• Britain to order new Trident nuclear submarines
    109 replies, posted
[quote]“Our independent nuclear deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy – this government will order four new Trident submarines,” Cameron said. He told a packed hall that the nuclear deterrent is the country’s “ultimate insurance policy,” adding that the government would commit to the NATO defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP. “And on the subject of protecting our country from terrorism, let me just say this: Thousands of words have been written about the new Labour leader. But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy.” “No. A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York. “A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day. A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit. “My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathizing, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love,” he said. [/quote] Only source is RT atm; [url]https://www.rt.com/uk/317862-trident-submarines-cameron-order/[/url]
Sounds like a waste of money given all the cuts we're making elsewhere. How do nuclear submarines stop terrorism? This country seems barely capable of taking care of it's own people yet we still waste it on shit we'll never use. Fuck off Cameron.
[quote] “My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathizing, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love,” he said. [/quote] Corbyn isn't the one selling weapons to terrorists, or ordering air strikes, despite parliament voting not to.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;48849974]Sounds like a waste of money given all the cuts we're making elsewhere. How do nuclear submarines stop terrorism? This country seems barely capable of taking care of it's own people yet we still waste it on shit we'll never use. Fuck off Cameron.[/QUOTE] It's not supposed to stop terrorism?
That's a surprising amount of vitriol coming from Cameron. Can't remember the last time I heard the likes of that from any of the major party leaders.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;48849974]Sounds like a waste of money given all the cuts we're making elsewhere. How do nuclear submarines stop terrorism? This country seems barely capable of taking care of it's own people yet we still waste it on shit we'll never use. Fuck off Cameron.[/QUOTE] They're not meant to stop terrorism, they're meant to stop a massive bloody war like WW2 happening again. It's currently working as a plan. "Elsewhere" doesn't exist if there is no country due to their being no defence. We USE trident EVERY DAY. Every day a V-boat is on patrol, we are using Trident.
The more hateful and angry Cameron gets about Corbyn, the more hopeful I become in Corbyn's future. He didn't take Milliband seriously, and now he knows that he has to take Corbyn seriously because people are getting sick of Dave and co's shit.
[QUOTE] But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy.”[/QUOTE] No, I think we need to know the full story behind that. IIRC, he said that about the fact Bin Laden was killed rather than arrested and trialed.
[QUOTE=MissZoey;48850140]No, I think we need to know the full story behind that. IIRC, he said that about the fact Bin Laden was killed rather than arrested and trialed.[/QUOTE] He would have been killed either way. As for the new Trident, as much as I hate Cameron I'm fine with this. Certainly wouldn't want to go the way of Corbyn and his roll-over and die policies.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;48850124]The more hateful and angry Cameron gets about Corbyn, the more hopeful I become in Corbyn's future. He didn't take Milliband seriously, and now he knows that he has to take Corbyn seriously because people are getting sick of Dave and co's shit.[/QUOTE] Cameron didn't take him seriously... and as proven by the election, no one else did either.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;48849974]Sounds like a waste of money given all the cuts we're making elsewhere. How do nuclear submarines stop terrorism? This country seems barely capable of taking care of it's own people yet we still waste it on shit we'll never use. Fuck off Cameron.[/QUOTE] Are you completely insane? We're already small enough as a nuclear power as it is. More nukes can only be a good thing.
A big middle finger directed at Jeremy Corbyn.
[QUOTE=amorax;48850211]Are you completely insane? We're already small enough as a nuclear power as it is. More nukes can only be a good thing.[/QUOTE] Well trident is a bit overblown, its a counter value weapon, its not going to be targeting military instillations, its targeted at cities, most slbms are because the sub is supposed to be able to ride out the first exchange and fire away in retaliation. With Russia rebuilding its icbm supply its not a bad idea for everyone else to modernize and make sure their icbms are ready, even if we don't intend to use them
[QUOTE=amorax;48850211]Are you completely insane? We're already small enough as a nuclear power as it is. More nukes can only be a good thing.[/QUOTE] We don't need to be a nuclear state at all. Most of Europe don't have their own nukes, why do we need them?
[QUOTE=squids_eye;48850274]We don't need to be a nuclear state at all. Most of Europe don't have their own nukes, why do we need them?[/QUOTE] because we're still holding on to the vestiges of the Great British Empire and we have to flex our muscles to stay relevant.
Trident is a future deterrent. I would rather have it than not. Times are changing and I wouldn't want this country to be left behind and not able to defend itself.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;48850274]We don't need to be a nuclear state at all. Most of Europe don't have their own nukes, why do we need them?[/QUOTE] Most of Europe doesn't need nukes or much of a conventional army because there is a heavy American presence there, for better or worse. Lessening our dependence on them can only be a good thing.
