L00b Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) You can still have an adequate army without investing into a nuclear weapons program.I don't think you appreciate all the geopolitical benefits of being part of that particular club. Until and unless nuclear weapons are completely done away with globally, better be a have than a have-not. MAD still works post-Cold War. Just ask the Ukrainians, who did away with their nuclear weapons a while back, how's life going for them: they'd signed international treaties and agreements with both Russia and the West guaranteeing their borders as consideration for getting rid. Bet they're sorry they fell for that one now. Our main foe is mainly domestic anyway...terrorism.What are you proposing to do as regards Argentina with its Las Mavinas claim, Spain with its Gibraltar claim, Russia with its warplanes buzzing us week-in week-out <etc.>? Send up the 'f*** off' kite, like Ireland? Edited August 11, 2015 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Private get similar deals. No they don't. The general public gets nothing, occasionally as a Scout leader I can swing 10% but nothing like the glorious amounts that a copper gets. Do you not grasp the concept of reinvesting profits into essential public services? I know its hard to imagine a world without non greedy shareholders and fat cat bosses... Yawn. Yeah bit of ad hominem attack there nothing new from you though... Reinvesting profits, small change and never enough if you want to say expand to meet a new contract by oooh I dunno 40%. That's never going to come from profits that's market capitalisation needed. You can still have an adequate army without investing into a nuclear weapons program. A nuclear deterrent isn't the same thing as an army. Our main foe is mainly domestic anyway...terrorism. Yup and we've lived with it since Bloody Sunday - waving terrorism about as the new foe doesn't wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 That's a lie. The UK GDP is about £1.9 trillion. We spend ~2% of GDP on defence. We spend ~8% on the NHS. We spend ~5% on Education. We spend ~10% on pensions. We spend ~6% on welfare. You can't generate a surplus by cutting defence. Pick something else. Yes you can, 3.7bn per year on trident, just illustrated. ---------- Post added 11-08-2015 at 12:47 ---------- A nuclear deterrent isn't the same thing as an army. Plenty of countries have an army with no nuclear weapons. As it stands we have loads of nuclear weapons. We dont have to invest in trident ---------- Post added 11-08-2015 at 12:52 ---------- Yup and we've lived with it since Bloody Sunday - waving terrorism about as the new foe doesn't wash. All war is bad. Thats what im saying. The alternative is to resolve peacefully just like the irish troubles. The issue is we are fighting an unreasonable foe. It might be a case 'talks' are not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Yes you can, 3.7bn per year on trident, just illustrated. Try reading the numbers. It's not enough money to make a significant difference. And you've left us without the ability to defend ourselves. ---------- Post added 11-08-2015 at 12:55 ---------- Plenty of countries have an army with no nuclear weapons. As it stands we have loads of nuclear weapons. We dont have to invest in trident. Conventional forces are more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Try reading the numbers. It's not enough money to make a significant difference. And you've left us without the ability to defend ourselves. ---------- Post added 11-08-2015 at 12:55 ---------- Conventional forces are more expensive. So are foreign wars. We are highly dependant on the usa. Id suggest keeping good relations with them if you want protection. We dont need trident. 50.6 billion wasted which could go to nhs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 So are foreign wars. We are highly dependant on the usa. Id suggest keeping good relations with them if you want protection. We dont need trident. 50.6 billion wasted which could go to nhs. We have a mutual defence pact, called NATO, with the USA. One of the conditions is that we spend 2% of GDP on defence and a change in the configuration of our forces would have to be agreed. So if we're not providing nuclear armed submarines to NATO, we'd have to agree to provide something else. This would cost, you guessed it more money. Where did you get £50billion. A moment ago it was £3.7 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Iraq war cost 9bn Afghanistan war cost 37bn Trident will cost 50 bn There you go unbeliever, just saved the uk £96bn. ---------- Post added 11-08-2015 at 13:06 ---------- We have a mutual defence pact, called NATO, with the USA. One of the conditions is that we spend 2% of GDP on defence and a change in the configuration of our forces would have to be agreed. So if we're not providing nuclear armed submarines to NATO, we'd have to agree to provide something else. This would cost, you guessed it more money. Where did you get £50billion. A moment ago it was £3.7 billion. 3.7bn a year. Its set to run for a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Iraq war cost 9bn Afghanistan war cost 37bn Trident will cost 50 bn There you go unbeliever, just saved the uk £96bn. ---------- Post added 11-08-2015 at 13:06 ---------- 3.7bn a year. Its set to run for a while... How do you intend to "keep the USA on side" whilst leaving them to fight our mutual enemies without any support. Iraq was dubious, but Afghanistan clearly committed an act of war against the USA. Why would they come and defend us, when we refuse to do the same for them? Since 2001 we have spent well over £1trillion on the NHS. You'll have to do better if you want to raise enough money to make an impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 How do you intend to "keep the USA on side" whilst leaving them to fight our mutual enemies without any support. Iraq was dubious, but Afghanistan clearly committed an act of war against the USA. Why would they come and defend us, when we refuse to do the same for them? Since 2001 we have spent well over £1trillion on the NHS. You'll have to do better if you want to raise enough money to make an impact. Ever heard of taxation? ---------- Post added 11-08-2015 at 13:12 ---------- Your going to have to keep the USA on side if you want to run your nuclear program...its reliant on there support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummonds Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 More labour bashing, original. more labour avoiding answering the question. how original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now