Opinions on Trident?
Scroll to see replies
Don't see the sense in keeping something you will never use...
Also, launching after one is already in bound just seems vengeful... not a big fan of that...
Also, launching after one is already in bound just seems vengeful... not a big fan of that...
Original post by WTFAmIDoingHere
Why don't the English keep it in their own country since they're the ones who seem to want to keep it? I live 20 miles away from that piece of crap, I'm in the death zone, my family and friends are in the death zone, heck almost the entire of Scotland is in the death zone if that thing goes wrong. If you want to keep it, keep it in your own backyard and stop treating us like scum second-class-citizens who's lives are worth so little.
I don't think any of those nuclear weapons have a 20 mile blast radius? Not sure tbh but that seems a bit large
And are you referring to English people who are treating Scots like second class citizens? Wut?
On the plus side, I hear it's a very pleasant way to die!
Original post by WTFAmIDoingHere
Why don't the English keep it in their own country since they're the ones who seem to want to keep it? I live 20 miles away from that piece of crap, I'm in the death zone, my family and friends are in the death zone, heck almost the entire of Scotland is in the death zone if that thing goes wrong. If you want to keep it, keep it in your own backyard and stop treating us like scum second-class-citizens who's lives are worth so little.
You seem so ill informed it's almost like you're an SNP supporter.
Original post by mojojojo101
Don't see the sense in keeping something you will never use...
Also, launching after one is already in bound just seems vengeful... not a big fan of that...
Also, launching after one is already in bound just seems vengeful... not a big fan of that...
We use it every day as its a deterrent.
Do you not want revenge for your death?
I think Tinder is not bad.
Original post by MatureStudent36
We use it every day as its a deterrent.
Do you not want revenge for your death?
Do you not want revenge for your death?
A deterrent to what? It doesn't seem to be working against ISIS and it's not like we are on the edge of war with any other nuclear state.
No. This may be hard for you to understand but I don't see how killing a load of innocent civilians in any way makes my death more or less sad, it won't bring me back, it won't achieve anything other than spreading more violence, more hatred and more misery.
Original post by mojojojo101
A deterrent to what? It doesn't seem to be working against ISIS and it's not like we are on the edge of war with any other nuclear state.
No. This may be hard for you to understand but I don't see how killing a load of innocent civilians in any way makes my death more or less sad, it won't bring me back, it won't achieve anything other than spreading more violence, more hatred and more misery.
No. This may be hard for you to understand but I don't see how killing a load of innocent civilians in any way makes my death more or less sad, it won't bring me back, it won't achieve anything other than spreading more violence, more hatred and more misery.
My contents insurance on my house doesn't cover me driving a car.
A nuclear deterent isn't designed and never will act as a deterent against a terrorist organisation.
The issue with trident is the length of time that it took to develop. It's replacement will also take time. So although you may lot think of a threat now ( I personally can think of several now) the ability to develop, build and deploy such a system in the future is unrealistic and therefore we need to maintain the capability today.
You do know that tridents replacement is due to come in line about 2020 and last to about 2050? Do you joke what's going to be happening that far out?
Original post by Crb822
In my opinion, getting rid of trident would remove our only deterrent and open us up for invasion. All those lefties who think that they can make a perfect world irritate me.
I agree.
Original post by mojojojo101
A deterrent to what? It doesn't seem to be working against ISIS and it's not like we are on the edge of war with any other nuclear state.
Imagine the situation without it though....
Original post by SH0405
Imagine the situation without it though....
Totally. Same goes for my cat. In the entire time she's been with me I've not suffered a single direct hit from a ballistic missile. I shudder to think about the nuclear wasteland that would be my neighbourhoud if she wasn't sat there every day, looking out the window, watching the skies... scoffing expensive tuna....
Who's going to invade? At the end of the day, the US nuclear deterrent is our nuclear deterrent. The one we have is an ageing piece of ****. Renewal isn't worth the money that could be spent elsewhere.
Original post by offhegoes
Totally. Same goes for my cat. In the entire time she's been with me I've not suffered a single direct hit from a ballistic missile. I shudder to think about the nuclear wasteland that would be my neighbourhoud if she wasn't sat there every day, looking out the window, watching the skies... scoffing expensive tuna....
Your cat must be a very good deterrent against ballistic missiles. At least if a missile does arrive, your cat will be able to defend itself.
Original post by SH0405
Your cat must be a very good deterrent against ballistic missiles. At least if a missile does arrive, your cat will be able to defend itself.
That is not the point of my cat. She isn't a product of the Strategic Defence Initiative and she doesn't even like Star Wars. If I'm wiped out then she'll unleash hell...
Or just go and find someone else that cooks whole roast chickens on a regular enough basis.
Original post by MatureStudent36
My contents insurance on my house doesn't cover me driving a car.
A nuclear deterent isn't designed and never will act as a deterent against a terrorist organisation.
The issue with trident is the length of time that it took to develop. It's replacement will also take time. So although you may lot think of a threat now ( I personally can think of several now) the ability to develop, build and deploy such a system in the future is unrealistic and therefore we need to maintain the capability today.
You do know that tridents replacement is due to come in line about 2020 and last to about 2050? Do you joke what's going to be happening that far out?
A nuclear deterent isn't designed and never will act as a deterent against a terrorist organisation.
