Business & Finance0 min ago
Row About Neaclear Weapons
corbyn is getting flak over saying we dont need nuclear weapons and would not push "the button" well done him no other European country has the except France so what would they do if threatened ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ivor4781. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We already have nuclear weapons.
Do we really need to spend billions of pounds updating them?
If you have a gun that is twenty years old, will it not fire bullets just as effectively as a gun bought yesterday?
The notion of 'upgrading' is bandied about by people with career and financial investment in the idea that it is essential - it is clearly not.
Do we really need to spend billions of pounds updating them?
If you have a gun that is twenty years old, will it not fire bullets just as effectively as a gun bought yesterday?
The notion of 'upgrading' is bandied about by people with career and financial investment in the idea that it is essential - it is clearly not.
"If it cost billions of pounds and the upgrade didn't do the job any better in any meaningful way than the one I had - then no, I would not upgrade it. "
The problem with Trident I think, having made the PC comparison, is actually that it is not so much an upgrade as a necessary replacement, as the lifetime of the systems is limited. Either way, it either needs to be scrapped or a lot of money spent on it.
The problem with Trident I think, having made the PC comparison, is actually that it is not so much an upgrade as a necessary replacement, as the lifetime of the systems is limited. Either way, it either needs to be scrapped or a lot of money spent on it.
Fair enough - if the choice is between necessary upgrading and scrapping, I would have to opt for scrapping.
How on earth we can move as a race towards a peaceful co-existence when we talk to each other with the military equivalent of a big stick behind our back is farcical.
The volume of money is without moral recompense - it should be directed into hospitals and homes and education.
How on earth we can move as a race towards a peaceful co-existence when we talk to each other with the military equivalent of a big stick behind our back is farcical.
The volume of money is without moral recompense - it should be directed into hospitals and homes and education.
I've posted this link before. The short version is that it is something to do with the decay of the tritium which is integral to the fusion reaction.
https:/
That article was published in 1984 and appears to suggest that renewal (of the warheads) is required every 20 years or so. I assume there is a rolling programme to keep them in working condition, going on in the background. The current debate is, however, about the cost of replacing the submarine fleet.
I'm not sure if Corbyn grasps the point that the use of submarines means that an opponent does nothing to protect its own cities by flinging missiles at us first, in the vain hope of destroying a launch site. The point of having them at sea is that they cannot be found.
Whatever words went into the question, I think what his brain thought he'd heard was "would he *initiate* a massive nuclear attack?" It is the leader who initiates a nuclear exchange who is responsible for destroying the planet and saying he wouldn't want to be that leader is quite understandable, IMHO.
Wittingly or not, in the eyes of the public, he has answered the (hypothetical) question "will you despatch our reflex strikes in the event of an incoming attack" with a "no". So he will allow UK to be burnt to a crisp and will not even retaliate against the perpetrator(s).
I have distorted what he was actually asked on purpose here because I don't think Ms Kuensberg's question was phrased in the right way to extract the required level of detail in his response. His answer is consistent with his desire to scrap Trident but his stance could conflict with the wishes of the British public. If elections or a referendum says we keep it then we need to know whether he would attempt to subvert it, in a moment of crisis.
An entirely hypothetical eventuality but we need to know, nevertheless. It is part of the PM's job; he has now stated he would not perform the task, therefore he cannot be allowed to win the next election.
Principles are fine things but they will prevent you gaining power, in such cases. Having no power means you cannot exert your principles, in which case, what's the point in having them?
https:/
That article was published in 1984 and appears to suggest that renewal (of the warheads) is required every 20 years or so. I assume there is a rolling programme to keep them in working condition, going on in the background. The current debate is, however, about the cost of replacing the submarine fleet.
I'm not sure if Corbyn grasps the point that the use of submarines means that an opponent does nothing to protect its own cities by flinging missiles at us first, in the vain hope of destroying a launch site. The point of having them at sea is that they cannot be found.
Whatever words went into the question, I think what his brain thought he'd heard was "would he *initiate* a massive nuclear attack?" It is the leader who initiates a nuclear exchange who is responsible for destroying the planet and saying he wouldn't want to be that leader is quite understandable, IMHO.
Wittingly or not, in the eyes of the public, he has answered the (hypothetical) question "will you despatch our reflex strikes in the event of an incoming attack" with a "no". So he will allow UK to be burnt to a crisp and will not even retaliate against the perpetrator(s).
I have distorted what he was actually asked on purpose here because I don't think Ms Kuensberg's question was phrased in the right way to extract the required level of detail in his response. His answer is consistent with his desire to scrap Trident but his stance could conflict with the wishes of the British public. If elections or a referendum says we keep it then we need to know whether he would attempt to subvert it, in a moment of crisis.
An entirely hypothetical eventuality but we need to know, nevertheless. It is part of the PM's job; he has now stated he would not perform the task, therefore he cannot be allowed to win the next election.
Principles are fine things but they will prevent you gaining power, in such cases. Having no power means you cannot exert your principles, in which case, what's the point in having them?
Latest Posts
If You Wrote Your Life Story ....
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Collywobbles Setting In At Labour?
News11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.