Todays Spending Cuts

[scothunter 12,609]

I used to be pro nukes,and during the cold war it was a usefull tool and served its purpose.nowadays its just there to keep britain and the likes of cameron and his likes on the security council.no ones gonna launch a nuclear attack.there may be one that gets used in a terrorist attack,but who would you hit back in a scenario like that?

wer cant afford it plain and simple.living well above our means.defend these shores by all means but dont put the nation in the grubber by doing it.kinda defeats the purpose eh. yea we have the capabilities in destroying the planet 10times over,but the people have f**k all. kinda how the russians lived for decades.

sort out the mess in the country.stop getting involved in wars that do f**k all but bankrupt us.im f*****g sure the yanks made a few a quid and still are out of iraq.what do we get,a load of dead soldiers and a big f*****g target on our backs.

 

born sorry bud i know you like your trident lol

[Born Hunter 17,763]

We don't know what threats are around the corner. Our military has to be flexible enough to adapt to any unforseen threats to our security. Currently the threat of another state carrying out a nuclear attack is very small but we can't say that that will be true in 15, 20 or 25 years........... If suddenly that threat emerged we would be left at a severe dissadvantage and it's not something that can be rectified in a couple of days. Literally decades of R&D go into a project like that.

 

We really haven't a clue what's around the corner, only speculation. We don't have the military might to deal with emerging nuclear threats really so we have to have the ultimate deterant.

[twobob 1,497]

how many countrys have been nuked in the last 40 yrs that dont have nukes themselfs?

[scothunter 12,609]

its a new world,warfare is high tech,cruise.drones etc. jmo but those in westminister cant even protect the people on our streets.like paulus said the ones wishing us harm are already here,and not only do this goverment welcome them,they house and feed them,and give them more rights than us.

countries f****d and going to hell in a hand basket.f**k were even considering arming more of the tribes.

[Born Hunter 17,763]

Threats are wide and varied. The definition of the enemy isn't always clear I agree. BUT that doesn't mean we ignore the lessons of history. So we give up our nuclear deterant........... we have plenty of enemies in the arab world, what if one of these develop nuclear weapons, it'll only take one radical leader with a set of bollocks and we'll be wishing we had something to persaude them otherwise. The worlds an unstable place, I don't want to rely on our uncle sam with his big guns to keep us safe.

 

It's not satisfactory to just defend our shores, we have to be able to take the offensive with any potential threat. We don't have the means to prevent a nuclear attack so we have to deter it. It comes down to the same old saying, I'd rather have a gun and never need it that not have one and need it.....

[Born Hunter 17,763]

how many countrys have been nuked in the last 40 yrs that dont have nukes themselfs?

 

None, but that's a very simplistic interpretation of statistics. Most countries that don't have nuclear weapons either don't need them because their enemies don't have nuclear weapons or they are protected as part of a nuclear capable miltary alliance (such as NATO). Do you really think the likes of the cold war wouldn't have ended in mass bloodshed if only one side had nuclear weapons or even neither side? The UK would currently be the western USSR! Nuclear weapons keep the major players in this world talking, it maintains a balance. In the future smaller, potentially more volatile nations will develop progressively more advanced Nuclear weapons, the sort of countries that you would really rather didn't. Short of completely dominating them militarily our only safeguard against them is to have the ultimate deterant.

[Malt 379]

I like Trident, if nothing else it gives me a sense of pride in the fact that if anyone ever considered dropping the bomb on us they'd bloody know about it soon after.. f**k the bean counters, all these figures being banded about are based on nothing real anyway because our currency is all based on a set of figures. They could reset is all at 0 and start again, although that wouldn't suit the people in the city who benefit from the interest we are forced to repay on all this government borrowing and pissing away. I think I could live with that though.

[twobob 1,497]

 

how many countrys have been nuked in the last 40 yrs that dont have nukes themselfs?

