|
Post by Vinny on Aug 18, 2023 8:49:48 GMT
We often hear a lot of leftie whinging about the cost of Trident. But if we didn't have it, the money wouldn't go to hospitals or the poor, it would go on conventional forces, and lefties would whinge about that too.
And conventional forces are not a nuclear deterrent.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 18, 2023 8:57:37 GMT
The principal shortcoming of Trident is that it knits the UK into the fabric of the US military-industrial complex and it is ultimately under US control.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 18, 2023 9:05:10 GMT
We make the warheads ourselves and we're the ones with the keys to the launchers.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 18, 2023 9:10:59 GMT
We make the warheads ourselves and we're the ones with the keys to the launchers. It's much, much more complicated than that. Do you seriously believe that the US would provide such lethal weapons to any foreign state, even a poodle one like the UK, without including a mechanism to disable them?
Don't all Trident missiles have to be returned to the US for periodic maintenance and software 'updates'?
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 18, 2023 9:12:50 GMT
I don't have access to classified information so I don't know how the missile itself works or the control system.
|
|
|
Trident
Aug 18, 2023 9:16:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on Aug 18, 2023 9:16:58 GMT
Why do you say that money saved by abandoning the utterly useless Trident system would have to go on conventional forces rather than hospitals, Vinny. That surely would be a decision for the government of the day. Your premise seems flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 18, 2023 9:32:13 GMT
Why do you say that money saved by abandoning the utterly useless Trident system would have to go on conventional forces rather than hospitals, Vinny. That surely would be a decision for the government of the day. Your premise seems flawed. Because that's what would happen, no government in its right mind would leave our country defenceless.
|
|
|
Trident
Aug 18, 2023 9:33:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on Aug 18, 2023 9:33:54 GMT
So a completely false premise then.
Moving on….
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 18, 2023 9:35:18 GMT
I don't know which is scarier - having Sunak's finger on the button or Biden's on top of his.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 18, 2023 11:29:27 GMT
So a completely false premise then. Moving on…. Why is it false? We need a military, there are threats in the world. A nuclear deterrent is extremely good value for money and helps us keep our military budget low. Without it, we would need a large conventional army. And the cost of that would be far higher.
And you also need to remember, there are enemy dictators who have nuclear weapons and their weapons are pointed at us. Having nukes of our own helps avoid them using their weapons.
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Aug 18, 2023 13:05:37 GMT
Ask a Ukrainian if they think getting rid of their nuclear weapons was a good idea lol.
The NHS is not broken because of spending on Trident.
It is broken because we are a nation of fat plebs that drink and smoke too much... and do not get enough exercise.
We need massive taxes on junk food and alcohol, and tax rebates on gym memberships etc... maybe even a health check up once every six months and give healthy people some cash.
We need to make being a fat dosser as socially unacceptable as drink drivers!
|
|
|
Trident
Aug 18, 2023 15:56:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on Aug 18, 2023 15:56:03 GMT
Vinny You are entitled to your view that Trident is very good value for money. I think that is nonsense. We are both entitled to our opinion. You are entitled to an opinion that without Trident, we should spend even more on defence. I think that is nonsense . We are both entitled to our opinion. You stated as fact that if we didn’t have trident, the money saved WOULD go on conventional forces. That is a false premise.
|
|
|
Trident
Aug 18, 2023 16:12:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by Vinny on Aug 18, 2023 16:12:25 GMT
Why is it a false premise?
There are enemy dictatorships in the world, strategic military threats which need deterring.
Nuclear weapons have prevented a Third World War. Without them, large conventional forces would be needed as an armed deterrent against war.
Ukraine would not have been invaded if it had at the start, had a stronger military, especially if it had possessed nuclear weapons.
The more powerful you are militarily, the less likely anyone is to invade you, or anywhere strategically important to you.
|
|
|
Trident
Aug 18, 2023 16:18:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on Aug 18, 2023 16:18:15 GMT
It’s a false premise because you are stating your opinion as fact.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 18, 2023 16:22:56 GMT
Possessing nuclear weapons has been proved to be a very effective deterrent to stop military invasion and attack . As Russia has demonstrated by invading a country that used to have nuclear weapons and evading being invaded by threatening to use nuclear weapons .
|
|