Nuclear Weapons

You cannot deter if you do not have a deterrent - a necessary evil i'm afraid

We don't need nuclear weapons. We wouldn't use them anyway so why have it. Hardly any countries have nuclear weapons and those that don't get by just fine.

Nuclear weapons did not save Lee Rigby or stop the attacks in London ten years ago.

For goodness sake let's have a grownup debate on this issue, to say that nuclear weapons didn't save Lee Rugby or stop the bombings in London is absolutely nonsense, those attacks were carried out by individual terrorists, what is the case though, Japan surrendered in the second world war,saving countless number of lives,by the use of two nuclear bombs

Individual terrorists are the threat of the day. Nuclear weapons will not save us from that. You need to stop living in the cold war era, Russia, China or anyone else for that matter are not going to nuke us anytime soon.

You know that for sure do you, how about North Korea, led by someone who is unbalanced and unpredictable

Aye well if you are right North Korea and all these other rogue states with nukes will be bombing all the countries without "deterrents" then.

Sweden will be no more.

We don't need nuclear weapons. We wouldn't use them anyway so why have it. Hardly any countries have nuclear weapons and those that don't get by just fine.

Nuclear weapons did not save Lee Rigby or stop the attacks in London ten years ago.

For goodness sake let's have a grownup debate on this issue, to say that nuclear weapons didn't save Lee Rugby or stop the bombings in London is absolutely nonsense, those attacks were carried out by individual terrorists, what is the case though, Japan surrendered in the second world war,saving countless number of lives,by the use of two nuclear bombs

And thousands of innocents were killed to save our own skin

"Our own skin" please explain that to me,yes thousands of people lost their lives, but if you have any understanding of that Japanese

We don't need nuclear weapons. We wouldn't use them anyway so why have it. Hardly any countries have nuclear weapons and those that don't get by just fine.

Nuclear weapons did not save Lee Rigby or stop the attacks in London ten years ago.

For goodness sake let's have a grownup debate on this issue, to say that nuclear weapons didn't save Lee Rugby or stop the bombings in London is absolutely nonsense, those attacks were carried out by individual terrorists, what is the case though, Japan surrendered in the second world war,saving countless number of lives,by the use of two nuclear bombs

And thousands of innocents were killed to save our own skin

"Our own skin" please explain that to me,yes thousands of people lost their lives, but if you have any understanding of the Japanese culture and their hatred of surrender, it would have cost many many thousands of lives to get them to consider surrender, using conventional methods

So we would get rid of our Nukes (not me lol) and then expect America to protect us from not just Russia. Many unpredictable states have them such as Pakistan and North Korea soon to be Iran and the list is getting bigger. So yes we need them without a doubt and to have better than the rest that may threaten us. Yes other countries do well without them. But without NATO looking after them how threatened would they feel if they was left on there own ? They have kept us safe for decades why change now ?

Because they cost a fortune and most countries including countries like Germany and Australia do not have them. I'd rather spend our money on protecting us from acts of terrorism like the beheading of Lee Rigby etc. Remember this, nuclear weapons did not stop 9/11.

Also are Pakistan an unpredictable state? We've been working with them for decades in Afghanistan.

9/11 was a conspiracy !!! No planes hit those towers, they were brought down by controlled explosives

Whatever you're on,can I have some?

Some form of nuclear war in the future is an inevitability given mankinds inherent destructive qualities I'm afraid.

Best thing to do is buy a couple of deckchairs and a crate of beer, and sit in the garden when it becomes inevitable, and raise a glass to the new dominant species when mankind obliterates itself, whatever that species may be.

Aye well if you are right North Korea and all these other rogue states with nukes will be bombing all the countries without "deterrents" then.

Sweden will be no more.

I don't think Sweden or Australia have as high a profile as the UK. Nuclear weapons have probably stopped wars. And as somebody said, it deters mad-men from using them knowing they are committing suicide.

We cannot expect the US to carry us and then slate them for gavin nuclear weapons. Until every country abolishes nuclear weapons, we should have them

Aye well if you are right North Korea and all these other rogue states with nukes will be bombing all the countries without "deterrents" then.

Sweden will be no more.

I don't think Sweden or Australia have as high a profile as the UK. Nuclear weapons have probably stopped wars. And as somebody said, it deters mad-men from using them knowing they are committing suicide.

We cannot expect the US to carry us and then slate them for gavin nuclear weapons. Until every country abolishes nuclear weapons, we should have them

After living in Australia what many outsiders don't realise is just how close Australia is to U.S foreign policy. Remember the U.S sent the Australians in to Vietnam before themselves and ever since many Australians believe that they are now the 53rd American state.

We don't need nuclear weapons. We wouldn't use them anyway so why have it. Hardly any countries have nuclear weapons and those that don't get by just fine.

