alchemist Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Its here, its staying so get used to it. who are you going to use it on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Shoes Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 who are you going to use it on? if i could see into the future i would be a lottery winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 who are you going to use it on? Our nuclear deterrent is used every minute of every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted April 22, 2013 Author Share Posted April 22, 2013 Our nuclear deterrent is used every minute of every day. Really?? So if we scrapped them all tomorrow, we would all be dead by Wednesday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Really?? So if we scrapped them all tomorrow, we would all be dead by Wednesday? If Nato didn't have weapons of mass destruction, including nukes, and Russia retained theres, you bet the Russians would flex there muscles and start actin ard!! No seriously they would. If neither the west or Russia had nuclear weapons there would have been a conventional WW3 before now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Our nuclear deterrent is used every minute of every day. if you mean that nuclear armed submarines (or at least one of them) are at sea 24 hours a day every day you are probably correct if you mean that the existence of the so called deterrent is actively deterring an attack, i remain to be convinced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 if you mean that nuclear armed submarines (or at least one of them) are at sea 24 hours a day every day you are probably correct if you mean that the existence of the so called deterrent is actively deterring an attack, i remain to be convinced I think that a near 70 year gap between nuclear bombs shows it does work as a deterrent . Do you think that America and Russia wouldn't have attacked each other if neither had nuclear weapons during the cold war ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Our nuclear deterrent is used every minute of every day. you DO have the proof of course?? I am carrying an EXCELLENT elephant deterrant, it must be working because I have never be attacked by an elephant ---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 15:17 ---------- I think that a near 70 year gap between nuclear bombs shows it does work as a deterrent . Do you think that America and Russia wouldn't have attacked each other if neither had nuclear weapons during the cold war ? but we are talking the UK here, are you seriously saying that if we didnt have nukes russia would have attacked us by now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Its better to have it & not need it..... Than to need it & not have it! Simples! But it would be better still to have a well-funded NHS and welfare and education systems, in my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 you DO have the proof of course?? I am carrying an EXCELLENT elephant deterrant, it must be working because I have never be attacked by an elephant ---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 15:17 ---------- but we are talking the UK here, are you seriously saying that if we didnt have nukes russia would have attacked us by now? I'm not saying that - I was answering the general question of nuclear deterrent, it was during the cold war. At the start of cold war we were a world power and the main threat was Russia and eastern Europe. It was valid then ? Totally. I'd like to see a cheaper nuclear alternative now as the threat isn't the same. From what I've read trident has 4 subs which will carry 8 missiles and 40 warheads. Do we need that much ? Should we look at a different delivery system than expensive submarines ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.