Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: For or against Trident


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: For or against Trident Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: For or against Trident - 10/6/2015 10:59:47 AM   
blnymph


Posts: 1664
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline 		thanks - what you could say was very interesting

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: For or against Trident - 10/6/2015 11:41:56 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
How long is Corbyn going to be the one in charge? How much is it going to cost to shutter the program and bring it back up after Corbyn is gone (if that's the chosen route)?

I understand what you're saying, and the point you're making. I wonder if Corbyn would ever change his mind. I mean, he's a politician, right? Politicians aren't exactly known for being completely open and honest (at least in America, or, as PoliteSub has pointed out many times, if you're Cameron Blair).

I firmly believe that to be a proper politician, you need to be a lying, cheating, conniving SOB with a certificate of receiving a full lobotomy.

Corbyn has been a politician for decades and has always been against Trident and other nuclear weapons.
I'm pretty sure he'll stick to his guns on scrapping Trident if the rest of the party let him get away with it.
But he stood on that platform for the leadership vote and won a landslide victory of almost 60%.
That would certainly give pause for thought at the next general election.

How long Corbyn will hold the party together, or if they ever actually get into power is another ball of wax.
But given the cost of refurbishing it, it is certainly raising more than a few eyebrows across the board.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 8:07:19 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
How long is Corbyn going to be the one in charge? How much is it going to cost to shutter the program and bring it back up after Corbyn is gone (if that's the chosen route)?
I understand what you're saying, and the point you're making. I wonder if Corbyn would ever change his mind. I mean, he's a politician, right? Politicians aren't exactly known for being completely open and honest (at least in America, or, as PoliteSub has pointed out many times, if you're Cameron Blair).

I firmly believe that to be a proper politician, you need to be a lying, cheating, conniving SOB with a certificate of receiving a full lobotomy.
Corbyn has been a politician for decades and has always been against Trident and other nuclear weapons.
I'm pretty sure he'll stick to his guns on scrapping Trident if the rest of the party let him get away with it.
But he stood on that platform for the leadership vote and won a landslide victory of almost 60%.
That would certainly give pause for thought at the next general election.
How long Corbyn will hold the party together, or if they ever actually get into power is another ball of wax.
But given the cost of refurbishing it, it is certainly raising more than a few eyebrows across the board.


So, our countries share more than just language. Our politicians are similar, too! lol

How long is Corbyn going to be in power, anyway? The next person might be more willing to send up a salvo or 8.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 8:12:37 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		All politicians are lying scumbags, no matter what country no matter what party, no matter what side.
Ive been saying that for decades,
Plus I was against trident back in the early 80s, the greenham commmon protests....nothing much has changed.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 9:41:56 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
All politicians are lying scumbags, no matter what country no matter what party, no matter what side.
Ive been saying that for decades,
Plus I was against trident back in the early 80s, the greenham commmon protests....nothing much has changed.


Trident is, at it's very basic, is 4 subs with nuclear-armed missiles. From what I've read, there is always at least one sub "out and about," so to speak. So retaliatory strikes are possible even if UK mainland is decimated.

As far as the hardware goes, the subs belong to the UK, and were built by the UK. The missiles are leased from the US, with maintenance costs the responsibility of the US. The warheads are also the UK's, and were built by the UK. So, if they scrap the programme (see what I did there?), they will have 4 subs and many nuke warheads with no missiles.

Again, I don't care one way or the other, outside of the US being "on the hook" due to the NATO treaty. But, that hook is there whether the UK has Trident or not.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 9:43:05 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		I meant my outlook on nukes hon:)

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 10:08:25 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I meant my outlook on nukes hon:)


But, outlooks on nukes isn't the subject matter. Scrapping Trident doesn't scrap nuke arsenals. It just scraps the submarine delivery program.

Personally, I'd rather have nukes and never need them, than to not have them and have a situation arise where their use would be warranted. Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 10:16:50 AM   
Nthrall


Posts: 65
Joined: 3/16/2015
Status: offline 		Please use your own brain to answer these questions.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 10:18:59 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I meant my outlook on nukes hon:)


But, outlooks on nukes isn't the subject matter. Scrapping Trident doesn't scrap nuke arsenals. It just scraps the submarine delivery program.

Personally, I'd rather have nukes and never need them, than to not have them and have a situation arise where their use would be warranted. Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me.


oh good gawd..
Im against trident...
OK???
THAT IS THE TOPIC

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 3:52:01 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I meant my outlook on nukes hon:)

But, outlooks on nukes isn't the subject matter. Scrapping Trident doesn't scrap nuke arsenals. It just scraps the submarine delivery program.
Personally, I'd rather have nukes and never need them, than to not have them and have a situation arise where their use would be warranted. Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me.

oh good gawd..
Im against trident...
OK???
THAT IS THE TOPIC


"I meant my outlook on nukes..."

