2015 post UK election discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
BlockHead said:
The thing is... whichever bozo launches the first nuke in anger will almost certainly precipitate Armageddon and we all go up in a puff of smoke, and I'm pretty certain we have other nukes than the Trident versions on the subs, so why bother upgrading?
Click to expand...

roydo said:
NATO/UN Security council sort of stuff.

They makes no sense in a logical, sane world, so until we have that, unfortunately we need them. Which in itself, is insane and illogical.

Employs tons of clever people though.
Click to expand...


The last and only time a nuclear(atomic) weapon was used in anger. It was by a nuclear(atomic) armed country against a country that did not have a nuclear(atomic) deterrent.

Do you believe for one instant that the United States would have launched the atomic strike against Japan if Japan had an atomic weapon capability of its own?

That is why unfortunately we need Trident
 
Mutzo Nutzo said:
The last and only time a nuclear(atomic) weapon was used in anger. It was by a nuclear(atomic) armed country against a country that did not have a nuclear(atomic) deterrent.

Do you believe for one instant that the United States would have launched the atomic strike against Japan if Japan had an atomic weapon capability of its own?

That is why unfortunately we need Trident
Click to expand...

Exactly - it's value lies as a deterrent.
 
BlockHead said:
The thing is... whichever bozo launches the first nuke in anger will almost certainly precipitate Armageddon and we all go up in a puff of smoke, and I'm pretty certain we have other nukes than the Trident versions on the subs, so why bother upgrading?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Would America or Europe really go nuclear if some bozo in Iran launched against us knowing it would lead to a lot of deaths in America?

You have no idea what the makeup of the world will look in 20 years. What about if Europe ruled by Germany turned evil?

It's not like it hasn't happened before.
 
roydo said:
NATO/UN Security council sort of stuff.

They makes no sense in a logical, sane world, so until we have that, unfortunately we need them. Which in itself, is insane and illogical.

Employs tons of clever people though.
Click to expand...
You could also argue it has been the main reason for the relative peace between the super powers for the past 70 years.
 
Mutzo Nutzo said:
The last and only time a nuclear(atomic) weapon was used in anger. It was by a nuclear(atomic) armed country against a country that did not have a nuclear(atomic) deterrent.

Do you believe for one instant that the United States would have launched the atomic strike against Japan if Japan had an atomic weapon capability of its own?

That is why unfortunately we need Trident
Click to expand...

Exactly.

But here is an idea. To reduce the cost to the NHS from smoking related stuff, heavy smokers could go on a 6 month tour on one where you cant smoke, for obvious reasons, to make them give up.

There. All our problems solved with that.
 
BlockHead said:
and I'm pretty certain we have other nukes than the Trident versions on the subs, so why bother upgrading?
Click to expand...

We only deploy devices from subs mate. Land based devices are much easier to take out so you can get away with having less of them if they're mobile and normally underwater. The current Vanguard / Trident combination is getting close to end of life so, if you want to continue having a deterrent then replacement is pretty much the only option.

edit

Whether or not we need a deterrent is debatable though. There's a minority in the military who aren't convinced of the need for it, and, for the politicians, it gives them power which isn't necessarily related to the defence of the nation.
 
Pat's Van said:
as if any more evidence were needed, here's what the mirror says about his campaign to run for barnsley central...

He ran a fierce campaign, which was nicknamed "Operation Honey Badger" after the notoriously ruthless and vicious mammal.

fkn sign him up now
Click to expand...

Lets just get a honey badger to have a head to head with Cameron and watch him rip him to bits
 
Thing is, we could actually not really replace them, just pretend we did.

Like would you take the gamble that we were bluffing if you wanted to beat us up?
 
I'll be honest and say I had no idea who Dan Jarvis was up until a few days ago.

The fact he's got a chance says it all about the lack of realistic candidates for the role. I've got a lot of time for Andy Burnham and have even worked for him in the past but I think we all know his shortcoming will be trying to attract those middle England voters.
 
roydo said:
Exactly.

But here is an idea. To reduce the cost to the NHS from smoking related stuff, heavy smokers could go on a 6 month tour on one where you cant smoke, for obvious reasons, to make them give up.

There. All our problems solved with that.
Click to expand...

I don't know what your experience of the NHS is but mine is one of total amazement at the fundamental lack of co-ordination and administrative control. I witnessed once scene where upon arrival I was met by a reception desk with 4 staff all doing separate individual tasks - only to be sent to another reception desk with a further 3 staff all doing basically the same job.

Then whilst waiting for beards I witnessed some random NHS bod wheeling a shopping trolley full of what looked like personal medical records around!

Yes the NHS needs more front line doctors and nurses but it also needs a full and comprehensive shake-up of its practices and procedures - I can see why its a total money-pit, but constantly throwing money at it is not IMO the true answer to solving the problem.
 
Pat's Van said:
as if any more evidence were needed, here's what the mirror says about his campaign to run for barnsley central...

He ran a fierce campaign, which was nicknamed "Operation Honey Badger" after the notoriously ruthless and vicious mammal.

fkn sign him up now
Click to expand...
Sounds like Besic.
 
dannyboy said:
I'll be honest and say I had no idea who Dan Jarvis was up until a few days ago.

The fact he's got a chance says it all about the lack of realistic candidates for the role. I've got a lot of time for Andy Burnham and have even worked for him in the past but I think we all know his shortcoming will be trying to attract those middle England voters.
Click to expand...
I actually like Andy Burnham. I think he might be a good choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top