The Student Room Group

Russell Brand

what do you think about his views on trident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vD5buSnKIo

Scroll to see replies

He has got a point. Trident is extraordinarily expensive when you think that it is just a deterrent.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Guy Secretan
He has got a point. Trident is extraordinarily expensive when you think that it is just a deterrent.


Eh?

It's a deterrent.

The most cost effective deterrent we've had.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Eh?

It's a deterrent.

The most cost effective deterrent we've had.


yeah I just said it was a deterrent but the point is what is the likelyhood of having a nuclear attack anyway. Even if we were attacked America would probably launch a counter attack for us.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Eh?

It's a deterrent.

The most cost effective deterrent we've had.

There are much cheaper deterrents than trident, besides we've got the warmonger on our side.
Original post by Guy Secretan
yeah I just said it was a deterrent but the point is what is the likelyhood of having a nuclear attack anyway. Even if we were attacked America would probably launch a counter attack for us.


The aim of a deterrnt is to stop a potential attack. As the UK hasn't been attacked since 45 I'm hazarding a guess that it's fair to say that it's worked.

Secondly, why should we expect another country to defend us. Who's to say that the U.S. are willing to start ww3 in order to defend a country that has chosen not to defend itself?

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union planned to liberally use tactical nuclear weapons throughout europe. Funnily enough, the U.S., France and the UK were never targeted.

Trident costs £3billilon a year.

I wish people like Russel brand would comment on the £30+billion a year wasted on unproductive interst payements on loans
Original post by Lionheart96
There are much cheaper deterrents than trident, besides we've got the warmonger on our side.


Yet to see a more cost effective deterrent than the one we already have. But I'm all ears
Original post by MatureStudent36
Yet to see a more cost effective deterrent than the one we already have. But I'm all ears

Not getting involved in conflicts that create more terrorists than they kill for one.
:wink:
War isn't the only answer
Original post by Lionheart96
Not getting involved in conflicts that create more terrorists than they kill for one.
:wink:
War isn't the only answer


Care to explain what happened with UK foreign policy post war and its impact on the UK nuckear deterrent?

Was it out involvement in Iraq that has got russian aircraft probing out air space yet again?
Original post by MatureStudent36
The aim of a deterrnt is to stop a potential attack. As the UK hasn't been attacked since 45 I'm hazarding a guess that it's fair to say that it's worked.

Correlation does not equal causation
Original post by MatureStudent36
Care to explain what happened with UK foreign policy post war and its impact on the UK nuckear deterrent?

Was it out involvement in Iraq that has got russian aircraft probing out air space yet again?


International airspace
Original post by Lionheart96
International airspace


Of course it was international airspace.

The Russians often enjoy driving their maritime reconnaissance straight at non international airspace, turning at the last minute and flying long, pointless detours in international airspace.

It's a pity the russian grasp of international airspace isn't as clear cut with some of our Balkan and Scandanavian friends recently.

But hey, let's criticise the UKs minimla stance on a nuckear detereent whilst Putins been rebuilding his strategic missile force for a decade as a short term fix whilst he rebuilds his conventional military.
Original post by Lionheart96
Correlation does not equal causation


You never really studied the military's history of the Cold War did you?

May I recomend reading this book at some point.

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Cold_War.html?id=dY3mAAAACAAJ

I do know that a few eastern european
Countrys were hosts to rather large scale soviet military excercises and were unable to do anything about it.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Of course it was international airspace.

The Russians often enjoy driving their maritime reconnaissance straight at non international airspace, turning at the last minute and flying long, pointless detours in international airspace.

It's a pity the russian grasp of international airspace isn't as clear cut with some of our Balkan and Scandanavian friends recently.

But hey, let's criticise the UKs minimla stance on a nuckear detereent whilst Putins been rebuilding his strategic missile force for a decade as a short term fix whilst he rebuilds his conventional military.

It's mostly just for show, i doubt they're trying to find a weakness in UK's air defence, its probably cold war dick measuring contest round 2

Original post by MatureStudent36
You never really studied the military's history of the Cold War did you?

May I recomend reading this book at some point.

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Cold_War.html?id=dY3mAAAACAAJ

I do know that a few eastern european
Countrys were hosts to rather large scale soviet military excercises and were unable to do anything about it.

will do :wink:
Original post by Lionheart96
It's mostly just for show, i doubt they're trying to find a weakness in UK's air defence, its probably cold war dick measuring contest round 2


will do :wink:


Sadly Cold War dick measuring has come back to haunt us.

The books a good read. Sort of demonstrated why nato needed nuclear weapons during the Cold War as a deterent. Shows the soviets would've quite happily used tactics nukes and worryingly described the Soviet ballistic missile subs who's job it was to launch several
Months after a nuclear exchange to screw up reconstruction projects
Original post by MatureStudent36
The aim of a deterrnt is to stop a potential attack. As the UK hasn't been attacked since 45 I'm hazarding a guess that it's fair to say that it's worked.

Secondly, why should we expect another country to defend us. Who's to say that the U.S. are willing to start ww3 in order to defend a country that has chosen not to defend itself?

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union planned to liberally use tactical nuclear weapons throughout europe. Funnily enough, the U.S., France and the UK were never targeted.

Trident costs £3billilon a year.

I wish people like Russel brand would comment on the £30+billion a year wasted on unproductive interst payements on loans


erm you cannot judge the efficacy on Trident on the fact that we have not been attacked we probably would nit haven been anyway since there have been no nuclear attacks anyway
I know it's a "deterrent", but how does it work when countries all around the world know that the UK could never justify using it?
Reply 17
Original post by VladThe1mpaler
I know it's a "deterrent", but how does it work when countries all around the world know that the UK could never justify using it?


How do you know we could never justify using it?
Original post by Aj12
How do you know we could never justify using it?

Have you read the letter?
Reply 19
Original post by Lionheart96
Have you read the letter?


What letter?

Quick Reply

Latest