Trident or NHS?

[tzijlstra]

Nuclear weapons aren't going to be used on terrorist groups so it's not going to be a deterrent there.

 

Argentina will have known we weren't going to go nuclear over the Falkland Islands.

 

Where the nuclear option would possibly be deployed is if a country like Russia tried to invade Germany, France or Britain.

 

I've no idea if the reason for the relative peace in Europe is down to the nuclear deterrent or a change in attitudes. What can't be disputed is that since 1945 Europe has remained relatively war free, especially Western Europe......Let's hope it stays like that.

 

Regards

 

Doom

 

We are all hoping it stays like that, but even if it didn't I wouldn't want my government to be responsible for causing nuclear destruction of the planet we live on. Which is what would happen, so why not just get rid of all the nuclear weapons, why not be the first?

 

It is like two kids in the school ground with their fists raised but not wanting to be the first to punch, turn your back on the other kid and walk away is what I was taught.

[woodmally]

What would you rather see our government invest billions in?

 

This is nothing to do with pay rises etc. just a general question. Which is more important to you?

 

NHS as Trident was next to useless during the cold war, it was never used. And is totally a waste of space now.

[JFKvsNixon]

NHS as Trident was next to useless during the cold war, it was never used. And is totally a waste of space now.

 

I guess that you don't quite get the point of a deterrent.

[truman]

NHS as Trident was next to useless during the cold war, it was never used. And is totally a waste of space now.

 

So it actually did it's job then?

[Doom]

We are all hoping it stays like that, but even if it didn't I wouldn't want my government to be responsible for causing nuclear destruction of the planet we live on. Which is what would happen, so why not just get rid of all the nuclear weapons, why not be the first?

 

It is like two kids in the school ground with their fists raised but not wanting to be the first to punch, turn your back on the other kid and walk away is what I was taught.

 

Ideally I'd like to think there were no nuclear weapons in the World, but the problem is if a country like North Korea or Iran decided to nuke London in the knowledge that we have no proper means of retaliation, the billions of pounds shifted from our nuclear deterrent to Hospitals would suddenly seem like a bad idea.

 

I've not actually voted on this, because I'm not fully convinced one way or the other. The popular answer is always going to be hospitals, I'm just trying to provide a counter-argument.

 

Regards

 

Doom

[taxman]

I guess that you don't quite get the point of a deterrent.

 

Who is it deterring now?

 

Instead of a huge white elephant which we will never use, why isn't the money being spent on more conventional weaponary (which we use all the time) or intelligence (which seems to be lacking at present).

 

We are facing a threat from stateless terorists, nuking them isn't an option but neither is paring conventional forces to the bone, shedding personnel, getting rid of aircraft carriers etc

 

It seems the prestige of having a weapon of mass destruction is more important that the reality of 21st century warfare.

[alchresearch]

Where the nuclear option would possibly be deployed is if a country like Russia tried to invade Germany, France or Britain.

 

But would it? See the Youtube link I posted.

[spilldig]

I would rather have no Trident, but sadly I think it is needed.

With the NHS I do think that there is a lot of money wasted, but as one politician said when the NHS started, it's no use having national health teeth and national health glasses, if someone comes and blows your head off,so I can't really vote on this one because I think they are both needed.

[JFKvsNixon]

Who is it deterring now?

 

Instead of a huge white elephant which we will never use, why isn't the money being spent on more conventional weaponary (which we use all the time) or intelligence (which seems to be lacking at present).

 

We are facing a threat from stateless terorists, nuking them isn't an option but neither is paring conventional forces to the bone, shedding personnel, getting rid of aircraft carriers etc

 

It seems the prestige of having a weapon of mass destruction is more important that the reality of 21st century warfare.

 

When planning against further threats it's always good to think about tomorrows enemy. China and Russia are only going to continue to challenge the Wests domination in one way or another, so having a minimal nuclear deterrent in the future may well be desirable. Also there is no getting way from the fact that we could not afford to deter Russia or China with conventional weapons, so nuclear weapons allow us to do it on the cheap.

Edited October 14, 2014 by JFKvsNixon

[geared]

Don't forget those utter crazy people over in North Korea.

They can't hit the US but they'll have a pop at South Korea.

 

If they do it's pretty much certain the US will have to respond with their own weapons, probably utterly annihilating the capital to make a point.