Nuclear weapons did not save Lee Rigby or stop the attacks in London ten years ago.

For goodness sake let's have a grownup debate on this issue, to say that nuclear weapons didn't save Lee Rugby or stop the bombings in London is absolutely nonsense, those attacks were carried out by individual terrorists, what is the case though, Japan surrendered in the second world war,saving countless number of lives,by the use of two nuclear bombs

And thousands of innocents were killed to save our own skin

"Our own skin" please explain that to me,yes thousands of people lost their lives, but if you have any understanding of the Japanese culture and their hatred of surrender, it would have cost many many thousands of lives to get them to consider surrender, using conventional methods

That's still irrelevant. You cannot deny the bulk of the people who died mercilessly were innocents. Not to mention even those born after the event.

Aye well if you are right North Korea and all these other rogue states with nukes will be bombing all the countries without "deterrents" then.

Sweden will be no more.

I don't think Sweden or Australia have as high a profile as the UK. Nuclear weapons have probably stopped wars. And as somebody said, it deters mad-men from using them knowing they are committing suicide.

We cannot expect the US to carry us and then slate them for gavin nuclear weapons. Until every country abolishes nuclear weapons, we should have them

Not slating them, it's there choice. However the hypocrisy is unbelievable here. America and the UK and probably yourself are slating "unstable" countries and leaders like North Korea and Iran for having nukes when we ourselves have nukes. Tell me when was the last time North Korea invaded another country leaving 1 million innocent people dead and over 2 thousand of our troops coming back in coffins?

Oh and Nukes's point about "religious fanatics" taking over in Pakistan and India (A country hated by hardline islamists) is redundant. One thing we know about religious fanatics is they don't care about dying. They would rejoice in the fact that they provoked a nuclear response from the west and die as martyrs.

Iran especially get painted in a bad light by American media to protect the Saudi's. They really are not the bad guys from what I know.

The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... to-america

USA:

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid ... ca&tbm=nws

The Guardian including:

“It goes without saying that the slogan does not mean death to the American nation; this slogan means death to the US’s policies, death to arrogance,” he said.

That is how it is reported.

In the past 50 years America have been in how many wars that have benefited only themselves and killed howmany innocents?.

As far as I know the Iranians defended themselves against Saddams gassing of their citizens during the Iran/Iraq war, that is it. Gassing which America funded. Only for them to suddenly to change their stance when Saddam went after Kuwait.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 678707.stm

Some form of nuclear war in the future is an inevitability given mankinds inherent destructive qualities I'm afraid.

Best thing to do is buy a couple of deckchairs and a crate of beer, and sit in the garden when it becomes inevitable, and raise a glass to the new dominant species when mankind obliterates itself, whatever that species may be.

Are you Depressed blue? or have you been watching Terminator too much?

Aye well if you are right North Korea and all these other rogue states with nukes will be bombing all the countries without "deterrents" then.

Sweden will be no more.

No Sweden would be protected by NATO. Now you are the ones that you would want someone else to protect you but not protect yourself. Just leave it to someone else. Sorry but that is so very wrong

Aye well if you are right North Korea and all these other rogue states with nukes will be bombing all the countries without "deterrents" then.

Sweden will be no more.

No Sweden would be protected by NATO. Now you are the ones that you would want someone else to protect you but not protect yourself. Just leave it to someone else. Sorry but that is so very wrong

You didn't answer my question. Why can't we be protected by NATO (Which we are a member of). Is it so very wrong that Sweden are protected by nato?

I don't understand your argument, you don't like other countries having nukes but it's okay for us to have some despite us and America being among the worst offenders for invading other countries.

Oh and Nukes's point about "religious fanatics" taking over in Pakistan and India (A country hated by hardline islamists) is redundant. One thing we know about religious fanatics is they don't care about dying. They would rejoice in the fact that they provoked a nuclear response from the west and die as martyrs.

I said stakes like Pakistan are unstable Chief. And they are and they have Nukes. At the moment it isn't a problem but tomorrow or next week that could all change. A military coop or whatever. I am not on about ISIS or a terrorist group because you can't strike terrorists with Nukes obviously, but a threat of them someday gaining control of a nuke or a dirty bomb is very real. And the places they could get them from could be countries like Pakistan or Iran or even North Korea who would gladly sell them one if the price was right.

Aye well if you are right North Korea and all these other rogue states with nukes will be bombing all the countries without "deterrents" then.

Sweden will be no more.

I don't think Sweden or Australia have as high a profile as the UK. Nuclear weapons have probably stopped wars. And as somebody said, it deters mad-men from using them knowing they are committing suicide.

