OP hates kids. He told me once through interpretive dance. Swing those hips moo-moo. As per topic... Its better to have and not need, than need and not have. Like pens. I always need pens but I never have any. Q.Q
I actually think us English need them. Maybe have to strike at Scotland with them. Or they under that silly little women will just become a mini german state Bordering us and we don't want that
I voted to be independent, i also voted to remain in the European Union with pretty much all SNP supporters but i would definetly vote to renew Trident regardless of costs, Would rather have Nukes and not need them then have none and need them especially with N. Korea doing whatever they please atm
This always amuses me too, lots of my family are Scottish, vote snp and voted remain- none of them would give up nukes, unfortunately the SNP argument of 'we don't like nukes, but we will join NATO' is rather hypocritical. With the diminishing size of the U.K. Armed forces (due to incompetency in the past 20 years at government level- take note the French military structure and industry) we NEED nuclear weapons because without them, well practically anyone could invade us.
Whenever I put these posts up, I love the fact that people agree or disagree with me when I've given an account that purposefully doesn't give my own personal opinion As for this topic to give you an update if anyone cares, parliament chose to renew the weapons by a strong majority. One person who voted to remove the weapons is the current leader of the opposition: Jeremy Corbyn. His stance is different to that of the Labour Party as a whole who have a policy of keeping trident. Is it ok for him to remain as leader when he is against his party consensus? (If this riles up enough people I may have a separate is it ok based on Jeremy and his leadership)
No, but he only won leadership as the Labour Party decided it didn't care about its core voters anymore. He shouldn't be leader, he's useless, he can't be leader whilst opposing his own parties policies, he also for the life of him cannot put a PM on the spot at PMQ.
Feel like western countries need them just to make a countries like north Korea that they can stand strong. Only problem is that I don't really see when any western country except USA would use a nuclear weapons considering how highly life is valued by society. And since the rest of the world kinda knows this, it could just end up being a waste of £50B+ or so. France already has 2 nuclear submarines I think - don't even want to know how many USA have Looking forward to the anti missile thing from America though, should smooth things out when it comes to defensive and offensive tools.
Just to note that France maintains 4 SSBNs and always has one on at-sea deterrence patrols in the Atlantic Ocean, just like the UK. In fact, I was very surprised to learn, in 2009 the subs on separate patrols in the Atlantic collided (at low speed) due to fault sonar equipment. What were the chances! :shock: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb ... es-collide As for political will to use them? Just read (or listen) to what the Prime Minister had to say about that: George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP) "I congratulate the Prime Minister on her new role, but let us cut to the chase: is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?" The Prime Minister " Yes. The whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike the suggestion that we could have a nuclear deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seemed to come from the Labour Front Bench" https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... rDeterrent
A comment worth coming out of retirement for. Corbyn is the one reason I would never vote for labour. He has nice ideals on some subjects. He even has great ideas at rare times. But he is utterly weak when it comes to national defence. If one is not willing to fight for the security of their nation, they have no right to be in office overseeing our defence and military leadership. I am not saying he must and all prime ministers must serve their nations armed forces. But they must respect those that do and understand that a military is the one thing every free nation needs, but never wants to use. Tha same for nuclear weapons. We must have them with the world in the utter mess its in today. But we can hope we never have to use them. We cannot ever have a prime minister that says we will "never use them". For then we have no defence and invite foreign aggression.
short answer: yes longer answer: regrettably yes. I was going to be clever and pontificate further on the subject, but the House debate reported by Hansard does that astonishing well already. Go read it (link in previous post). We can't put the nuclear genie back in the bottle now so we'd better continue efforts at controlling proliferation and maintaining workable relations. In the last financial year the UK total public expenditure was £795b, of which £43b was for defence. The total lifetime costs of the programme are proportionately tiny compared to that, and all of that state spending on Trident renewal supports our economy. The running costs are projected to be 6% of the defence allocation, so it appears that we do want it and we can afford it.
Well if one nuke gets launched from anyone then everyone else will just send loads at their enemies if they got some so then it's bye bye world hello fallout and if they don't wanna die I'm sure the nukes are not gonna be launched so it just seems like they are there to take up space. Unless ur a a psycho who wants the world to end I don't see the nukes being launched