The issue with trident is the length of time that it took to develop. It's replacement will also take time. So although you may lot think of a threat now ( I personally can think of several now) the ability to develop, build and deploy such a system in the future is unrealistic and therefore we need to maintain the capability today.
You do know that tridents replacement is due to come in line about 2020 and last to about 2050? Do you joke what's going to be happening that far out?
I would assume your driving insurance doesn't cover you to drive a horse and cart...
Who is Trident supposed to protect against? The only slightly credible threat to the UK who also possesses a nuclear weapon is Russia and I get the impression from Putin that he really doesn't give a ****. If he wants to launch a nuclear bomb he will, regardless to the potential loss of Russian life. Otherwise the nuclear nations are important trade partners / allies (USA, France, Israel) or on the other side of the planet and I don't see as likely to pick a fight with the UK (China, N. Korea, India, Pakistan).
Original post by mojojojo101
I would assume your driving insurance doesn't cover you to drive a horse and cart...
Who is Trident supposed to protect against? The only slightly credible threat to the UK who also possesses a nuclear weapon is Russia and I get the impression from Putin that he really doesn't give a ****. If he wants to launch a nuclear bomb he will, regardless to the potential loss of Russian life. Otherwise the nuclear nations are important trade partners / allies (USA, France, Israel) or on the other side of the planet and I don't see as likely to pick a fight with the UK (China, N. Korea, India, Pakistan).
Who is Trident supposed to protect against? The only slightly credible threat to the UK who also possesses a nuclear weapon is Russia and I get the impression from Putin that he really doesn't give a ****. If he wants to launch a nuclear bomb he will, regardless to the potential loss of Russian life. Otherwise the nuclear nations are important trade partners / allies (USA, France, Israel) or on the other side of the planet and I don't see as likely to pick a fight with the UK (China, N. Korea, India, Pakistan).
Agree with this post.
But for the sake of pedantry I feel I should point out that Isreal has never admitted to possessing nuclear weapons and instead maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, much like my cat.
(Okay, so I just wanted to mention my cat again.)
The trident defence system allows us to remain a threat and a fighting force even if nuclear warheads have mainland UK. I.e it means that we can continue to fight and eliminates the chances of nuclear batteries on mainland being rendered useless by enemy direct hits. It also allows us to fire nuclear weapons at any country from a number of different positions. Additionally it means we don't have to store nuclear weapons on land which can have numerous complications
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mojojojo101
I would assume your driving insurance doesn't cover you to drive a horse and cart...
Who is Trident supposed to protect against? The only slightly credible threat to the UK who also possesses a nuclear weapon is Russia and I get the impression from Putin that he really doesn't give a ****. If he wants to launch a nuclear bomb he will, regardless to the potential loss of Russian life. Otherwise the nuclear nations are important trade partners / allies (USA, France, Israel) or on the other side of the planet and I don't see as likely to pick a fight with the UK (China, N. Korea, India, Pakistan).
Who is Trident supposed to protect against? The only slightly credible threat to the UK who also possesses a nuclear weapon is Russia and I get the impression from Putin that he really doesn't give a ****. If he wants to launch a nuclear bomb he will, regardless to the potential loss of Russian life. Otherwise the nuclear nations are important trade partners / allies (USA, France, Israel) or on the other side of the planet and I don't see as likely to pick a fight with the UK (China, N. Korea, India, Pakistan).
Merely highlighting that certain insurance policies protect against certain threats.
Well done for identifying Russia as acutrent threat.
A nuclear deterrent is an insurance policy. An insurance policy that takes a long time tk design and build and an insurance policy that has a 30 to 40 year life span. An instance policy that shares technology with other platforms that need continual upgrading to maintain their effectiveness and also to ensure the capabilities remain in the UK.
Barrow in Furness for sample requires orders for 11 hulls as a minimum to maintain the skills set required to build submarines. 4 of those are earmarked for trident replacement.
The cost of trident and it's replacement is negligible. It cost a while 0.4% of the UKs entire budget last year to maintain a defence system that gaurantees our defence. That's cheap at half the price considering most of that money gets pumped back into the economy.
Those kind of cost savings can come from stationary reductions in other government departments.
Original post by WTFAmIDoingHere
Why don't the English keep it in their own country since they're the ones who seem to want to keep it? I live 20 miles away from that piece of crap, I'm in the death zone, my family and friends are in the death zone, heck almost the entire of Scotland is in the death zone if that thing goes wrong. If you want to keep it, keep it in your own backyard and stop treating us like scum second-class-citizens who's lives are worth so little.
Read the daily mail much?
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Should I include maps
- Defence Engineering grad scheme
- Opiphobia
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- University Choices
- English Language AQA
- University of Bradford or Canterbury Christ Church University
- How do I revise for French Writing (higher)?
- Warwick vs Bristol Law
- personal statement help
- AQA English Language Paper 2 question 5
- alevel psychology content
- Falmouth animation course?
- Discussion/survey on if humans cause damage to the lives of primates
- Environmental sciences and life in Liverpool!
- University of Bradford or Canterbury Christ Church University
- UAL film students
- Citizenship studies- 12 mark question
- Bristol Uni Residential Villages
- English AQA A-level unseen poetry/prose
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