We cannot expect the US to carry us and then slate them for gavin nuclear weapons. Until every country abolishes nuclear weapons, we should have them

Not slating them, it's there choice. However the hypocrisy is unbelievable here. America and the UK and probably yourself are slating "unstable" countries and leaders like North Korea and Iran for having nukes when we ourselves have nukes. Tell me when was the last time North Korea invaded another country leaving 1 million innocent people dead and over 2 thousand of our troops coming back in coffins?

Hypocrisy ? But then you want protection from America who are the baddies ? With nuclear weapons if needed, double hypocrisy

Also, as sitting duck from a country with nuclear weapons, why not get rid of our armed forces all together ?

Oh and Nukes's point about "religious fanatics" taking over in Pakistan and India (A country hated by hardline islamists) is redundant. One thing we know about religious fanatics is they don't care about dying. They would rejoice in the fact that they provoked a nuclear response from the west and die as martyrs.

I said stakes like Pakistan are unstable Chief. And they are and they have Nukes. At the moment it isn't a problem but tomorrow or next week that could all change. A military coop or whatever. I am not on about ISIS or a terrorist group because you can't strike terrorists with Nukes obviously, but a threat of them someday gaining control of a nuke or a dirty bomb is very real. And the places they could get them from could be countries like Pakistan or Iran or even North Korea who would gladly sell them one if the price was right.

Exactly the same can happen here. We don't know what's around the corner. Look at Hitler and the Nazis taking over Germany showing that no country is safe. Why don't we lead by example and disarm our nukes and talk to other countries to do the same.

100bn will be spent on trident renewal. 100bn that can be better spent elsewhere.

Aye well if you are right North Korea and all these other rogue states with nukes will be bombing all the countries without "deterrents" then.

Sweden will be no more.

I don't think Sweden or Australia have as high a profile as the UK. Nuclear weapons have probably stopped wars. And as somebody said, it deters mad-men from using them knowing they are committing suicide.

We cannot expect the US to carry us and then slate them for gavin nuclear weapons. Until every country abolishes nuclear weapons, we should have them

Not slating them, it's there choice. However the hypocrisy is unbelievable here. America and the UK and probably yourself are slating "unstable" countries and leaders like North Korea and Iran for having nukes when we ourselves have nukes. Tell me when was the last time North Korea invaded another country leaving 1 million innocent people dead and over 2 thousand of our troops coming back in coffins?

Hypocrisy ? But then you want protection from America who are the baddies ? With nuclear weapons if needed, double hypocrisy

Also, as sitting duck from a country with nuclear weapons, why not get rid of our armed forces all together ?

America are our allies. I am not saying they are the baddies but they are certainly not the goodies that you portray them as. They won't disarm their nukes and I like to think as our allies that they will protect us against any nuclear threat.

Sitting ducks . All the other countries (the vast majority of the world) are fucked then, the big bad Russians are going to takeover and nuke em.

Oh and Nukes's point about "religious fanatics" taking over in Pakistan and India (A country hated by hardline islamists) is redundant. One thing we know about religious fanatics is they don't care about dying. They would rejoice in the fact that they provoked a nuclear response from the west and die as martyrs.

I said stakes like Pakistan are unstable Chief. And they are and they have Nukes. At the moment it isn't a problem but tomorrow or next week that could all change. A military coop or whatever. I am not on about ISIS or a terrorist group because you can't strike terrorists with Nukes obviously, but a threat of them someday gaining control of a nuke or a dirty bomb is very real. And the places they could get them from could be countries like Pakistan or Iran or even North Korea who would gladly sell them one if the price was right.

Exactly the same can happen here. We don't know what's around the corner. Look at Hitler and the Nazis taking over Germany showing that no country is safe. Why don't we lead by example and disarm our nukes and talk to other countries to do the same.

100bn will be spent on trident renewal. 100bn that can be better spent elsewhere.

For a start Cameron's a tw*t but we do live in a democracy and our armed services serve the monarchy. Which is a damn good reason to keep them. Now in a perfect world you could talk to Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, soon to be Iran, France, even the US to throw these beasts away. But in the real world that just ain't gonna happen so we have to keep ours. Yes we can dispense of modern Warfare but man is evil and it would just mean our grandkids fighting in the trenches again. Most of the world doesn't want to live in peace it never has done. Humans are violent by nature it's making sure that the UK remains safe and if that means increasing the military budget to recognise the new modern threat then we have to do it. To live in safety on our shores costs money because there are many out there that want us dead. If everyone in this world thought like you Chief we would be a far better planet but unfortunately they don't sadly.

Britain can go to war with whoever, just leave my house alone, I just bought it and I guess natwest will want there
monthly.

We don't need nuclear weapons. We wouldn't use them anyway so why have it. Hardly any countries have nuclear weapons and those that don't get by just fine.

