|
|
Trident
Jul 18, 2016 21:32:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 18, 2016 21:32:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 11:45:00 GMT
They're all in it up to their thieving necks... "But the most shocking aspect of this is one financial institution so far not mentioned: the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). RBS are also financiers of the VEB bank who fund Russia’s nuclear submarines – and they also invest or part-own seven companies directly contracted to Trident. What is most deplorable about this is the fact that RBS is, of course, state-owned – we bought a 79% majority stake after the 2008 financial crash." Here... |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Jul 19, 2016 12:10:47 GMT
The nuclear peace is not a fact. It is a hypothesis trying to link two observable facts: the existence of nuclear weapons in the world since 1945 and the absence of war between the United States and the Soviet Union during the same period. The nuclear peace hypothesis faces the challenge of proving a negative. In these circumstances, faith in the nuclear peace becomes a bet or a matter of trust. theconversation.com/why-british-politicians-find-it-so-hard-to-vote-against-nuclear-weapons-62655 |
|
Gort
New Member
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by Gort on Jul 19, 2016 12:21:15 GMT
We are keeping the nukes and will always have them and there aint shag all the brainless tree hugging attention seeking fukwits will ever be able to do about it. How thick does some cunt have to be not to realize that the whole point of having them is to be a DETERRENT the fact we will never deploy them means absolutely fuk all...
As well as an alarm system I have cameras installed outside my house not so that I can film cunts breaking into my property but to fuking deter them in the first place....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 12:25:38 GMT
You could be right.
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Jul 19, 2016 12:32:42 GMT
We are keeping the nukes and will always have them and there aint shag all the brainless tree hugging attention seeking fukwits will ever be able to do about it. How thick does some cunt have to be not to realize that the whole point of having them is to be a DETERRENT the fact we will never deploy them means absolutely fuk all... As well as an alarm system I have cameras installed outside my house not so that I can film cunts breaking into my property but to fuking deter them in the first place.... It's not a deterrent. It's vengeance. By the time we use them deterrence has failed. |
|
|
|
Post by Whiterum on Jul 19, 2016 12:42:43 GMT
Trident will not protect usIn the decade or so from 2017-18, the current plan is to spend between £25bn and £30bn building four vast new submarines whose sole purpose will be to patrol the high seas 24/7 waggling our nuclear bomb at – er – no one in particular. For another 30 years we'll spend £3bn a year in today's money operating them, and one day it will cost several billion more to decommission our nukes. Yet our national security strategy has downgraded the nuclear threat to "secondary", and we have had no identified nuclear adversary since the end of the cold war.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Jul 19, 2016 13:12:46 GMT
I would think Russia, China, North Korea could be considered possible nuclear adversarys, 4 subs means you can keep one deployed,
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Jul 19, 2016 13:30:46 GMT
As FA pointed out NK is not a threat to us and in respect of China & Russia our nukes are counter productive. We wouldn't be a threat to them so why nuke us? They are not weapons to acquire land with they are weapons to destroy lands.
They are illegal under all rules of war, replacement of them a clear violation of the NPT which requires us to move towards disarming.
|
|
|
|
Trident
Jul 19, 2016 17:21:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 19, 2016 17:21:24 GMT
As FA pointed out NK is not a threat to us and in respect of China & Russia our nukes are counter productive. We wouldn't be a threat to them so why nuke us? They are not weapons to acquire land with they are weapons to destroy lands. They are illegal under all rules of war, replacement of them a clear violation of the NPT which requires us to move towards disarming. Just for the avoidance if doubt, this is nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 19, 2016 17:26:40 GMT
Just for the avoidance of doubt, the stuff about NK not being a meaningful threat to us is not nonsense, and even if they were Trident would be redundant with regards to deterrence against North Korea. If, bizarrely, North Korea did decide to fire nukes at, say, Ipswich rather than Seoul or Tokyo or San Diego or Beijing, I think we can be comfortable that Obama or Clinton would turn Pyongyang into a pile of ashes whether or not we have Trident.
|
|
|
|
Trident
Jul 19, 2016 17:37:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 19, 2016 17:37:07 GMT
Just for the avoidance of doubt, the stuff about NK not being a meaningful threat to us is not nonsense, and even if they were Trident would be redundant with regards to deterrence against North Korea. If, bizarrely, North Korea did decide to fire nukes at, say, Ipswich rather than Seoul or Tokyo or San Diego or Beijing, I think we can be comfortable that Obama or Clinton would turn Pyongyang into a pile of ashes whether or not we have Trident. Yes, this is a fair point. I had taken that as read and obviously distinct from the other mentalness. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 19, 2016 17:44:33 GMT
Yeah, the rest of OH's nonsense does appear to be utter crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Jul 19, 2016 18:03:39 GMT
Just for the avoidance of doubt, the stuff about NK not being a meaningful threat to us is not nonsense, and even if they were Trident would be redundant with regards to deterrence against North Korea. If, bizarrely, North Korea did decide to fire nukes at, say, Ipswich rather than Seoul or Tokyo or San Diego or Beijing, I think we can be comfortable that Obama or Clinton would turn Pyongyang into a pile of ashes whether or not we have Trident. I wouldn't want to trust my back to Obama, Clinton, or even Trump. better to have your own attack dog then to depend on others |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Jul 19, 2016 20:12:59 GMT
As FA pointed out NK is not a threat to us and in respect of China & Russia our nukes are counter productive. We wouldn't be a threat to them so why nuke us? They are not weapons to acquire land with they are weapons to destroy lands. They are illegal under all rules of war, replacement of them a clear violation of the NPT which requires us to move towards disarming. Just for the avoidance if doubt, this is nonsense. Nope, weapons that cannot discriminate are illegal, no way anyone can claim to be pointing them at military or any pretense of "collateral damage The NPT requires that countries with nukes at the outset move towards disarmament, no way can upgrading nuclear armaments be considered to be fullfilling that requirement. If the UNSC permanent members were not all nuked up we'd have resolutions against them. There is no comprehensive or universal ban on nuclear weapons in international law, although in 1996 the International Court of Justice concluded that the use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the principles and rules of international humanitarian law (IHL). The Court also concluded that States were under an obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.www.icrc.org/en/document/nuclear-weaponsSufficiently embaressed yet? |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Jul 19, 2016 20:14:48 GMT
Yeah, the rest of OH's nonsense does appear to be utter crap. See above link. |
|
|
|
Post by wetkingcanute on Jul 21, 2016 9:40:30 GMT
Donald Trump has said that if he is elected president he may abandon a guarantee of protection to fellow Nato countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whiterum on Jul 21, 2016 9:59:10 GMT
Good, then America can fight it's own wars, and leave the rest of us out of them. Sorted.
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Jul 21, 2016 10:42:42 GMT
Donald Trump has said that if he is elected president he may abandon a guarantee of protection to fellow Nato countries. Even a stopped clock..... The US nuclear umbrella argument is utter crap, the US kept nukes in Europe to make Europe a buffer , the Soviets would need to attack Europe first giving the US more time to launch their attack. But what Trump, and he's exactly the same as all prior presidents, is peddling is equiva. lent to the insurance Al Capone offered. A better and cheaper insurance is available, not make enemies. |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Jul 21, 2016 11:06:22 GMT
|
|
