Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
what do you think about his views on trident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vD5buSnKIo
0
reply
Guy Secretan
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
He has got a point. Trident is extraordinarily expensive when you think that it is just a deterrent.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(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.
0
reply
Guy Secretan
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(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.
0
reply
Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(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.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(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
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(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
0
reply
Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(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.

War isn't the only answer
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Lionheart96)
Not getting involved in conflicts that create more terrorists than they kill for one.

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?
0
reply
Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#10
(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
0
reply
Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#11
(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
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(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.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(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/abou...d=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.
0
reply
Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#14
(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 **** 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/abou...d=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
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(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 **** measuring contest round 2


will do
Sadly Cold War **** 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
1
reply
Guy Secretan
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(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
0
reply
VladThe1mpaler
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
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?
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(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?
0
reply
Lionheart96
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Aj12)
How do you know we could never justify using it?
Have you read the letter?
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Lionheart96)
Have you read the letter?
What letter?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (248)
34.07%
No (480)
65.93%

Watched Threads

View All