Search results

I think the one thing this thread does prove is there is at least an appetite to have this debate back on the table.

We already pay this levy and we have Trident. That's the reality of the situation.

I don't want us to chuck our cards in. I want us to spend the money countering the threats that actually exist in the world. I don't buy for a minute that the influence we have in the world is based on Trident. I think sometimes the right are profligate with our money when it suits them and...

You said we haven't come close. Exactly what are you describing as close, if the Cuban Missile Crisis doesn't meet that criteria?

Any recent examples of this influence on the States? Blair's version of the 'special relationship' appeared to be saying 'how high.' Ironically, the last PM to have a smidgen of relevance on the world stage was Brown over the global financial crisis and he's castigated as the worst British PM...

Eh? What was the Cuban Missile Crisis then?

This attitude is ridiculous. The horse has already bolted, we have NO influence on major global affairs. It would be better for all of us if we stopped pretending we did and started protecting ourselves from the real, tangible threats that exist in the world.

You mean that devout Catholic that started an illegal war based on dodgy intelligence to support an allies oil grab? Of all our recent PM's I reckon Blair was the nutter most likely to press the button.

Harry Leslie Smith ‏@Harryslaststand 19h19 hours ago "Nuclear weapons provide no more security for a nation than ubiquitous gun ownership does for individual American citizens #Trident" Quite.

This is the key, key point that no one mentions. Can anyone realistically foresee a situation where we could use a nuclear weapon without ringing Washington first? Seeing as the Americans have enough warheads to guarantee annihilation, what difference would Trident make? And if anyone thinks...