We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
No Trident?
Comments
-
Why ?
Why is a nuclear deterrent not crucial for Germany, Japan, Australia, Spain, Italy, Canada, Brazil, and all the other countries who don't waste billions of their tax revenues on one ?
Because it is a requirement to get on the UN Security Council? Clearly, there is some historical context in this. Perhaps it was revisited.In case you hadn't already worked it out - the entire global financial system is predicated on the assumption that you're an idiot:cool:0 -
kennyboy66 wrote: »Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea have more influence than Germany & Japan ?
Righty ho.
And the biggest threat the UK has (security wise) is from terrorism which is not going to be deterred by nuclear options.0 -
Yes it does. Else all countries would scrap it.
There is no cheaper option. More so when it comes to the defence of this country.
Want cuts? Cut the benefit system. (e.g. £250 child vouchers?!)
the cheaper option would be to have aircraft launched nuclear weapons (like we used to have) and some of our planes still have nuke capabilities (with a bit of tweaking).
the downside of this is that the enemy know where they are and could simply bomb us and destroy our nuclear capabilities.
blah blah blah.... who cares, get rid of 'em, no-one wants to nuke us, and if we stop trying to be the world police theres even less chance someone will bomb us.0 -
Because it is a requirement to get on the UN Security Council? Clearly, there is some historical context in this. Perhaps it was revisited.
Wrong - the 5 permanent members (established just after the war) were effectively the winners of WW2.
At the time only the USA had nuclear weapons.US housing: it's not a bubble
Moneyweek, December 20050 -
kennyboy66 wrote: »Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea have more influence than Germany & Japan ?
Righty ho.
In NATO....YES which none of those countries are part of....less GermanyIf you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have failed to plan properly
I've only ever been wrong once! and that was when I thought I was wrong but I was right0 -
WhiteThierry wrote: »the cheaper option would be to have aircraft launched nuclear weapons (like we used to have) and some of our planes still have nuke capabilities (with a bit of tweaking).
the downside of this is that the enemy know where they are and could simply bomb us and destroy our nuclear capabilities.
blah blah blah.... who cares, get rid of 'em, no-one wants to nuke us, and if we stop trying to be the world police theres even less chance someone will bomb us.
Aircraft launched weapons are...useless
No one wants to nuke anyone...hence why its a deterrent....thats the whole point
And so far its worked...amazing eh.If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have failed to plan properly
I've only ever been wrong once! and that was when I thought I was wrong but I was right0 -
How do you suggest we maintain the seat?kennyboy66 wrote: »Wrong - the 5 permanent members (established just after the war) were effectively the winners of WW2.
At the time only the USA had nuclear weapons.
Defend the country with peashooters?0 -
And the biggest threat the UK has (security wise) is from terrorism which is not going to be deterred by nuclear options.
No, that's the excuse used to keep you in fear, while state powers are increased.
Frankly, the biggest risk from terrorism is the loss of freedom and privacy in the cause of preventing a small number of deaths every few years.What goes around - comes around0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards