BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent

Subject: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 03:50 PM

Our next so-called 'socialist' Prime Minister has apparently decided to spend billions of pounds of our tax on a new nuclear deterrent to replace the aging Trident system, whilst telling everbody else they can't have them. Remember that George's poodle said the threat in the new century comes from a man with a suitcase rather than all-out nuclear war between nation states.

These millions of pounds could obviously be better spent on things we really need that would benefit the ordinary folk of the Island countries rather than weapons of mass destruction.

So is our Gord a prudent politician or hypocritical tosser?

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 04:10 PM

Ha! And who is he trying to deter????

The French?

It is to laugh. You know why this stuff is being done? Military contracts. That defence industry needs lucrative contracts to fill in order to maintain their high profits.

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 07:57 PM

I suppose GB is within shooting distance of Iran isn't it? Nothing to worry about there though I suppose. The Iranian government is a peace-loving group of people right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:00 PM

What's it for? I mean even if you believe in a genocidal deterrent, the one invented to square up to the USSR is hardly relevant to a totally different situation.

As for some imagined threat from Iran, so far as I know Iran has never invaded anyone in the last two thousand years, unlike a few other countries who might claim to have "a peace-loving group of people" controlling their government. And if we need it, how come Iran wouldn't have a much stronger case for needing it? Surrounded by hostile countries armed with nuclear weapons, and recent histories of engaging in invasions and occupations...

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:16 PM

Oh, get real, Doug! You are so far out of touch with both political and strategic realities that I would think you were living on another planet if I didn't know better.

I think if the UK has anyone in mind in terms of providing a nuclear deterrent against, it would still be the Russians...as a theoretical longshot. The Russians are the only country which might at this time present a real strategic nuclear threat to the UK...IF some sort of world crisis developed which ended up with Russia on the opposite side from the UK and the USA.

Such things can easily happen. Hitler and Stalin were allies and trading partners in 1940 and early '41. They were deadly enemies after June 22/41. That sort of thing can change very fast.

The most non-peace-loving people on Earth these days, in a general sense, are Americans, Doug, because it's the USA that launches pre-emptive wars over WMDs that don't exist, and STILL has the gall to imagine it was justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 02:47 AM

Blair and Brown ain't no socialists...and Brown's proposal to spend billions on a new generation of nuclear missiles is entirely predictable.
New Labour are on the far right shores of social democracy and its leadership fully embraces the freemarket, the new Imperialism and privatisation.
All the more reason to build an alternative to the nuclear state and the warmongers.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 05:32 AM

It is pretty depressing really. This means in British politics there is no alternative to the Thatcherite pro-nuclear policies we relied on the Labour party to implement.

"I suppose GB is within shooting distance of Iran isn't it?" I think its safe to say the Fox news/Sun reader mentality revealed by this comment will probably carry the day in this argument, even though it's a lie nobody really believes anymore.

A shame our leaders don't have the balls to make the sort of decision that will guide us away from this myopic view of the world and embrace a more compassionate and socially responsible set of policies that would benefit the general population.

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:55 AM

Stigeard....I agree with every word you say, but our leaders do require a "nuclear capability", not for defence, but for offence.

The day is quite close when the powerful countries will be prepared to use nuclear weapons to safeguard Capitalism and the energy it needs. This aggression will of course be called "defence"

The sad thing is... that because we are selfish uncaring creatures, we will support our leaders to the hilt!!...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:07 PM

Heh! AS IF Iran didn't have far more pressing matters much closer to home to deal with than the completely lunatic notion that they would lob a nuke at the British Isles! It would be a useless and suicidal thing to do, and it would achieve absolutely nothing that Iran could possibly wish to achieve at this point in their history...

Iran is the one who needs a deterrent. They have the Sixth Fleet off their shores, and occupying American and British forces based right across their borders with Iraq and Afghanistan. I have seldom seen anyone who needed an effective deterrent more than Iran does right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: Stu
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 05:59 AM

The folly of spending all this money on these supposed 'threats' stinks of population control by fear (a technique used to great effect in the USA at present).

As Little Hawk says, Iran has much more to worry about in its own doorstep - all thanks to the 'civilised' west.

Subject: RE: BS: Renewing the UKs nuclear deterrent
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 07:52 AM

Do you think any official will undertake to demonstrate that possessing Trdient up to now has been good value for money? I don't mean vague hand-waving remarks about the deterrent effect for example, but real evidence that on such and such an occassion, country A behaved in a way that can only plausibly be attributed to the UK possessing a deterrent. There would also have to be convincing evidence that the fact that the UKs allies also possessed similar weapons would not have had the same effect.

Somehow, I doubt anyone will volunteer.