The Peacenik's At It Again

[Baldric]

This man must be borderline certifiable, does he not understand the word deterrent.
Who knows what threats we might face in the next decade or two.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648071/Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-leader-MPs-civil-war-CND-anti-nuclear-rally-London-Trafalgar-Square

[dannyk13]

He is a liability. God help us if he ever got to be PM.

[Old_Geezer]

He's entitled to believe that the money could be more effectively spent elsewhere.
But granted he doesn't seem to think it has much deterrent value. May have a point if we ever get a PM who admits in advance that they'd never 'press the button'.

[mikey4444]

I can't see that nuclear weapons are a deterrence against anything...after all, we have hardly been war-free since 1945 have we ?

We still have serious financial problems, at least according to Osborne this week, who has told us that we are going to have even more cuts and hardship in next months Budget.

So I don't know where we are going to find the £billions required for new weapons ?

[jourdain2]

Suppose, just suppose, that the Cons. split completely after the referendum and somehow Corbyn gets to be PM. Then suppose that Trump somehow becomes US President......... Where's the nearest habitable cave?

[dannyk13]

//mikey4444
I can't see that nuclear weapons are a deterrence against anything//
I don't remember anybody starting a war against us, so it could well be a deterrent.

[sandyRoe]

Which country might launch a nuclear attack on the UK?

[dannyk13]

The favourite is Russia

[mikey4444]

Really danny ? I am being constantly told on here that we are at great risk of being destroyed by religious wackos. And I seem to recall that Argentina was a bit of a bother a few years ago, despite out submarines being a few miles off the coast of south America.

[mikey4444]

Danny...why would Russia launch a nuclear attack on Britain ?

[dannyk13]

I am only repeating what our military leaders have been saying in defence of not cutting our armed forces.

[mushroom25]

//And I seem to recall that Argentina was a bit of a bother a few years ago, despite out submarines being a few miles off the coast of south America. //

i don't think there was ever the possibility of the UK nuking argentina, conquest wasn't the reason for the UK moving against them. but we did use one of the nuclear submarines against them, an action that had Tam Dalyell bleating on about it every day for years afterwards.

[sandyRoe]

Maybe the Top brass have conjured up a demon in order to justify the billions spent.

[dannyk13]

Maybe, but it is a fact that Russian planes keep violating our airspace.

[mikey4444]

I respect your view Danny !

I am at heart a pragmatist, and if we could have the replacement for Trident at a much cheaper cost, and it provided loys of British jobs to boot, I might not be so much against it.

It is my view that nobody would order the use of British bombs, because it they did, it would be the end of civilization as we know it, perhaps in the manner of "On the Beach" perhaps !

But the costs are eye-watering.

[mikey4444]

Mush...but the Belgrano wasn't hit by a nuclear-armed missile was it ?

Any non-nuclear Sub could have done the same.

[dannyk13]

I agree that we would never be the first to push the button, but in retaliation?

[mikey4444]

Danny (18:49)....our respective air forces view these events as a training exercise !

[Old_Geezer]

It's not there to simply deter a nuclear attack against us. It must be capable of threatened first use against some country threatening a conventional invasion of these shores.

[ToraToraTora]

usual load of left bowlocks, deliberately misunderstanding things.