Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think getting rid of Trident would be an act of insanity. Numerous countries around the world are investing in their militaries and numerous countries are benefiting from a globalised economy and growth and therefore will have more money to invest in military projects. Not only that, but the risk of war is always there regardless of what you may think. Look at how quickly the situation in Ukraine has escalated. Look at how quickly Islamic State has taken areas in recent times.

    People continue to perpetuate this myth that this will never happen to us but I bet those living in the 1920's didn't anticipate another war either and probably believed that lessons would be learnt from World War 1. Instead, we should have learnt by now that anything can happen and the risk is even larger when there are people in positions of power who are regarded as unstable. On top of that, we're going through a period of technological advancement and have been for some time and the true capabilities of militaries far afield aren't really known other than what has been gathered through intelligence.

    As for America protecting us that is probably the worst suggestion of the lot. America has and always will protect its own interests first and foremost. Even in World War 2, America only got involved because it was in their interest to do so. Let's not pretend they did it out of the goodness of their hearts and they're the true ambassadors of humanitarianism.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Someone bought me his recent collection of ramblings for xmas and I can't bring myself to open it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Haven't watched, expect it's his usual level of pseudointellectual drivel, so a load of anti establishment crap

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    And how do you know that we wouldn't use it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vD5buSnKIo watch from 6:40
    Should we? whats the point? If someone nukes us then our retaliation will be an act of vengeance, killing millions of more innocent civilians.
    Vengeance works for me.

    I guess vengeance would also work for the crews expected to Fire it knowing that that their families and friends are burnt to a crisp.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Lord Baelish)
    I think getting rid of Trident would be an act of insanity. Numerous countries around the world are investing in their militaries and numerous countries are benefiting from a globalised economy and growth and therefore will have more money to invest in military projects. Not only that, but the risk of war is always there regardless of what you may think. Look at how quickly the situation in Ukraine has escalated. Look at how quickly Islamic State has taken areas in recent times.

    People continue to perpetuate this myth that this will never happen to us but I bet those living in the 1920's didn't anticipate another war either and probably believed that lessons would be learnt from World War 1. Instead, we should have learnt by now that anything can happen and the risk is even larger when there are people in positions of power who are regarded as unstable. On top of that, we're going through a period of technological advancement and have been for some time and the true capabilities of militaries far afield aren't really known other than what has been gathered through intelligence.

    As for America protecting us that is probably the worst suggestion of the lot. America has and always will protect its own interests first and foremost. Even in World War 2, America only got involved because it was in their interest to do so. Let's not pretend they did it out of the goodness of their hearts and they're the true ambassadors of humanitarianism.
    A magic wand has been waved and you are now Prime Minister.

    What are the circumstances in which you'd use it? For example, what possible thing could Islamic State do for you to decide to use it against them, and where would you attack?

    The basic reason for its existence is to keep the USA interested in defending Western Europe. Like its predecessors, it is designed to destroy Moscow (and thus, while committing national suicide ensure, that the USA suffers a massive nuclear attack too). It is far, far less flexible than having airborne nuclear weapons while simultaneously being far more expensive.

    (Speaking of value for money, what was your comment to me on the hosting thread before it got deleted?)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    A magic wand has been waved and you are now Prime Minister.

    What are the circumstances in which you'd use it? For example, what possible thing could Islamic State do for you to decide to use it against them, and where would you attack?

    The basic reason for its existence is to keep the USA interested in defending Western Europe. Like its predecessors, it is designed to destroy Moscow (and thus, while committing national suicide ensure, that the USA suffers a massive nuclear attack too). It is far, far less flexible than having airborne nuclear weapons while simultaneously being far more expensive.

    (Speaking of value for money, what was your comment to me on the hosting thread before it got deleted?)
    You may want to read up on V force.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Vengeance works for me.

    I guess vengeance would also work for the crews expected to Fire it knowing that that their families and friends are burnt to a crisp.
    Those innocent civilians never killed your family though. I don't see how any sane person could justify killing all those people.

    In answer to your previous post, look at what others and myself have said about the letter of last resort.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
    Those innocent civilians never killed your family though. I don't see how any sane person could justify killing all those people.

    In answer to your previous post, look at what others and myself have said about the letter of last resort.
    Are you privy to the letter of last resort?

    You do know that letter only gets opened if communications are lost?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The widespread existence of nuclear weapons ensures that they will never be used.

    Google Mutually Assured Survival.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    The widespread existence of nuclear weapons ensures that they will never be used.

    Google Mutually Assured Survival.
    don't you mean MAD ?
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.