35bn trident costs..what a waste of money

[ubermaus]

So you don't believe that the lost generation of WW1 still being with us would have been a good thing?

 

Assuming nuclear weapons would stop conflict...as i said spurious at best

[JFKvsNixon]

Assuming nuclear weapons would stop conflict...as i said spurious at best

 

JFK had often described the book, the Guns of August, written by Barbara W Tuchman, which was about the build up and the start of WW1 as being his guide on how to handle the Cuban Missile crisis.

 

So maybe the link isn't as spurious as you believe it to be?

[mjw47]

We can't afford everything that is for sure, but we can afford the things we prioritise, and insurance should be a priority.

 

No, we can't afford it, that is the problem.

 

There are lots of things which people want, but only a fool gets into debt acquiring what they would like but can't afford.

 

And I notice you avoided answering the question as to why other countries some of whom are in a better financial position than us neither have, nor wish to have, a nuclear deterrent.

[alchresearch]

Timeless, yet still accurate:

 

Yes, Prime Minister - Nuclear deterrent

[mjw47]

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 12:10 ----------

 

 

The swiss...plenty of countries go about their business in a civilised way, not getting involved in conflict. We seem to think its our business to get involved, we are so far up americas ass its untrue.

 

And that is a major part of the problem.

 

The leaders of this country have a complex about wanting to feel they are still part of 'the great game' and that their contribution matters.

 

This was illustrated after the war when we received $2.7 billion under Americas Marshal plan against Germany's $1.7 billion.

 

Germany used theirs to rebuild the country and their manufacturing businesses.

 

We used ours in a vain attempt to remain a 'top dog'.

 

Time to get over the delusion and start to spend money on actual necessity's

As opposed to items which stroke our leaders egos.

[loraward]

No, we can't afford it, that is the problem.

 

There are lots of things which people want, but only a fool gets into debt acquiring what they would like but can't afford.

 

And I notice you avoided answering the question as to why other countries some of whom are in a better financial position than us neither have, nor wish to have, a nuclear deterrent.

 

It costs 0.6% of government income, so we can afford it, they obviously choose a different set of priorities. I know people that have no house insurance and they won't regret that decision until their house burns to the ground.

 

Nations with nuclear weapons

United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea

 

Nations hosting nuclear weapons

Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey

 

 

Nations in nuclear alliances

Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain

Edited April 14, 2015 by loraward

[mjw47]

Timeless, yet still accurate:

 

Yes, Prime Minister - Nuclear deterrent

 

Brilliant show and that was an example of why.

 

One slightly inaccurate bit though.

 

£15 billion, those were the days!

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 14:48 ----------

 

It costs 0.6% of government income, so we can afford it, they obviously choose a different set of priorities. I know people that have no house insurance and they won't regret that decision until their house burns to the ground.

 

Nations with nuclear weapons

United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea

 

Nations hosting nuclear weapons

Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey

 

 

Nations in nuclear alliances

Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain

 

Yes they do choose a different set of priorities, the standard of living of their citizens.

 

If the Yanks wish to pay for it then we could host it although I'd prefer to do away with it all together.

 

We are broke and yet borrowing billions to pay for something we will never use because what would be the point?

 

Under what set of circumstances would we use nuclear weapons in a first strike?

 

If we only use them in retaliation then it would be somewhat of a futile gesture in that this is a small island and we would be obliterated in a full scale nuclear attack.

 

As no one is going to attempt a half arsed nuclear strike and leave us capable of further action then it would be game over.

[Harleyman]

The Atomic bomb arrived just a bit too late. A couple of atomic bombs dropped on Berlin in 1942 could have brought the war to an end three years earlier. One of the lesser likeable characteristics of the Germans at that period was their unhealthy respect and blind obedience to any and all authority.

Imagine the central Nazi high command being completely obliterated. most of the leaders destroyed, with a bit of luck Hitler himself, the German military on all fronts no longer receiving any directives from Berlin., no one to boss them about The war would have been over a month or so afterwards. Millions of lives would have been saved and aside from Berlin itself hundreds of thousands of German civilians in other cities spared the killer air raids that pulverized their cities through late 1943-early 1945.

 

Oppenheimer and his team should have been put to work a decade earlier than they were

Edited April 15, 2015 by Harleyman

[loraward]

Brilliant show and that was an example of why.

 

One slightly inaccurate bit though.

 

£15 billion, those were the days!

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 14:48 ----------

 

 

Yes they do choose a different set of priorities, the standard of living of their citizens.

 

If the Yanks wish to pay for it then we could host it although I'd prefer to do away with it all together.

 

We are broke and yet borrowing billions to pay for something we will never use because what would be the point?

 

Under what set of circumstances would we use nuclear weapons in a first strike?

 

If we only use them in retaliation then it would be somewhat of a futile gesture in that this is a small island and we would be obliterated in a full scale nuclear attack.

 

As no one is going to attempt a half arsed nuclear strike and leave us capable of further action then it would be game over.

 

We are going round in circles, its used every day, it isn't a first strike weapon, it is a deterrent.

[Obelix]

 

Oppenheimer and his team should have been put to work a decade earlier than they were

 

That would have been tricky as they didn't even know it was possible. Most of the early work on the bomb was done by the UK and it was decided that the quickest way to build one was to take the pilot plant work and move it all to the USA, to take advantage of the labour pool there and more importantly to remove it from the disruption of German bombing.

 

I once wrote up a paper discussing what would have happened if the bomb had been available in the european theatre, and what would be needed to make it happen. The conclusion was it was possible to have built it by early 1944 - certainly in time for Neptune and Overlord. To do that the US would have had to have been convinced of the utility of it a lot earlier and put a lot of effort into the Hanford plants.

 

The conclusion from using it was not ideal though - it would probably have lengthened the war considerably as the opionion was that the Germans would go partisan and it would have degenerated into a series of low level guerrilla wars all over Europe for a considerable number of years. It would still have saved a considerable number of lives however.