Nuclear weapons did not save Lee Rigby or stop the attacks in London ten years ago.

100% with you, plus I'm against the ongoing costs to our country

Oh and Nukes's point about "religious fanatics" taking over in Pakistan and India (A country hated by hardline islamists) is redundant. One thing we know about religious fanatics is they don't care about dying. They would rejoice in the fact that they provoked a nuclear response from the west and die as martyrs.

I said stakes like Pakistan are unstable Chief. And they are and they have Nukes. At the moment it isn't a problem but tomorrow or next week that could all change. A military coop or whatever. I am not on about ISIS or a terrorist group because you can't strike terrorists with Nukes obviously, but a threat of them someday gaining control of a nuke or a dirty bomb is very real. And the places they could get them from could be countries like Pakistan or Iran or even North Korea who would gladly sell them one if the price was right.

Exactly the same can happen here. We don't know what's around the corner. Look at Hitler and the Nazis taking over Germany showing that no country is safe. Why don't we lead by example and disarm our nukes and talk to other countries to do the same.

100bn will be spent on trident renewal. 100bn that can be better spent elsewhere.

On benefit's I assume

Oh and Nukes's point about "religious fanatics" taking over in Pakistan and India (A country hated by hardline islamists) is redundant. One thing we know about religious fanatics is they don't care about dying. They would rejoice in the fact that they provoked a nuclear response from the west and die as martyrs.

I said stakes like Pakistan are unstable Chief. And they are and they have Nukes. At the moment it isn't a problem but tomorrow or next week that could all change. A military coop or whatever. I am not on about ISIS or a terrorist group because you can't strike terrorists with Nukes obviously, but a threat of them someday gaining control of a nuke or a dirty bomb is very real. And the places they could get them from could be countries like Pakistan or Iran or even North Korea who would gladly sell them one if the price was right.

Exactly the same can happen here. We don't know what's around the corner. Look at Hitler and the Nazis taking over Germany showing that no country is safe. Why don't we lead by example and disarm our nukes and talk to other countries to do the same.

100bn will be spent on trident renewal. 100bn that can be better spent elsewhere.

On benefit's I assume

No they should cut back on your benefits as well.

Schools, hospitals, roads, alternative energy. The money could be spent on cutting our taxes, it's my opinion that I pay way too much tax in my job and spending on things we don't need further pisses me off.

You need nuclear weapons coz countries with them would think twice about using them on you ,if you didn't have them ,then a rouge state in the future could wipe us out ,we live in a bubble in Britain the rest of the world isn't the politically correct utopia we all think it is

You need nuclear weapons coz countries with them would think twice about using them on you ,if you didn't have them ,then a rouge state in the future could wipe us out ,we live in a bubble in Britain the rest of the world isn't the politically correct utopia we all think it is

Ah this old chestnut again. Who are we to call other countries "rogue states". Why haven't all these rogue states you speak of wiped out Australia and the whole of latin america yet? These countries seem to be coping without spending £100bn on nuclear war heads.

Some form of nuclear war in the future is an inevitability given mankinds inherent destructive qualities I'm afraid.

Best thing to do is buy a couple of deckchairs and a crate of beer, and sit in the garden when it becomes inevitable, and raise a glass to the new dominant species when mankind obliterates itself, whatever that species may be.

Are you Depressed blue? or have you been watching Terminator too much?

Depressed? Nope. A realist? Yes absolutely.

Oh and Nukes's point about "religious fanatics" taking over in Pakistan and India (A country hated by hardline islamists) is redundant. One thing we know about religious fanatics is they don't care about dying. They would rejoice in the fact that they provoked a nuclear response from the west and die as martyrs.

I said stakes like Pakistan are unstable Chief. And they are and they have Nukes. At the moment it isn't a problem but tomorrow or next week that could all change. A military coop or whatever. I am not on about ISIS or a terrorist group because you can't strike terrorists with Nukes obviously, but a threat of them someday gaining control of a nuke or a dirty bomb is very real. And the places they could get them from could be countries like Pakistan or Iran or even North Korea who would gladly sell them one if the price was right.

Exactly the same can happen here. We don't know what's around the corner. Look at Hitler and the Nazis taking over Germany showing that no country is safe. Why don't we lead by example and disarm our nukes and talk to other countries to do the same.

100bn will be spent on trident renewal. 100bn that can be better spent elsewhere.

On benefit's I assume

No they should cut back on your benefits as well.

Schools, hospitals, roads, alternative energy. The money could be spent on cutting our taxes, it's my opinion that I pay way too much tax in my job and spending on things we don't need further pisses me off.

Alternative energy ? Alternative to what or instead of what ?

Nuclear power would be an alternative energy source. Tidal power, the severn barrage is a good idea. Solar panels etc.