Timeh Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 Do you think that it's a coincidence that this is announced a few months after a whistleblower came forward with his concerns on how the nuclear weapons were stored? It sounds like the upgrade is needed and it's been put off for years. An upgrade to the missiles we cant use? How would you feel if the government spent half a billion on new SLRs but the soldiers cant fire the bullets in them without permission from the States? ---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 20:42 ---------- Erm, by intelligence, conventional weapons, soldiers, you know the stuff that we've been using for the past 50 years. When people go on the underground with rucksacks full of bombs I hardly think a submarine in the North Atlantic armed with nuclear warheads is in any way shape or form an adequate, cost effective or useful thing. Let's all remember this next time the Govt says it can't afford to keep a library open, or can't afford respite care for a disabled child or can't afford care for a pensioner losing their home. Spot on mate. Good post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 An upgrade to the missiles we cant use? How would you feel if the government spent half a billion on new SLRs but the soldiers cant fire the bullets in them without permission from the States? Rubbish, we can use them. We've had this argument many times here on SF, the missiles are not dependant upon GPS systems, they use an inertial guidance system combined with star-sighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 And if an enemy's missiles were speeding over here to wipe out massive areas the last words uttered by some maybe " I wish we had kept Trident as a deterrent to stop this happening ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrea Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 The Uk government has a spare half a billion to spend on Trident base. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/31/faslane-naval-base-clyde-500m-jobs-george-osborne What a waste of money and what an insult to all those badly affected by this showers austerity cuts. The money will be spent on wages and materials supplied by other workers, so why do you think creating jobs and employing more people is a waste of money? ---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 21:06 ---------- An upgrade to the missiles we cant use? How would you feel if the government spent half a billion on new SLRs but the soldiers cant fire the bullets in them without permission from the States? ---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 20:42 ---------- Spot on mate. Good post! The captain doesn't need the permission of the Americans and in the event that he was ever going to fire them he probably wouldn't give a toss what they said anyway. The UK will have already been wiped out along with most of the people he knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 When people go on the underground with rucksacks full of bombs I hardly think a submarine in the North Atlantic armed with nuclear warheads is in any way shape or form an adequate, cost effective or useful thing. Oh, that one. NATO'S nuclear weapons are a deterrent to potential hostile non NATO states such as the Chinese, North Korea, Iran and the Russians. Rucksack bombers on trains are countered in different ways. But you knew that. ---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 21:14 ---------- It beggars belief how some people take peace for granted. A conventional WW3 would have happened at some point in the last 60 years if not for the weapons of mass destructions that NATO and the Russians possess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Not with Trident. Besides, we cant even fire it ourselves. We have to have the OK from America before we can even launch our own ICBM's. We are totally dependant on America for our nuke deterrent and if they were to withdraw support for it today the UKs nukes would be gone with months. Yes we can. No we don't need the American's OK. Where do people get this rubbish from... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Yes we can. No we don't need the American's OK. Where do people get this rubbish from... From CND and the SNP. Useful idiot allies of the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrea Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Yes we can. No we don't need the American's OK. Where do people get this rubbish from... Probably a misinterpretation form here. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm and here http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeh Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 Some people get so worked up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Oh, that one. NATO'S nuclear weapons are a deterrent to potential hostile non NATO states such as the Chinese, North Korea, Iran and the Russians. Rucksack bombers on trains are countered in different ways. But you knew that. Then surely non proliferation is the cure...not spending £50billion on upgrades. 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