Our Nuclear Deterrent?

[sgtkate 10]

You've demonstrated nothing of the kind only in your own delusional mind.

 

Transistors?

 

You're hilarious, I worked in an electronic systems business for thirty three years and ran my own company for sixteen of them.

 

I made sure that I never became dependent on one source of supply for any

item. The reason being that if I did and they went out of business or put their prices up ridiculously I'd be adversely affected.

 

France can buy transistors from wherever they want, we can't buy components for Trident other than from America or with American approval.

 

That's why we're dependent on them.

 

That's a fair enough distinction I'll grant you. The only reason I'm arguing with you is that I don't like it when people appear to change their argument when they shown their original stance is wrong. It was said that we couldn't fire our nukes without US say so, in a physical sense this statement is wrong, we can most definitely press the fire button and a nuke would launch, there is of course the political element too that we are intentionally ignoring as it's a different argument. If you are saying that we can PHYSICALLY fire our own nukes, but politically it would be suicide then I fully agree. But the same would be the case with any nukes TBH. First one to fire would be annihilated by nearly anyone else with nukes out of fear, so you have to wonder what possible value do they hold?

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 12:23 ----------

 

No you didn't - no ones going to believe that for the slightest.

 

Trident can be fired independently of the USA. That's what the original postulate was, and it's proven as noted above.

 

Anything else is just some whiney CND wannabee moving the goalposts.

 

Come on Obelix, that's not a fair comment at all. You know nothing about Carlinate and I've taken your claims about your work at face and hopefully you about mine, so we should always offer the same courtesy to anyone else on here unless we have decent evidence to the contrary. The "play the ball not the man" cliché fits here I think.

[Obelix 11]

In this case the ball is the man.

[Cyclone 10]

So you and Obelix and Cyclone are all claiming that our deterrent is independent?

Another attempt to strawman... You've seen what we've said, we've been absolutely consistent throughout.

It was Revel however that postulated that the trident system could not be used without US authorisation, which I disputed, you supported and so far appears to have been entirely disproven. Even you have accepted that we can use our deterrent.

You're subsequent attempts to reframe the issue are irrelevant, I have no interest in discussing whether we have some kind of ongoing capability to replace our trident capability after it's used. It's a moot point, if it's used then most likely the majority of the world will have no advanced manufacturing capabilities for a good length of time.

[ProperBrew 10]

Who has actually been stopped because of our deterrent? North Korea is still having fun playing with missiles, various countries still using chemical weapons, not a single nuke has been launched. No one wants to make that call, chances are, no one will make that call, a nuclear weapon is going to kill a lot of innocent people.

 

The world should decommission all nuclear warheads, but that won't happen. The UK keeping them however seems a little pointless, it's a waste of money and if we aren't going to use them to strike first, they are a bit useless. Use the money in more important areas, like health.

[Cyclone 10]

You know when were nuked the other week... Oh wait, we haven't been nuked, so does that mean the deterrent has worked?

[sgtkate 10]

You know when were nuked the other week... Oh wait, we haven't been nuked, so does that mean the deterrent has worked?

 

I have a magic stick that keeps elephants away. I can prove it works too. Do you see any elephants?

[ProperBrew 10]

You know when were nuked the other week... Oh wait, we haven't been nuked, so does that mean the deterrent has worked?

 

No, there's no evidence to suggest it works or doesn't work, it's a logical fallacy to say that because we have nukes, we haven't been nuked.

 

Additionally, even without nukes, the UK is still part of NATO, which a number of NATO nations have nukes. Canada does not have nuclear weapons, but they are members of NATO.

 

I have a magic stick that keeps elephants away. I can prove it works too. Do you see any elephants?

 

OMG I haven't seen an elephant in ages! Great work!

Edited May 3, 2017 by ProperBrew

[tinfoilhat 11]

 

Claiming that something can be used once and if that use is against the wishes of the USA it's use will be denied us thereafter, if the US so decides, is not an independent system.

 

[/url]

 

You think there will ever be a two separate situations where we will use our nuclear weapons??????

 

Blimey!

[Carlinate 10]

No you didn't - no ones going to believe that for the slightest.

 

Trident can be fired independently of the USA. That's what the original postulate was, and it's proven as noted above.

 

Anything else is just some whiney CND wannabee moving the goalposts.

 

Respond to my PM and then we'll talk further.

[Obelix 11]

I've not the slightest interest in responding to your message. Do not send me any more.

[Carlinate 10]

Another attempt to strawman... You've seen what we've said, we've been absolutely consistent throughout.

It was Revel however that postulated that the trident system could not be used without US authorisation, which I disputed, you supported and so far appears to have been entirely disproven. Even you have accepted that we can use our deterrent.

You're subsequent attempts to reframe the issue are irrelevant, I have no interest in discussing whether we have some kind of ongoing capability to replace our trident capability after it's used. It's a moot point, if it's used then most likely the majority of the world will have no advanced manufacturing capabilities for a good length of time.

 

And I have no interest discussing a point raised by another poster which you claim is wrong, although you have no actual way of knowing for certain whether or not you are correct.

 

The actual arrangements for initiating a launch are unknown to all but the people with sufficient security clearance to allow them to know the details.

 

So your supposition is exactly that, a supposition.

 

My point with regard to the total dependency on the US for our ongoing operation of the system however is an indisputable fact, isn't it?

 

It isn't independent and continuing to argue that it is is ridiculous.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 15:54 ----------

 

I've not the slightest interest in responding to your message. Do not send me any more.

 

 

 

Withdraw your claim that I lied in a previous post about my past career.

 

I have offered to provide you with proof, but you don't appear to have what it takes to either take me up on it or apologise.

 

I do not take kindly to anyone calling me a liar and see no reason why I should.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 17:00 ----------

 

You think there will ever be a two separate situations where we will use our nuclear weapons??????

 

Blimey!

 

It would all depend on the circumstances, the enemy involved and the escalation of the conflict wouldn't it?

 

Use them against Russia or China and that would no doubt be the end of it.

 

Use them against North Korea or Iran in a preempetive strike and it may be " Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for tea ".

[Cyclone 10]

And I have no interest discussing a point raised by another poster which you claim is wrong, although you have no actual way of knowing for certain whether or not you are correct.

 

And yet you joined the discussion and did exactly that.

 

Perhaps you shouldn't have been so keen to jump in with post #22 to score some points in support of Revel, get it all wrong and then spend 4 pages trying to claim that you were right.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2017 at 08:57 ----------

 

I have a magic stick that keeps elephants away. I can prove it works too. Do you see any elephants?

 

Can you prove that your stick isn't working?

 

I have a door lock that keeps out burglars. I haven't been burgled. According to the same logic, I should dispose of my door locks.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Cyclone