Trident or NHS?

[Doom]

Norway are in NATO.

 

Sweden would retaliate with ABBA.

 

Regards

 

Doom

[SqueakyPete]

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.

 

Who would be in charge of overseeing this?

Seems like an impossible task to me,how could you ever be certain that your potential enemy doesn't have a nuke up his sleeve?

[erebus]

The USA is upgrading its nukes at a cost of 1 TRILLION. So now we know that CHINA and RUSSIA are the only targets, and they have only a few compared to the USA, so nothing like getting ready for the first strike.

 

The UK is one of many client states, and where once such relationship required the client to provide gold and other reparation to its master, in modern times, we pay the USA industrial military complex to help us defend ourselves from, terrorists, immigrants, the unemployed and worse of all the poor, and the old.

 

We pay a hight price for friendship, where the chief gangster demands his spoils on a regular basis, so we buy it from the USA regardless of whether we need it, it is of high quality or suitable for our real as opposed imaginary defence purposes.

 

So sod the needy, the USA needs our money and we have little say in the mater, the country can continue to impoverish more people, services we once has can be run down and terminated, as the money goes from the poor, to the super rich, as we live in a joke democracy, where we have no say in what goes on, and vote for liars and cheats every few years to maintain the farce.

 

We live with career politicians, who are always on the make, and buying crap we do not need guarantees a bright future for the political movers.

[JFKvsNixon]

The USA is upgrading its nukes at a cost of 1 TRILLION. So now we know that CHINA and RUSSIA are the only targets, and they have only a few compared to the USA, so nothing like getting ready for the first strike.

 

The UK is one of many client states, and where once such relationship required the client to provide gold and other reparation to its master, in modern times, we pay the USA industrial military complex to help us defend ourselves from, terrorists, immigrants, the unemployed and worse of all the poor, and the old.

 

We pay a hight price for friendship, where the chief gangster demands his spoils on a regular basis, so we buy it from the USA regardless of whether we need it, it is of high quality or suitable for our real as opposed imaginary defence purposes.

 

So sod the needy, the USA needs our money and we have little say in the mater, the country can continue to impoverish more people, services we once has can be run down and terminated, as the money goes from the poor, to the super rich, as we live in a joke democracy, where we have no say in what goes on, and vote for liars and cheats every few years to maintain the farce.

 

We live with career politicians, who are always on the make, and buying crap we do not need guarantees a bright future for the political movers.

 

You do know that Russia have more than a few nuclear warheads, more than the USA if the evidence is right, and they are in the process of upgrading theirs.

Edited October 14, 2014 by JFKvsNixon

[Cyclone]

Only a few. Why do you make this stuff up?

[alchemist]

According to recent news Sweden and Finland have forged closer ties with NATO

because Russian aircraft violated their airspace three times in a week. So NATO and its nuclear deterrent might be the reason why Russia hasn't invaded Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

 

Because of course our first response to that would be to lob nukes at them wouldnt it?

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2014 at 08:38 ----------

 

Are you seriously suggesting that nuclear weapons wasn't an issue between rival superpowers?

 

Do you think that the Americans would have tolerated Cuba being communist or would have the USSR tolerated Berlin being under the sway of the West without the threat of nuclear destruction?

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2014 at 15:46 ----------

 

 

Obviously the UK would have certainly taken an attack upon Ireland as an attack upon the UK and they would have responded in kind. So what point are you trying to make?

 

The point I am trying to make is that russia or china are more likely to attack other countries before the UK as they are closer, NOT because we have nukes.

 

Apart from that, how does having nukes prevent terrorist attacks? A threat which is FAR more likely than 2 countries that dont give a damn about an insignificant country just off europe wanting to attack it!!

[Cyclone]

Russia and China are less likely to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike because other countries, including the UK, have the ability to respond. That's what nuclear weapons deter, the use of other nuclear weapons.

 

Although we used to have tactical nuclear weapons that would be used in the event of a land invasion by the soviets, small, multi kiloton devices that could be launched by artillery, plane, cruise missile, etc... No idea if we still have these, but I bet we do.

[Bonzo77]

Nuclear weapons should be illegal. They just shouldn't exist! Every country should be forced to dismantle them and fight any stupid wars they want to wage without them.

 

Any weapon that has the potential to destroy so many people and so much of the environment is preposterous to contemplate!

 

I can't believe that some people think these things are a good idea?!?

[Cyclone]

How do you force a state with nuclear weapons to do what you want?

 

What does 'illegal' even mean unless there is backed up by the ability to force that legality onto those who dissent?

 

We have the NNPT and a policy of gradual disarmament, this is a good thing. But we haven't reached the point where we can throw away our deterrent. Just look at the behaviour of Putin. If he could, he'd remake the soviet empire and expand it until someone stopped him, with himself as ultimate ruler.

[Bonzo77]

How do you force a state with nuclear weapons to do what you want?

 

What does 'illegal' even mean unless there is backed up by the ability to force that legality onto those who dissent?

 

We have the NNPT and a policy of gradual disarmament, this is a good thing. But we haven't reached the point where we can throw away our deterrent. Just look at the behaviour of Putin. If he could, he'd remake the soviet empire and expand it until someone stopped him, with himself as ultimate ruler.

 

I don't know how you force the disarmament of nuclear weapons. I thus think they should be illegal. Any weapon that kills innocent people in their masses should be illegal and using them should be a war crime.