ez8004 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 We can afford to waste millions of pounds EVERY DAY on membership of the EU circus and we can afford to waste hundreds of millions every year on overseas aid , but we cant afford to employ more doctors so existing ones dont have to work 70 hrs a week . Me thinks we have our priorities wrong . You picking Trident is a really bad example. The Trident renewal is part of the 2% of GDP commitment spend on defence as part of NATO. So what else would you spend the 2% of GDP on in defence if not on our ultimate deterrent that has 100% effectiveness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 You picking Trident is a really bad example. The Trident renewal is part of the 2% of GDP commitment spend on defence as part of NATO. So what else would you spend the 2% of GDP on in defence if not on our ultimate deterrent that has 100% effectiveness? Don't speak such sense. Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent and no amount of logic or evidence will convince me otherwise. The people's flag is deepest red... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 You picking Trident is a really bad example. The Trident renewal is part of the 2% of GDP commitment spend on defence as part of NATO. So what else would you spend the 2% of GDP on in defence if not on our ultimate deterrent that has 100% effectiveness? What do you mean by 100% effectiveness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 What do you mean by 100% effectiveness? Trident is a nuclear deterrent. It deters other nations from thinking about or carrying out an attack on our nation. In that respect Trident is active for every minute of every day as it continually deters because a Vanguard class submarine is continually on patrol loaded with nuclear armed ballistic missiles. Since it is a submarine its location is secret and can launch a strike whenever it is required and no one can stop it. So when people say it is not a deterrent, they either don't know what Trident really is or don't understand the concept of deterrence. We have had a nuclear deterrent since 1968 and the last time I looked, no nation has invaded us in that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 You picking Trident is a really bad example. The Trident renewal is part of the 2% of GDP commitment spend on defence as part of NATO. So what else would you spend the 2% of GDP on in defence if not on our ultimate deterrent that has 100% effectiveness? Personally i would spend it on more troops and conventional weapons, you know the things we REALLY need ---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 20:54 ---------- Trident is a nuclear deterrent. It deters other nations from thinking about or carrying out an attack on our nation. In that respect Trident is active for every minute of every day as it continually deters because a Vanguard class submarine is continually on patrol loaded with nuclear armed ballistic missiles. Since it is a submarine its location is secret and can launch a strike whenever it is required and no one can stop it. So when people say it is not a deterrent, they either don't know what Trident really is or don't understand the concept of deterrence. We have had a nuclear deterrent since 1968 and the last time I looked, no nation has invaded us in that time. hmm, we have not been invaded since 1066 so i dont think it was nukes that stopped us being invaded, or indeed, stopping us being invaded, unless of course you know something the rest of us dont? also norway has not been invaded, or iceland, ireland, spain, italy, new zealand, japan etc. Yet they dont have nukes as a "deterrent" A deterrent can only be called such where it can be PROVED that it is a deterrent, nukes cannot be proved to be as many non-nuclear nations are not invaded. Indeed, as the sad events of the last couple of weeks has proven nations WITH nuclear weapons are still attacked, as were we in 7/7, where were was the "deterrent" then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Personally i would spend it on more troops and conventional weapons, you know the things we REALLY need ---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 20:54 ---------- hmm, we have not been invaded since 1066 so i dont think it was nukes that stopped us being invaded, or indeed, stopping us being invaded, unless of course you know something the rest of us dont? also norway has not been invaded, or iceland, ireland, spain, italy, new zealand, japan etc. Yet they dont have nukes as a "deterrent" A deterrent can only be called such where it can be PROVED that it is a deterrent, nukes cannot be proved to be as many non-nuclear nations are not invaded. Indeed, as the sad events of the last couple of weeks has proven nations WITH nuclear weapons are still attacked, as were we in 7/7, where were was the "deterrent" then? Do you genuinely think Russia would have annexed a part of Ukraine if they still had their nuclear weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Trident is a nuclear deterrent. It deters other nations from thinking about or carrying out an attack on our nation. In that respect Trident is active for every minute of every day as it continually deters because a Vanguard class submarine is continually on patrol loaded with nuclear armed ballistic missiles. Since it is a submarine its location is secret and can launch a strike whenever it is required and no one can stop it. So when people say it is not a deterrent, they either don't know what Trident really is or don't understand the concept of deterrence. We have had a nuclear deterrent since 1968 and the last time I looked, no nation has invaded us in that time. Trident is a piece of crap https://www.wikileaks.org/trident-safety/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 (edited) Trident is a piece of crap https://www.wikileaks.org/trident-safety/ Oh yes the dossier that was discredited as completely flawed in all its assertions and conclusions. Are you 10 or something? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/12006667/Children-who-grow-up-with-internet-AKA-digital-natives-believe-everything-they-read-online-says-Ofcom.html Next please. Edited November 21, 2015 by ez8004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 A bit of consolation here for anyone concerned about the effects of the strike on patients- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101 (Doctors' strikes and mortality: a review) and, for those who prefer the tabloid account- http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/when-doctors-go-on-strike_b_1513689.html Who would have thought that when risky procedures are not being carried out due to doctors striking, patients don't die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Who would have thought that when risky procedures are not being carried out due to doctors striking, patients don't die. Hmm. Thought emergency care was unaffected and only elective procedures are in which case patients wouldn't die as a result. 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