[QUOTE=amorax;48850430]Most of Europe doesn't need nukes or much of a conventional army because there is a heavy American presence there, for better or worse. Lessening our dependence on them can only be a good thing.[/QUOTE] We got ya back euro homies
[QUOTE=st_nick5;48850011]Corbyn isn't the one selling weapons to terrorists, or ordering air strikes, despite parliament voting not to.[/QUOTE] It's incredible how a man can say such things full well knowing that he himself is a liar and a hypocrite, you poor Brits. Cameron's comments remind me of how tabloids will take a seemingly off the wall comment and blow it hugely out of proportion, talking about it for weeks and weeks.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48850396]Trident is a future deterrent. I would rather have it than not. Times are changing and I wouldn't want this country to be left behind and not able to defend itself.[/QUOTE] Who are we deterring exactly?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48850577]Who are we deterring exactly?[/QUOTE] "them"
[QUOTE=Killer900;48850512]It's incredible how a man can say such things full well knowing that he himself is a liar and a hypocrite, you poor Brits. Cameron's comments remind me of how tabloids will take a seemingly off the wall comment and blow it hugely out of proportion, talking about it for weeks and weeks.[/QUOTE] You mean like they have been about Corbyn since before he was even elected?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48850577]Who are we deterring exactly?[/QUOTE] Any potential nuclear threat between today and sixty years from now.
[QUOTE=amorax;48850430]Most of Europe doesn't need nukes or much of a conventional army because there is a heavy American presence there, for better or worse. Lessening our dependence on them can only be a good thing.[/QUOTE] FYI the entire nuclear buildup in the 50s and 60s was in response to European countries being unwilling or unable to establish a large counterforce to the massive soviet army To say Europe doesn't need an army or nukes is not without merit but you need a deterance force of some kind, and economic deterance isn't working
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;48850836]Any potential nuclear threat between today and sixty years from now.[/QUOTE] Who exactly? There aren't very many nuclear armed states, there aren't going to be any new armed ones, and the ones which are already armed aren't making any more (some are shrinking their stockpiles).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48850885]Who exactly? There aren't very many nuclear armed states, [b]there aren't going to be any new armed ones[/b], and the ones which are already armed aren't making any more (some are shrinking their stockpiles).[/QUOTE] I could give you an answer you'd no doubt expect and throw a couple of the more overtly obvious names such as Iran, North Korea and Russia into the hat, but a better answer would be simply: no one knows. I can't tell you what the world's political situation will be in 2030, 2035, 2040 etc. and how the security of the nation will look, nor can you. Nor can the current or future governments and that is precisely the point of procuring and maintaining a safeguard heading forwards. Revolutions and the worsening of political relations can take hold in much less time than it takes to redevelop a nuclear deterrent we suddenly come to the conclusion we might need. Unless you're able to somehow take personal responsibility for and [i]guarantee[/i] your bolded statement and also the continued political stability of, and stability of relations with, current nuclear states even in light of events such as the Arab Spring then we need to accept the fact that we don't have a damn clue whether or not we'll have need for our nuclear deterrent in the future. In light of such uncertainty, choosing short-term economic savings over the long-term security of the nation is foolish at best and outright dangerous at worst.
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;48851097]I could give you an answer you'd no doubt expect and throw a couple of the more overtly obvious names such as Iran, North Korea and Russia into the hat, but a better answer would be simply: no one knows. I can't tell you what the world's political situation will be in 2030, 2035, 2040 etc. and how the security of the nation will look, nor can you. Nor can the current or future governments and that is precisely the point of procuring and maintaining a safeguard heading forwards. Revolutions and the worsening of political relations can take hold in much less time than it takes to redevelop a nuclear deterrent we suddenly come to the conclusion we might need. Unless you're able to somehow take personal responsibility for and guarantee your bolded statement and also the continued political stability of, and stability of relations with, current nuclear states even in light of events such as the Arab Spring then we need to accept the fact that we don't have a damn clue whether or not we'll have need for our nuclear deterrent in the future. In light of such uncertainty, choosing short-term economic savings over the long-term security of the nation is foolish at best and outright dangerous at worst.[/QUOTE] Nuclear bombs are a long term waste of money too. It's much more productive to pursue diplomacy. Also there's mentioning that we aren't going to go to war with Russia, North Korea, or Iran anytime soon. Starting a nuclear war means destroying civilization and killing billions of people, so why bother holding such weapons if you can't use them?
[QUOTE=amorax;48850430]Most of Europe doesn't need nukes or much of a conventional army because there is a heavy American presence there, for better or worse. Lessening our dependence on them can only be a good thing.[/QUOTE] On the other hand you've got people complaining about the US being the world's Army for hire.
The point of owning nuclear weapons is one of not having to start a nuclear war Sobotnik. By virtue of owning them we aim to never have to find ourselves in such a position to consider a second-strike because any hypothetical nuclear threat would never fire on us in the first place due to our [i]capability[/i] to retaliate absolutely. Again, I don't mean to belittle you but you are no Nostradamus. I would rather we take measures now to ensure that in 2050 if political disasters not even you could have foreseen occur we aren't left in a position where emerging threats to our nation have weapons trained on us that we gave up on yours and others' predications that we wouldn't be needing them 'anytime soon'.
Trident subs are such deterrents that we have a complex on a sub base called 'Deterrent park'.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.