Should Britain have nuclear weapons? - Page 2

Casper · 03-15-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugsy

I dont see that at all, unless you are talking about the financial costs, which could be spent elsewhere. If you look at the money flowing in this country, I often wonder where it all goes. What happens to the billions?

A swiss bank account maybe!

Is it possible to destroy all the worlds nuclear arms? what would it take to accomplice this?
I dont think its possible as this would take trust and we dont have a lot of that considering.

I am talking about the financial costs (on replacing trident), which could be spent elsewhere (to improve our own seperate community). The question is the degree in which these costs would make an improvement.

bugsy · 03-15-2007, 01:01 PM

the 20 billion it would cost to replace rident, could easy be hacked back with a couple of years, by the current taxes etc, we all have to pay.
So I dont think it would make such a dent in mr bowns's purse. He could easily forfeit the 30 million we pay to the eu each month and use that on the people...ha ha ha

Bruv · 03-15-2007, 06:10 PM

Why do we need bigger and better ?
The countries that threaten us are still in the early stages, so our old useless out dated weapons are better than theirs already

bugsy · 03-15-2007, 11:27 PM

bigger and better can mean less yied for same results.
Unfortunately its something we have to live with as there is no going back.

Bruv · 03-16-2007, 12:27 AM

bigger and better can mean less yied for same results
Sorry you may have to explain that sentence.

Tell the lads in Iraq if they need a new nuke or body armour, would a bigger and better nuke have saved one life in Londons bombings ?

You dont need to answer......the answer is clear to anyone with half a brain

Casper · 03-16-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugsy

the 20 billion it would cost to replace rident, could easy be hacked back with a couple of years, by the current taxes etc, we all have to pay.
So I dont think it would make such a dent in mr bowns's purse. He could easily forfeit the 30 million we pay to the eu each month and use that on the people...ha ha ha

Another point that hasn't been mentioned is that another study on the cost of Trident revealed it could easily cost in excess of £100 billion, rather than the overly optimistic estimate of £20 billion.

Let's put this in perspective. This country is arguably at social meltdown. What would be the point in stopping a supposedly enemy state in the near future from destroying what is vastly becoming a crap society anyway?

Why are we concerned about foreign states, when we can't even battle the chavs on our own streets?

bugsy · 03-17-2007, 06:31 AM

tell them to come home Bruv!
The nuclear weapons are not designed for guerrilla warfare. Thats why these time of campaigns cannot be won.
Are you suggesting Casper, that a nuclear strike on the UK might socially engineer the future generations?
Its a thought thats passed through many minds I am sure.

Sweetpea · 03-17-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

What happens to the billions?

It goes to Africa

Bruv · 03-17-2007, 08:12 PM

tell them to come home Bruv!

They are not listening to me......I told em not to go in the first place.

But I think you get my point ?
Nuclear weapons are for a specific purpose, and conventional conflicts dont need them.....until you are so desperate....you unleash them.....and stand back, hoping your enemy hasn't got them

Casper · 03-18-2007, 07:43 PM

I'm just not convinced about the argument for nuclear weapons.

Maybe we should have a referendum whereby only those people who vote to have Trident have to pay for it (if they were to win).