundredth post !! and i would just like to say i think shetlink is a splendid invention! A year ago i hardly kent how ta switch a computer on and noo im plunkin awa on the thing every idder day! Any way all this bussiness about we must have nukes to defend ourselves is in my opinion a complete load of paranoid nonsense , i read a great book about the bomb by a guy called de groot , dutchman , and it was a real eye opener about the madness that surrounds this device , what good is the bomb to us when they are already flying in our direction we are already dead . what good is the bomb to some body that fires it ,when they fire it at somebody who already has it , they also will be dead , when they fire it at somebody who doesn't have it they poison the land beyond use , there are no spoils of war for the victor and also other countries that do have it and those who do not will want hem taken out ,they are finished its a no win - no win situation . It would make more sense for this country to us the 25 billion they plan to spend on these devices on sorting out the poverty in the countries that distrust us and want the bomb . and also show we are not a bunch of paranoid war mongers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.