UK to spend 2500 MILLION pound on F35fighter project

[melthebell 862]

lol at all this detering, our biggest threat now is from Islamic extremist terrorism, somehow I don't think much deters them,if they get THE bomb, god help us all

[Mr Clowning 10]

Problem is the planes don't work properly, and perhaps never will.

 

That's not much of a deterrent is it?

 

I don't know, its put people off giving the MOD money

[Mecky 10]

Does having by-weekly bin collections effect your national security?

 

 

It may do, if disease spreads like the plague

[Mr Clowning 10]

How many is needed for a deterrent?

1 real one and 200 card board cut outs

[alchemist 35]

Never heard of NATO, an attack on one is attack on all?

 

Are we not part of NATO then?

 

You have absolutely no idea what a future Russia will do, or a strident and confident China or even India for that matter.

 

 

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting the India and China would come halfway round the world, missing out far better targets, to invade the UK? REALLY???

 

Anyway, if they did, by your own comments, NATO would stop them

 

---------- Post added 13-02-2014 at 08:47 ----------

 

Whatever the terrorists hold dear.

 

 

So that would be allah then. You DO know have his adress so we can assure we target the right place.

 

 

So without nukes what would you do if the terrorists nuked London; sit back and wait for the next one?

 

What would Italy do if the nuked Rome?

 

If they DID determine who was responsible, are you seriously suggesting that our government would then nuke their capital???

 

---------- Post added 13-02-2014 at 08:52 ----------

 

This is very strange logic! Just because nuclear weapons are not appropriate to counter a particular threat that means they're of no use for any other type of threat.

 

But in the modern envioronment terrorsits are the ONLY threat to the UK. What other threats are there? Cyber attack? Quick nuke, them. Ecomonic attack? Quick, nuke them. Non-existant nuclear threat? Qucik, lets invent one, THEN nuke them.

 

---------- Post added 13-02-2014 at 08:56 ----------

 

I don't know, but what I do know is that Russia always had more nukes than the US, so how many you have doesn't necessarily matter.

 

So if amount doesnt really matter let us just have the one to keep the nuke fans happy and maintain our deterrant. That will also keep the cost down and keep the austerity fans happy. Everyones a winner!! Even I would accept keeping one of the old ones that we have already paid for as long as it means we dont waste yet more money buying replacements that will never get used and need replacing yet again in the future.

 

---------- Post added 13-02-2014 at 09:04 ----------

 

Why are you trying to derail a thread about the F35 with an argument about nuclear capability?

 

All I did was point out how much money we have and will waste on pointless weaponary. Others took exception to it and derailed the thread.

 

AFAIK from some of the reports that I have heard the F35's are not fully tested and may not be suitable for the job and so are ANOTHER waste of money

[anarchist 10]

I can understand why the public feel like they do about paying taxes when such large amounts of it is spent on things like this. It continues of course while local authorities see their allowance from central government cut, and we see the end result as the local authorities reduce the services they provide to us.

 

Quote

Nevertheless, the rise in expenses has sparked alarm in the British Ministry of Defence, which already has to do something about the cost of the future two British aircraft carriers. Initially estimated at £3.5 billion ($5.6 billion), the project cost has soared to £6.2 billion ($9.9 billion).

 

The world spends 2.5% of world GDP on defence.

 

The UK spends 2.5% of UK GDP on defence.

 

Smack bang on the world average.

[Dromedary 166]

The world spends 2.5% of world GDP on defence.

 

The UK spends 2.5% of UK GDP on defence.

 

Smack bang on the world average.

 

That's because its an average, in reality its 4th in the table of top defence budget spenders.

 

Defence is about keeping it population safe from aggressors so should be based on it population figures not yearly GDP.

