Congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn

[Howjy04]

My view on Trident is this:

 

If someone let's a nuclear bomb off, the world as we know it is done with. To let a nuclear bomb off, you would in the circumstances have to be a complete nutter. If you're a complete nutter and want to let one off you will, regardless of whether the UK has them or not. The "deterent" argument for having nuclear weapons in my eyes, is therefore a red herring. So why have them? Why not spend the billions on health and education instead given having Trident won't make any difference if some nut job decides he wants to go mental and nuke someone.

 

Surely a deterrent is better than nothing Cheeky?The amount of money we are talking about ,100billion,is spread over 50 years.The equilavent of less than a single year's NHS budget.

[mr.hobblesworth]

I see he's asking questions from his Facebook friends at PMQs today. This could be fun.

[cheeky]

Surely a deterrent is better than nothing Cheeky?The amount of money we are talking about ,100billion,is spread over 50 years.The equilavent of less than a single year's NHS budget.

 

I disagree. I don't actually think it's a deterent; if you're mental enough to let off a nuclear bomb, you're not going to rationalise whether you should or shouldn't because the uk has them, you're a mentalist (not you the person letting off the bomb) you have to be to even consider using one given it will more than likely end the world as we know it. There's no rational thought involved.

 

£2 billion per annum may be less than the NHS annual budget, but it will still be better than an additional £0.

[Birdy]

If we didn't renew the nukes at a saving of £100b and kept the old ones, they can still kill millions right or will they self destruct if kept past their sell by date?

[mr.hobblesworth]

They go off.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I disagree. I don't actually think it's a deterent; if you're mental enough to let off a nuclear bomb, you're not going to rationalise whether you should or shouldn't because the uk has them, you're a mentalist (not you the person letting off the bomb) you have to be to even consider using one given it will more than likely end the world as we know it. There's no rational thought involved.

 

£2 billion per annum may be less than the NHS annual budget, but it will still be better than an additional £0.

 

The only times a nuke has been used 'in anger' it was (arguably) a very rational decision. Would Hiroshima and Nagasaki have happened if Japan had had the bomb too?

[Howjy04]

If we didn't renew the nukes at a saving of £100b and kept the old ones, they can still kill millions right or will they self destruct if kept past their sell by date?

 

Like most things,maintenance costs are the biggest costs.If Trident were to be dismantled it would probably cost the same as an upgrade.Not savvy in Uranium/Plutonium shelf life but I'd guess it could have a sell by date.

[mr.hobblesworth]

He's attended the Battle of Britain memorial service today and the Guardian reports...

 

One onlooker at the service said they had watched Corbyn for several minutes as the national anthem was being sung and did not see his lips move.

 

This is great!

[kevin_struggles]

If we didn't renew the nukes at a saving of £100b and kept the old ones, they can still kill millions right or will they self destruct if kept past their sell by date?

 

Not entirely sure aboutt he ins and outs of nuclear missiles but in military terms older equipment is more likley to be defeated by modern countermeasures. It isnt just about the yield there is more to it.

 

For example when we went to the falkland islands we still had seacat surface to air missiles which were very very old and which could be outrun by modern warplanes, even fairly old warplanes. They were worse than useless against incoming missiles for many reasons. Apart from one very lucky shot when glamorgan was hit.

[mr.hobblesworth]

Apart from one very lucky shot when glamorgan was hit.

 

All the way from the Falklands?!

[kevin_struggles]

All the way from the Falklands?!

 

 

The seacat missile hit the exocet that went on to hit the glamorgan, If memory serves, either an amazing shot or an amazing fluke, either way it didnt stop the exocet.

 

Missile systems need to be kept up to date or they lose effectiveness

[Howjy04]

Like most things,maintenance costs are the biggest costs.If Trident were to be dismantled it would probably cost the same as an upgrade.Not savvy in Uranium/Plutonium shelf life but I'd guess it could have a sell by date.

 

Of course ,we would be able to rely on Corbyn ,with his CND flag and Sturgeon with her blue painted face and showing her **** as deterrents if Trident were removed.

[LancyTony]

Ummmm...just a thought - hasn't there already been hundreds of bombs exploded, in war and subsequent testing? If IS were to get hold of a nuke, do you think they would use it, knowing that they would certainly get obliterated in the retaliatory action? They may be mad, mediaeval and cowardly bastids...but only persuade individuals to commit suicide!

[geosname]

I dont know if nukes are an actual deterrent.... but if they do make the "nutter" pause for a moment they are worth it

[mr.hobblesworth]

Why fill the world with more weapons when people are suffering due to lack of funds for vital provision?