"I'm against trident..."

I gathered you were opposed to Trident. Then you came back with it being your views on nukes. Now, it's back to Trident? Regardless of which you're opposed to in any given post, the facts remain. If Trident is shuttered, you will still have 4 submarines and a whole lot of nuke warheads. You just won't have the missiles that carry those warheads and are launched from those subs.

In your opinion, is NATO membership enough of a deterrent to prevent attacks on the UK? Is there really any more deterrence gained with the Trident program? If you think NATO is enough, and that Trident isn't going to materially get you to a higher level of deterrence, then shutter Trident.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 4:33:56 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:


It is a deterent, from anyone who has nuclear missiles. I dont think it hurts to keep it.


It hurts our pockets. A hundred billion to replace Trident - just imagine how that could be spent. It could pay for *as many as a thousand* of the pensions of the City bankers who've worked so tirelessly to fuck up our economy to date.



_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: For or against Trident - 10/7/2015 8:34:09 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		I agree that without the UK bearing its share of defense you have lots of good things to spend the money on... But do you believe there is no threat of aggression contrary to your way of life where a nuclear deterrent is needed? I think you would be very naive to think this... and history would agree with me.

I am tired of my tax money protecting you...and the UK not taking responsibility in your own defense will just take more money from my pocket. I would love for the US to provide free healthcare... fix our roads and bridges... but we spend now more than twice the percent of our GPS on defense than the UK.

Rather than less you should provide more.

I am all for world wide nuclear disarmament ... this is what should be worked on then we could all spend money on what is important.

Butch



< Message edited by kdsub -- 10/7/2015 8:51:29 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: For or against Trident - 10/8/2015 4:05:35 AM   
blnymph


Posts: 1664
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I meant my outlook on nukes hon:)


But, outlooks on nukes isn't the subject matter. Scrapping Trident doesn't scrap nuke arsenals. It just scraps the submarine delivery program.

Personally, I'd rather have nukes and never need them, than to not have them and have a situation arise where their use would be warranted. Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me.



In my humble knowledge your remark (I underlined) just describes the situation we are in for quite a while (decades ...?)


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: For or against Trident - 10/8/2015 6:31:17 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Now, as far as having enough to obliterate the entire world multiple times? That seems like overkill (no pun intended), and waste, to me.

In my humble knowledge your remark (I underlined) just describes the situation we are in for quite a while (decades ...?)


I'm not sure if you meant "we have been in for quite a while" (past tense), or the future tense you used. Both are correct, mind you.

Even in the 80's Cold War time, I didn't understand why the USSR and the US were building stockpiles to one-up the other in the number of times they could destroy the Earth. I mean, I could see being capable of destroying it twice, as you might be accounting for misfires, but more than that? Wholly unnecessary.

We've been past that point for decades, and we'll likely continue to be past that point for decades to come, unless something replaces nukes (in which case, we'll likely have enough of that new weapon to destroy the world multiple times).


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: For or against Trident - 10/9/2015 4:16:49 AM   
blnymph


Posts: 1664
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline 		oh past, present, and foreseeable future ...

the overall overkill capacity has been reduced after the 1990s to my knowledge, but there still is a multiple overkill capacity (and within this the french and british nukes contribute only a small percentage)

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: For or against Trident - 10/9/2015 5:13:00 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		a small aside...if anyone is into reading fiction and finds the topic of the thread worth thinking about some more, let me recommend Patrick robinson. he is a british author who writes naval thrillers with a strong submarine component and a fair amount of interaction between the usa and the uk. ive read 5-6 of his books and have thoroughly enjoyed each one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Robinson_(author)

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 10/9/2015 5:21:08 AM >

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: For or against Trident - 10/11/2015 4:56:29 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I agree that without the UK bearing its share of defense you have lots of good things to spend the money on... But do you believe there is no threat of aggression contrary to your way of life where a nuclear deterrent is needed? I think you would be very naive to think this... and history would agree with me.

I am tired of my tax money protecting you...and the UK not taking responsibility in your own defense will just take more money from my pocket. I would love for the US to provide free healthcare... fix our roads and bridges... but we spend now more than twice the percent of our GPS on defense than the UK.

Rather than less you should provide more.

I am all for world wide nuclear disarmament ... this is what should be worked on then we could all spend money on what is important.

Butch




If you think the US government happily tax you so they can defend everyone else, you are fucking deluded. The US defence industry has two aims, one is make money, two is protect US interests,

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 57
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: For or against Trident Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.219