 

None, but that's a very simplistic interpretation of statistics. Most countries that don't have nuclear weapons either don't need them because their enemies don't have nuclear weapons or they are protected as part of a nuclear capable miltary alliance (such as NATO). Do you really think the likes of the cold war wouldn't have ended in mass bloodshed if only one side had nuclear weapons or even neither side? The UK would currently be the western USSR! Nuclear weapons keep the major players in this world talking, it maintains a balance. In the future smaller, potentially more volatile nations will develop progressively more advanced Nuclear weapons, the sort of countries that you would really rather didn't. Short of completely dominating them militarily our only safeguard against them is to have the ultimate deterant.

 

by your reasoning then every country should be making them like you said earlier you dont know whats going to happen in 10 15 20yrs time eh?

[tandors 888]

Developing countries dont have the intelligence or engineering skills required to develop anything nevermind nuclear weapons the only way they will get them is if they are given them imo.

[scothunter 12,609]

ah maybe you lads are right,although i have my doubts these c**ts who govern us would even retaliate,they havent shown much backbone to sway me.one thing you can be assured of lads.we wont be sitting in the comfort of a bunker if it did happen lol

[Sjt657 191]

THE UK's CURRENT FOREIGN AID BILL INCLUDES TO FOLLOWING DONATIONS PER YEAR Jamaica,6 million, Haiti,10 million, West Indies regional, 13 million, Montserat, 28 million,Others 17 million. Kosovo,4 million, West Bank Gaza 73 million, yemen, 38 million, Libya,6 million, Sierra Leone 46 million, Liberia, 20 million, Ivory Coast, 8 million, Ghana, 78 million, Nigeria, 158, million, Africa regional, 176[/size] million, St Helena and dependants 49 million, Sudan 95 million, Eritrea 5 million, South Sudan 52 million, Ethiopia 344 million, Somalia 93 million, Uganda 87 million, Kenya 81 million, Rwanda 85 million, Democratic republic of Congo 146 million, Tanzania 113 million, Burundi 11 million, Zambia 55 million Malawi 61 million, Zimbabwe 46 million, Mozambique 119 million, South Africa 26 million, Iraq 5 million, Afghanistan 191 million, Kyrgistan 7 million, Pakistan 197 million, India 293 million, Asia regional 99 million, Nepal 64 million Bangladesh 227 million, Burma 38 million, China 5 million, Vietnam 19 million, Indonesia 16 million, And the Chancellor has the cheek to tell us to tighten our belts i think he needs to give his head a wobble and stop all the above and start seeing this money his needed here[/size]

Holy crap !!!! And there chasing me for £209 pounds because I got private health care when I was Ill and the NHS did nothing ....... Apparently if you don't burden the NHS you pay more tax to send to Bangladesh ?

[paulus 26]

 

THE UK's CURRENT FOREIGN AID BILL INCLUDES TO FOLLOWING DONATIONS PER YEAR Jamaica,6 million, Haiti,10 million, West Indies regional, 13 million, Montserat, 28 million,Others 17 million. Kosovo,4 million, West Bank Gaza 73 million, yemen, 38 million, Libya,6 million, Sierra Leone 46 million, Liberia, 20 million, Ivory Coast, 8 million, Ghana, 78 million, Nigeria, 158, million, Africa regional, 176[/size] million, St Helena and dependants 49 million, Sudan 95 million, Eritrea 5 million, South Sudan 52 million, Ethiopia 344 million, Somalia 93 million, Uganda 87 million, Kenya 81 million, Rwanda 85 million, Democratic republic of Congo 146 million, Tanzania 113 million, Burundi 11 million, Zambia 55 million Malawi 61 million, Zimbabwe 46 million, Mozambique 119 million, South Africa 26 million, Iraq 5 million, Afghanistan 191 million, Kyrgistan 7 million, Pakistan 197 million, India 293 million, Asia regional 99 million, Nepal 64 million Bangladesh 227 million, Burma 38 million, China 5 million, Vietnam 19 million, Indonesia 16 million, And the Chancellor has the cheek to tell us to tighten our belts i think he needs to give his head a wobble and stop all the above and start seeing this money his needed here[/size]

Holy crap !!!! And there chasing me for £209 pounds because I got private health care when I was Ill and the NHS did nothing ....... Apparently if you don't burden the NHS you pay more tax to send to Bangladesh ?

 

the NHS has million people on its books, good that considering theres only 60 million people in this country