 

1 USA population = 314M = $2172 per person

2 UK population = 64M = $968 per person

3 Russia population = 144M = $632 per person

4 China population = 1.35B = $122 per person

Edited February 13, 2014 by Dromedary

[Guest]

 

So if amount doesnt really matter let us just have the one to keep the nuke fans happy and maintain our deterrant. That will also keep the cost down and keep the austerity fans happy. Everyones a winner!! Even I would accept keeping one of the old ones that we have already paid for as long as it means we dont waste yet more money buying replacements that will never get used and need replacing yet again in the future.

 

 

If nuclear weapons didn't exist the latter half the 20th century would have been very messy, the Chinese with a million strong army would have had a pop at some point.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Guest

[spilldig 186]

Just seen today though that they look like writing £80 billion off in unrecovered student loans.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Whatever the terrorists hold dear.

 

So without nukes what would you do if the terrorists nuked London; sit back and wait for the next one?

 

What would you nuke in retaliation - and then what would it have achieved?

 

This is very strange logic! Just because nuclear weapons are not appropriate to counter a particular threat that means they're of no use for any other type of threat.

 

What kind of threat are they useful against?

 

 

 

I don't know, but what I do know is that Russia always had more nukes than the US, so how many you have doesn't necessarily matter.

 

One would appear to be enough, if you're going to use it. Two at the outside.

 

If nuclear weapons didn't exist the latter half the 20th century would have been very messy, the Chinese with a million strong army would have had a pop at some point.

 

Actually, it would have led to an unprecedented era of peace and cooperation.

 

Just seen today though that they look like writing £80 billion off in unrecovered student loans.

£80,000,000,000 - are you sure it's not £80,000,000?

[erebus 10]

Gangsters are fond of going round small businesses, offering insurance, as accidents might happen ad they would protect, for a weekly fee. Thus people were introduced to fear, as those that did not feel they needed insurance, found they were out of business, fire, theft, which made those sitting on the fence consider their position.

 

So inducing fear makes people fall into line, its a form of inducement.

 

This methodology was not lost on sections of governments, who were aligned with the industrial military brigade, war being the most profitable of businesses ever invented. Thus to remove billions from the tax revenues, a population needs persuading, and they need to be made aware of threat. Thus threats are invented. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria pose a direct threat to this little island off Europe, all with dictators as bad or worse threat than Hitler ever was. As most people were not alive and have no idea apart from the killing of 6 million Jews, what it was all about, how it happened, or how Russia won the war for us all, it is easy to exaggerate the threat. Once the threat has been established in the populations mind, the government then offers to save us all, through various forms of warfare, thus justifying spending lots of tax revenue in the corporate sector.

 

The fact we initially encouraged our people to fight in Syria, against yet another terrible tyrant, while ours and others lied and are backing terrorists groups as it serves their aims. It takes a long time to surface, and billions in Tax revenue has already been spent, and allocated. In Afghanistan we helped and backed farmers and drug barons to harvest bumper crops, so the world could be flooded with heroin.

 

But remember our government/s have the common people's interest in mind, but maybe their own takes priority? It a case of robbing ordinary people through ingenious scams, just like the banks do, and making sure of their personal career path??????

Edited February 15, 2014 by erebus

[Kevski35 10]

Unfortunately lots of happy clapper, we live in peace, think the world is one big happy family. The equilibrium is currently maintained through deterants. Mainly thanks to the American carrier battle groups which cover about 95% of the world's population at any given time due to there strategic locations.

 

Humanity by its very nature, someone always wants to rule someone else, especially if they have something they want. China would invade Taiwan tomorrow if it could control the Taiwan straights rather than the American navy. It would then move onto Tibet, probably followed by Japan if thre was no resistance. Russia would move on Ukraine as it trys to rebiuld the USSR and control as much of the world resources as it could. Argie's would invade Falklands tomorrow if they didn't think there was nuclear sub skulking around in the south Atlantic. Spain would take Gibraltar by force. Rich countries in the middle east can't arm themselves fast enough to protect their assets.

 

Its a dangerous world and you can't un invent weapons that have already been invented. In fact billions get spent the world over on research to give yourself the next super weapon.