Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Which is the biggest 'Reckless Gamble'?

Which 'reckless gamble' is the biggest?

  • Voting to leave the EU

    Votes: 70 74.5%
  • MPs voting not to renew Trident

    Votes: 24 25.5%

  • Total voters
    94






JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
So to clarify we have a fully independent ability to use the Trident weapon system.

Currently it is only 6% of the defence budget.

Nuclear weapons were never meant to deter terrorism.

Countries like Germany, Australia, Italy and numerous other countries are happy to rely on Allies who do have Nuclear weapons to help guarantee their security.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,322

i dont know why people are taken in by this myth at face value, without any evidence, even anecdotal, that we'd need US permission. i also dont know why people think if we were to lose Trident billions would be available, it would be redistibuted to other miltary options. there is an argument on that to be fair. its also not as portrayed, with the headline cost spread over 30 odd years, and overlooks alot of the cash is going into UK industry which is why the unions are in favour.
 


JC Footy Genius

Bringer of TRUTH
Jun 9, 2015
10,568
i dont know why people are taken in by this myth at face value, without any evidence, even anecdotal, that we'd need US permission. i also dont know why people think if we were to lose Trident billions would be available, it would be redistibuted to other miltary options. there is an argument on that to be fair. its also not as portrayed, with the headline cost spread over 30 odd years, and overlooks alot of the cash is going into UK industry which is why the unions are in favour.

Too much time spent listening to CND or reading the Guardian?

Quite right the cost would be spread over a long period so the headline figure is misleading. There is also no guarantee any savings would even be spent on conventional military forces if we didn't renew.

Retaining a UK independent Nuclear deterrent is essential .
 


Cheshire Cat

The most curious thing..
As we will never use Trident, it is a complete waste of money. It's only use is continuing the pretence that Britain is still a "great" power - which we ceased to be sometime soon after 1943 when we eventually had to ask the Americans to win the war for us.

It's like having one small pistol compared to the Russian's and American's arsenal of BIG guns.
 




Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,829
Hove
i dont know why people are taken in by this myth at face value, without any evidence, even anecdotal, that we'd need US permission. i also dont know why people think if we were to lose Trident billions would be available, it would be redistibuted to other miltary options. there is an argument on that to be fair. its also not as portrayed, with the headline cost spread over 30 odd years, and overlooks alot of the cash is going into UK industry which is why the unions are in favour.

Are the missiles and warheads not made, designed and serviced in the US? Don't the subs spend much of their lives being serviced in the US? While we may not need their permission, it is fair to say the system itself is entirely reliant on the US.

The other thing they don't tell is the renewal is £30bn, but there is a huge decommissioning cost of the existing system, then the running costs of the new system. It is all a bit eye watering for a Cold War weapons system.
 


Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
10,960
Crawley
Well, Germany, Australia, Italy, and numerous other countries seem to get by without being 'blown to pieces' by the nutcases.
The only country to use nukes in history, are those , oh so stable folks across the Atlantic.

Maybe if we formed some sort of Union of European Nations, we could share defence spending of this sort. Maybe even have a European Army?
 


Cheshire Cat

The most curious thing..
Maybe if we formed some sort of Union of European Nations, we could share defence spending of this sort. Maybe even have a European Army?
You seem to have slept through the last three weeks.
 




Perkino

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2009
5,988
It's the same argument in the USA, despite gun killings happening regularly civilians feel they are safer if they are allowed to have guns...
 








heathgate

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 13, 2015
3,480








Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
10,960
Crawley
It's the same argument in the USA, despite gun killings happening regularly civilians feel they are safer if they are allowed to have guns...

It is a bit different, in that we don't see toddlers accidentally nuking their mums, or teenagers nuking their schools.
 






Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,829
Hove
How many do you need to be a deterrent? One or two well targeted would probably be enough in most cases.

Yes, but if I am about to go into a fight with a small pistol in my hand, is my pistol the deterrent to my would be attackers, or the 100 people stood behind me with AK47s?
 




Raleigh Chopper

New member
Sep 1, 2011
12,054
Plymouth
Leave the EU and the country still exists
Don't renew Trident and there is nothing to deter anyone from blowing the country to pieces - which given some of the basketcases in charge around the world isn't as unlikely as all the hippies out there would like to think

Right on man, war is no gas.
Don't understand some cats wanting bombs.
Vegetable rights and peace.
 


Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
10,960
Crawley
Yes, but if I am about to go into a fight with a small pistol in my hand, is my pistol the deterrent to my would be attackers, or the 100 people stood behind me with AK47s?

Trident is more of a snipers rifle, than a pistol. The idea being, no one knows where they are, so they are difficult to take out. It is a good deterrent.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here