Clockwork Red
comment by TUX (U5315)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 3 minutes ago
Its not a deterrent if you fire in retaliation and if you fire first, you're the lunatic.
Meaning? Nuclear deterrents are a waste of money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5* 's
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? The point of having one is that you will never HAVE to retaliate. Because nobody will fire at you, knowing you COULD retaliate. That's what makes it a deterrent.
How do you know nobody would fire one? The yanks have already fired two.
Anyway I will not be around when the nukes are fired, but best of luck trying to find any bits of your incinerated children or grandchildren.
Oh here we go - the jew hater is here
comment by The Luke Show - Feeling Moyesian (U8522)
posted 1 minute ago
Trump is a shameless politician with no morals, who'd do anything to get in to power. I've read somewhere that he used to have pro immigration policies few years ago. When that didnt quite work on public, he made a complete U turn and started pandering to the idiotic redneck base in US.
As someone said earlier, he is the most dangerous person in the world at the moment because he doesnt have any principles and he will shameless pander to his vote base if he gets the power
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, one of the problems is that he is not a politician at all. hes a reality TV star and real estate mogul.
Its terrifying to think of him trying to manage war, conflict, defense, natural disasters, international relations, the economy and all those other things that keep a country up and running.
Not at all. All about evidence**
okay you vote for Jeremy and cross your fingers
Trump is just another republican idiot.
But thats fine cos that is what a lot of Americans want running their country.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Trident should be scrapped. Lots of developed countries in the world don't have one and their economies are thriving and health services aren't crumbling.
Hipppo
how can it be flawed when it has worked exactly like that for 80 years
-----------
Did you bother reading this or not?
http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/trident-deterrence-and-uk-security
comment by yeah yeah (U17250)
posted 1 minute ago
Oh here we go - the jew hater is here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the extreme right wing Islamaphobe.
The Jew hater? Because I hate Israel hahaha
I have never in my life said anything about real Jews only zionists and because you are a zionist I hit a nerve.
SE85 stop being sensible realistic and rational. This isnt the time or place.
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 1 minute ago
Trump is just another republican idiot.
But thats fine cos that is what a lot of Americans want running their country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hes really not. He is so much different to anything that would have come before.
Every president in history has had some level of political experience, or at least military leadership back in the beginning of the country.
Trump has not. he is not equipped to be a president, let alone a town mayor.
His policies are the equivalent of running around shouting "America f*ck yeah" and waving a big flag.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
Really? The point of having one is that you will never HAVE to retaliate. Because nobody will fire at you, knowing you COULD retaliate. That's what makes it a deterrent.
---------------------------
Flawed on every level. I've already posted this on this thread but people don't much like changing their minds but I'll give it a go anyway:
http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/trident-deterrence-and-uk-security
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not defending Trident. I just thought there was a flaw in the post above mine; it posited two scenarios as if they were the only two and I offered another.
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 56 seconds ago
Trident should be scrapped. Lots of developed countries in the world don't have one and their economies are thriving and health services aren't crumbling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems Some people would rather sacrifice health, education, public transport, elderly care etc so we can spend billions on something we never have nor never will use
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
His policies are the equivalent of running around shouting "America f*ck yeah" and waving a big flag.
****
thats what I said. Hes a Republican idiot
It would be pretty funny seeing Trump as president as an on looker from the outside if America kept them self to them self. But when you boil it down to the end we can't have this nutter as the president as it would effect us all even in the UK with America doing there best to be the 'World Police'. More stupid foreign policy and could screw up the global economy.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
Really? The point of having one is that you will never HAVE to retaliate. Because nobody will fire at you, knowing you COULD retaliate. That's what makes it a deterrent.
---------------------------
Flawed on every level. I've already posted this on this thread but people don't much like changing their minds but I'll give it a go anyway:
http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/trident-deterrence-and-uk-security
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not defending Trident. I just thought there was a flaw in the post above mine; it posited two scenarios as if they were the only two and I offered another.
---------------------
Fair enough, but in any case I'd strongly urge you and anyone else to familiarise yourself with the information in the Scientists for Global Responsibility link I've posted. One of the two major issues of critical importance in our time (the other being climate change).
"The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament."
A bloke finally comes a long that wants to achieve this and he's dangerous for not producing more weapons that can incinerate this planet.
What do we actually have on this Island that somebody else would want to attack it for?
How much does the trident programme cost us each year? Billions.
Imagine how many nurses, doctors, teachers, police officers and fire fighters that would pay for.
What do we actually have on this Island that somebody else would want to attack it for?
****
ask the Russians.
The answer to your question is.... a nuclear deterrent
What do we actually have on this Island that somebody else would want to attack it for?
