goddess Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Expenditure on Trident is forecast to seriously limit the size and scope of British conventional Armed Forces but, nevertheless the renewal program is now firm Government policy voted in with a huge majority.Its interesting to recall it wasn't a shoo in.There was quite a bit of noise made about seeking out an alternative method of maintaining a nuclear deterrent and this proposal was one amongst several doing the rounds.http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/retiring-trident.pdfI wonder, if sometime in the future, we might wish the lower cost option had been taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Of course. Because I debate forcefully it doesn't mean I don't hear contrary opinions. But this is a matter of conviction. You either believe in deterrence or you don't. It's a very long shot to think that a 355 majority could have been overturned on the basis that one missile on one day didn't work when we have lived safely beneath the nuclear shield for well over half a century including through some perilous times. It beats me that any sensible person could contemplate moving the country away from that stance, but I know there are learned people who hold this view. The reasoning seems flawed. No matter how much I try to empathise with them it always seems that they inhabit a fools' paradise. I don'the think it would have been overturned either. But it might have been close enough to be embarrassing. That's the ONLY reason why it was not put into the public domain. FFS at one test firing a shadowing Russian warship sent them a message congratulating them on a successful launch! With the archetypal rogue state North Korea acquiring both nuclear and intercontinental missiles to carry them in my opinion the capability is needed now more than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 150 is more than enough. I love trident More than enough for what? If they ever get used (and if they work), you'll long be either vaporised or wasting away to a painful radiation sickness death to even know what effect they will have. Whats not to love eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 150 is more than enough. I love trident More than enough for what? If they ever get used (and if they work), you'll long be either vaporised or wasting away to a painful radiation sickness death to even know what effect they will have. Whats not to love eh? You just don't understand the concept of deterrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 150 is more than enough. I love trident More than enough for what? If they ever get used (and if they work), you'll long be either vaporised or wasting away to a painful radiation sickness death to even know what effect they will have. Whats not to love eh? You just don't understand the concept of deterrence. I do. I just think that nuclear annihilation is a much more impactful concern. ETA: Its not a deterrent unless you have the option to pull the trigger first. "President Thomas 'Tug' Benson: [He is about ready to battle Saddam Hussein] We'll settle this the old navy way; The first guy to die, LOSES!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Why? Why what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Its not a deterrent unless you have the option to pull the trigger first. You can't say things like that in the same post that you claim to understand what a deterrent is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Its not a deterrent unless you have the option to pull the trigger first. You can't say things like that in the same post that you claim to understand what a deterrent is. A deterrent is a gamble, especially if your so called deterrent doesn't work and someone calls your bluff. Its like carrying a pistol around but only have blank ammo and telling everyone to leave you alone because you have a loaded gun. And even then, its more than useless if someone shoots you first with their real bullets. Its the same bullshit when people say they need a firearm for "protection". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Its not a deterrent unless you have the option to pull the trigger first. You can't say things like that in the same post that you claim to understand what a deterrent is. A deterrent is a gamble, especially if your so called deterrent doesn't work and someone calls your bluff. Its like carrying a pistol around but only have blank ammo and telling everyone to leave you alone because you have a loaded gun. And even then, its more than useless if someone shoots you first with their real bullets. Its the same bullshit when people say they need a firearm for "protection". It's nothing like a gun because a gun is instant. If bullets took 10seconds to travel and you knew that in that time the other guy is going to pull out his gun and kill you too you probably wouldn't shoot at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Its not a deterrent unless you have the option to pull the trigger first. You can't say things like that in the same post that you claim to understand what a deterrent is. A deterrent is a gamble, especially if your so called deterrent doesn't work and someone calls your bluff. Its like carrying a pistol around but only have blank ammo and telling everyone to leave you alone because you have a loaded gun. And even then, its more than useless if someone shoots you first with their real bullets. Its the same bullshit when people say they need a firearm for "protection". It's nothing like a gun because a gun is instant. If bullets took 10seconds to travel and you knew that in that time the other guy is going to pull out his gun and kill you too you probably wouldn't shoot at him. Arguing the pink. As our deterrent is worthless, we can sit and watch as the missiles of our enemies come back to earth, just before we are turned to ash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I'm sorry rmanx but you are being ridiculous. You are closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears and wishing that everything wasn't so horrid. That's what liberals do all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 You're the one being ridiculous. Putting your false sense of security in something that is a logical fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Its not a deterrent unless you have the option to pull the trigger first. You can't say things like that in the same post that you claim to understand what a deterrent is. A deterrent is a gamble, especially if your so called deterrent doesn't work and someone calls your bluff. Its like carrying a pistol around but only have blank ammo and telling everyone to leave you alone because you have a loaded gun. And even then, its more than useless if someone shoots you first with their real bullets. Its the same bullshit when people say they need a firearm for "protection". It's nothing like a gun because a gun is instant. If bullets took 10seconds to travel and you knew that in that time the other guy is going to pull out his gun and kill you too you probably wouldn't shoot at him. Arguing the pink. As our deterrent is worthless, we can sit and watch as the missiles of our enemies come back to earth, just before we are turned to ash. Our deterrent is not worthless. It's a deterrent right now. The fact that you keep referring to what happens post-firing shows that you don't understand what deterrent means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 You keeping saying that. I understand fully. Its only a deterrent until someone calls our bluff. Then its not a deterrent. I know this simple concept alludes you, but I am sure in time you'll get it. And can it really be working now? It doesn't work. And I imagine foreign governments found out about it long before the newspapers did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.