Nuclear Deterrent

[foxy lady 10]

That is pre-supposing that they are rational, i.e non-religious and non North Korean. They wouldn't give a damn if everybody crisped because they'd either go to a Muslamic heaven or a North Korean Socialist Paradise.

 

The threat of MAD only works if both sides are rational, we are increasingly having to deal with religious zealots who would be happy to die and take everyone else with them. The only way to stop a nuclear attack, from whoever, to whoever, is to get rid of nuclear weapons.

 

Most rational folk wouldn't assume that they can know every country that will threaten the UK over the next 40 or 50 years.

 

But on the plus side it has brought the nuclear debate back to the fore. The Labour Party worked out 20 years ago that UND made them unelectable. Now they are unelectable again and they are a bigger threat to the UK than North Korea.

[newcomer01 10]

Any decision should be left to the Government of the day, which is elected after manifestos have ben published.

 

Having started this thread just to establish if people would or should be allowed to vote on this ,afterall its beng paid for out of our austerity.

Trident is portrayed as a deterrent, but quite a few comments on here have their own idea what it should be used for.First Strike,Retaliation,taking the opportunity to decry a political party.

I somehow felt that this would be the case which really not a difficult conclusion to come to.

The fact that Retaliation and Revenge has been used which really is what it is intended for and not the cover story of Deterrent which is what is being sold .

Lets face it if it is revenge or retaliation then come out and say it.

 

But just to go back to the quote,knowing full well that governments have hidden agendas and allowing them them the final say in a device that supplies total destruction is beyond me.

[foxy lady 10]

Trident is portrayed as a deterrent, but quite a few comments on here have their own idea what it should be used for.First Strike,Retaliation,taking the opportunity to decry a political party.

I somehow felt that this would be the case which really not a difficult conclusion to come to.

The fact that Retaliation and Revenge has been used which really is what it is intended for and not the cover story of Deterrent which is what is being sold .

Lets face it if it is revenge or retaliation then come out and say it.

 

.

 

I'm not sure that you have quite grasped the concept of a deterent. The enemy who may use nuclear weapons needs to be in no doubt that in the event of them making a nuclear attack on us, we would respond by firing off everything we had in their direction. That would be revenge, or retaliation but that is what the deterent is.

 

Having a "deterent" that you won't use as retaliation is no deterent whatsoever.

[Orzel 10]

That's a system that cannot be used as a first strike weapon, unlike Trident.

 

For all this talk of deterrent - it's worth remembering that Trident is a foremost a capable first strike weapon, capable of placing nuclear warheads onto most cities on the planet within 3 minutes.

 

That system is just an add on on top of russian nuclear potential.

Any of their warheads can be used for first or retaliatory strike.

Just like trident.

Plus we don't have land capacity to store safely mobile launchers like russians do.

You know, launchers that will not be destroyed in first strike rendering whole thing useless.

 

Russians were even thinking of resurrecting nuclear train project that would travel across whole Russia, similar to Trident but on land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-23_Molodets

[Guest]

I saw a video on Youtube of Vladimir Putin making a speech to journalists; he spoke about how the United States has been developing/has developed(?) a missile defence system that will/has effectively neutralised Russia's current nuclear missile system.

It then went to Russian defence experts who spoke about a new system of unmanned "planes" that carried nuclear bombs that moved at hypersonic speed in an erratic unpredictable flight path that the NATO/US system couldn't deal with.

[andyofborg 11]

something from the 80s which explores detererence

 

[Orzel 10]

something from the 80s which explores detererence

 

 

Sir, this is priceless.

[newcomer01 10]

How strange this thread has become.My initial question was should a referendum be held to have a say whether to be Nuclear or not. I think there may be one person stating that it should be a government decision ,but other than that there has been many philosophies as well as my understanding of the English language been questioned.

I think I may well prefer a yes or no answer

[andyofborg 11]

How strange this thread has become.My initial question was should a referendum be held to have a say whether to be Nuclear or not. I think there may be one person stating that it should be a government decision ,but other than that there has been many philosophies as well as my understanding of the English language been questioned.

I think I may well prefer a yes or no answer

 

there is a minimum length of post, so you cant just reply yes or no.

 

my answer would be no, we elect governments to make these sorts of decisions

[unbeliever 10]

How strange this thread has become.My initial question was should a referendum be held to have a say whether to be Nuclear or not. I think there may be one person stating that it should be a government decision ,but other than that there has been many philosophies as well as my understanding of the English language been questioned.

I think I may well prefer a yes or no answer

 

Add a poll.

[Halibut 12]

How strange this thread has become.My initial question was should a referendum be held to have a say whether to be Nuclear or not. I think there may be one person stating that it should be a government decision ,but other than that there has been many philosophies as well as my understanding of the English language been questioned.

I think I may well prefer a yes or no answer

 

If you're asking do I think we should have a referendum, my answer is a resounding 'no'.

[spilldig 190]

there is a minimum length of post, so you cant just reply yes or no.

 

my answer would be no, we elect governments to make these sorts of decisions

 

Indeed. As I have said before, I think the forum must have been designed by a politician so that you can't answer with a straight yes or no. Regarding this, unfortunately a nuclear deterrent is necessary. It's no different to years ago when someone said the cash should be spent on the NHS instead. The reply was,quite rightly, it's no good having national health teeth and national health glasses if someone blows your head off. And yes the government should make the decision.