Film, Media & TV1 min ago
He Puts A New Meaning On Dumb !
69 Answers
Dumb and Dumber..and Jezza
A soon to be released comedy blockbuster...this movie will have you splitting your sides..youll be laughing so much youll be screaming for a doctor...
http:// www.ind ependen t.co.uk /news/u k/polit ics/jer emy-cor byn-say s-labou r-could -suppor t-build ing-mor e-tride nt-subm arines- but-wit hout-nu clear-a 6817246 .html
Does he understand what the subs are for, or is he really as dumb as most people are giving him credit for...
A soon to be released comedy blockbuster...this movie will have you splitting your sides..youll be laughing so much youll be screaming for a doctor...
http://
Does he understand what the subs are for, or is he really as dumb as most people are giving him credit for...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The cost of replacing Trident Is £167 Billion and rising.
A weapon we have had for 50 years and never used (or come close to using). It has not deterred enemies invading our territory, or attacking our mainland. Yet anyone who suggest this is a complete waste of money is called dumber than dumb.
£250billion, or whatever it ends up costing, is better spent on our conventional army and reach. Mothballing aircraft carriers so that we do not have a presence where it is needed, but instead having a weapin that cannot be used is even dumber than dumber than dumb.
A weapon we have had for 50 years and never used (or come close to using). It has not deterred enemies invading our territory, or attacking our mainland. Yet anyone who suggest this is a complete waste of money is called dumber than dumb.
£250billion, or whatever it ends up costing, is better spent on our conventional army and reach. Mothballing aircraft carriers so that we do not have a presence where it is needed, but instead having a weapin that cannot be used is even dumber than dumber than dumb.
as usual the anti British deliberately misunderstand. I agree gromit we do not need trident, use what we have. Nukes are for the purposes of M.A.D. People like gromit always say silly things like it did not deter Argentina, it did not deter Putin's assasins, he's right but that is not what they are for. if our homeland is threatened with overwhelming conventional force, or with nukes then we can do a lot of damage with what we have. I know the left and the anti British cannot do paradoxical thinking but you need then so you don't need them. We don't need trident we should maintain what we have.
Even after all the answers, he still thinks questions are the solution.^^ Cheap at half the price. The N.H.S could not cope with a nuclear strike resulting in millions more patients, the traffic jams would be never ending, and the building industry is not ready to clear up and put up......... Don't call me stupid! You started it.
whether comrade corbyn is dumb, or appears so is irrelevant.
he's been handed by the party the biggest mandate in its history, and since everybody knew what corbyn stood for, that mandate is to remodel the party in his own hard left wing image. that would include sacking ministers who disapprove, and deselection of MPs who won't toe the revisionist party line. whether that would make the party unelectable by the predominantly moderate electorate is also irrelevant.
he's been handed by the party the biggest mandate in its history, and since everybody knew what corbyn stood for, that mandate is to remodel the party in his own hard left wing image. that would include sacking ministers who disapprove, and deselection of MPs who won't toe the revisionist party line. whether that would make the party unelectable by the predominantly moderate electorate is also irrelevant.
Svejk,
You must know that the cost before an arms contract when commissioned, and the actual cost at deluvery have very little in common. The current estimate is £167billion, but the cost in 10 years when we pay for the weapins is more likely to be £250+ billions.
Also, then annual cost will be £10billion, which is a little bot more than our annual aid budget of £7billion. Buts what's £3 billion between friends?
You must know that the cost before an arms contract when commissioned, and the actual cost at deluvery have very little in common. The current estimate is £167billion, but the cost in 10 years when we pay for the weapins is more likely to be £250+ billions.
Also, then annual cost will be £10billion, which is a little bot more than our annual aid budget of £7billion. Buts what's £3 billion between friends?
"The cost of replacing Trident Is £167 Billion and rising.
"
And a few minutes later ...
"But to question the £250billion that Trident will cost us is dumb? "
It certainly seems to be rising :-)
Nuclear submarines are quite smart things, aw well as being expensive, so it might conceivably make sense to hang on to them. We don't have any other nuclear weapons. Russia, by contrast, has thousands of nuclear warheads.
"
And a few minutes later ...
"But to question the £250billion that Trident will cost us is dumb? "
It certainly seems to be rising :-)
Nuclear submarines are quite smart things, aw well as being expensive, so it might conceivably make sense to hang on to them. We don't have any other nuclear weapons. Russia, by contrast, has thousands of nuclear warheads.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.