how to defend youself from a terrorist with a briefcase. - by Raven
Aircraftkiller on 4/12/2006 at 18:54
Your thread title is misleading. North Korea, China, most likely Iran - those three are potential threats and all of them (possibly with the exception of Iran) have the ability to launch a nuclear strike. If I'm not mistaken, China maintains missiles pointed at both the United States and Taiwan if not the United Kingdom as well.
I can understand frustration over it, but nuclear weaponry is a fact of life these days and maintaining an armed deterrence - even in peacetime - ensures your nation's safety and their means of retaliation in case of nuclear war.
Although it's not as if the US wouldn't nail someone who attempted to strike England or Scotland with thermonuclear weapons... So I can imagine this being Blair's way of maintaining independence from the US for the UK's own defense.
Either way I'd rather the UK keep the bomb over having a terrorist asshole get their hands on one.
Rug Burn Junky on 4/12/2006 at 18:55
Quote:
terrorist with a briefcase
Was expecting anti-lawyer joke ITT.
SD on 4/12/2006 at 18:58
Quote Posted by Raven
terrorist with a briefcase
I don't think our nuclear deterrent is intended to combat the threat of Al Qaeda; rather, it's there as an insurance policy against the likes of North Korea and Iran.
So far as the SNP is concerned, I do wonder whether they'd be quite so vociferously anti-Trident if BAE employed thousands of engineers in Scotland!
I also find it strange that the SNP would want to break away from the tyrants in England because then, having no deterrent of their own, they'd have to cosy up to the likes of the USA for that kind of defence.
Nuclear disarmament is a nice idea in theory, but at this moment in time it's hopelessly impractical. And when the costs of keeping Trident aren't much greater than the costs of decommisioning it altogether, it makes no financial sense either.
R Soul on 4/12/2006 at 19:39
I think Scotland would be more likely to cosy up to the EU. And I'm sure there are plenty of people in the EU who would love to have them seeing as they would have only just left Britain.
Out out the Union and into the Union. Except that Scottish voters will have less influence over the new one.
As for the Trident thing, and uncharacteristically sensible decision from Tony. Should annoy his party then.
Raven on 4/12/2006 at 22:39
"Your thread title is misleading." - exactly what tony is hoping too.
"Nuclear disarmament is a nice idea in theory, but at this moment in time it's hopelessly impractical." - and when is it NOT going to be, espacially with the following quoted attitudes.
"And when the costs of keeping Trident aren't much greater than the costs of decommisioning it altogether, it makes no financial sense either." - WMD, remember those things are bad! How much value do we put on innocent casulaties and how does it compare to keeping the value of our economy. frankly I would be happy to take the economic hit if it lessened the shear stupidly of nuclear weapons for me and my children (and ofcourse with the biggest report threat to the economy now-a-days is golbal warming... are these new death machines going to be green?) It is very hard to change the state of market force nowadays... but this is a issue that the brittish CAN vote on - and it will be a crime if we let the conservatives or the torys, sorry tonys, sorry labour create new nukes with the blessing of the british people.
"So far as the SNP is concerned, I do wonder whether they'd be quite so vociferously anti-Trident if BAE employed thousands of engineers in Scotland!"
1st - we are talking WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION take your money and
2nd - what scottish engineers? the 20 billion that people are quoting doesn't include the cost of turning dis-illusioned glasgow neds into ship engineers... we don't even build our own bloody boats of death! the sunday paper were talking 78billion as a closer figure.
Was expecting anti-lawyer joke ITT. - if only.
R Soul on 4/12/2006 at 23:16
Quote:
How much value do we put on innocent casulaties and how does it compare to keeping the value of our economy. frankly I would be happy to take the economic hit if it lessened the shear stupidly of nuclear weapons for me and my children
There are countries that hate us (and they'll find any excuse) that are trying to get nuclear capability. If we allowed our own nuclear capability to diminish, it could put our own innocent citizens at risk.
Uncia on 4/12/2006 at 23:38
Indeed, because the population incinerated in the first strike would totally come back to life the moment the other country turned to glass. Also, this is exactly how foreign countries operate: "okay, we can take 724 nukes, but no a single one more. So the moment US' nuclear arsenal drops below that number... BAM! They're gonners! Cue maniacal laughter!"
OnionBob on 5/12/2006 at 00:36
Quote Posted by Uncia
Indeed, because the population incinerated in the first strike would totally come back to life the moment the other country turned to glass. Also, this is exactly how foreign countries operate: "okay, we can take 724 nukes, but no a single one more. So the moment US' nuclear arsenal drops below that number... BAM! They're gonners! Cue maniacal laughter!"
you understand the notion of mutually assured destruction