-----------
Well were sitting on about 30 yrs of coal but the tories have seen to it that no one will be getting their hands on that anytime soon
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 2 minutes ago
"The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament."
A bloke finally comes a long that wants to achieve this and he's dangerous for not producing more weapons that can incinerate this planet.
What do we actually have on this Island that somebody else would want to attack it for?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leibenraum?
Apologies for the spelling.
comment by a filet of hippo meat placed on some toast (U1301)
posted 1 minute ago
berbaking from your posted article:
The simplest explanation for the lack of an attack by the Soviet Union on NATO countries is that there was no intention to do so
..........................
this can not possibly be a serious paper. this is ludicrous. the soviets took over a shed load of countries and the author thinks they stopped at nato countries because they simply did not want to? that is beyond parody.
----------------------------------
That's highly likely the case, yes.
Russia suffered some of the worst casualties in the history of wars during the second world war (with no nuclear weapons involved). It, just the like the US and the British, obviously had aspirations of controlling and influencing as much as it was possible to do so, but it wasn't suicidal. It didn't want an actual war with the western powers, which is what would have happened had it overstepped its sphere of influence (nato countries).
BerbaKing
The link looks interesting and I intend to read it in full later (bit of work first). I noticed this bit:
"It may be the case that nuclear weapons have had some deterrent effect, but it is deeply flawed to argue that it is reliable. The absence of nuclear war doesn’t give clear proof of the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence in the same way that habitual smokers cannot claim that smoking is safe because they are still alive and well. One thing we do know is that we have not had a nuclear war despite nuclear weapons. The evidence from six decades without nuclear war is that we have come perilously close to nuclear destruction on many occasions. This has arisen due to a range of causes: false alarms; military exercises that became too realistic; faulty equipment; human error; and political brinksmanship. There are numerous examples from history showing when nuclear deterrence has failed, not least the Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982."
All very well - it's hard argue with most of that. But surely what he doesn't know is what things would have been like WITHOUT nuclear deterrents. I can't really see the relevance of the Falklands, either. Like I suggested earlier, the nuclear deterrent is surely intended to prevent nuclear attacks, not invasions of territories thousands of miles away.
during the second world war (with no nuclear weapons involved
****
eh?
Sign in if you want to comment
Is Donald Trump a
Page 3 of 30
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 19/1/16
Clockwork Red
comment by TUX (U5315)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 3 minutes ago
Its not a deterrent if you fire in retaliation and if you fire first, you're the lunatic.
Meaning? Nuclear deterrents are a waste of money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5* 's
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? The point of having one is that you will never HAVE to retaliate. Because nobody will fire at you, knowing you COULD retaliate. That's what makes it a deterrent.
How do you know nobody would fire one? The yanks have already fired two.
Anyway I will not be around when the nukes are fired, but best of luck trying to find any bits of your incinerated children or grandchildren.
posted on 19/1/16
Oh here we go - the jew hater is here
posted on 19/1/16
comment by The Luke Show - Feeling Moyesian (U8522)
posted 1 minute ago
Trump is a shameless politician with no morals, who'd do anything to get in to power. I've read somewhere that he used to have pro immigration policies few years ago. When that didnt quite work on public, he made a complete U turn and started pandering to the idiotic redneck base in US.
As someone said earlier, he is the most dangerous person in the world at the moment because he doesnt have any principles and he will shameless pander to his vote base if he gets the power
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, one of the problems is that he is not a politician at all. hes a reality TV star and real estate mogul.
Its terrifying to think of him trying to manage war, conflict, defense, natural disasters, international relations, the economy and all those other things that keep a country up and running.
posted on 19/1/16
Not at all. All about evidence**
okay you vote for Jeremy and cross your fingers
posted on 19/1/16
Trump is just another republican idiot.
But thats fine cos that is what a lot of Americans want running their country.
posted on 19/1/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/1/16
Trident should be scrapped. Lots of developed countries in the world don't have one and their economies are thriving and health services aren't crumbling.
posted on 19/1/16
Hipppo
how can it be flawed when it has worked exactly like that for 80 years
-----------
Did you bother reading this or not?
http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/trident-deterrence-and-uk-security
posted on 19/1/16
comment by yeah yeah (U17250)
posted 1 minute ago
Oh here we go - the jew hater is here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the extreme right wing Islamaphobe.
The Jew hater? Because I hate Israel hahaha
I have never in my life said anything about real Jews only zionists and because you are a zionist I hit a nerve.
posted on 19/1/16
SE85 stop being sensible realistic and rational. This isnt the time or place.
posted on 19/1/16
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 1 minute ago
Trump is just another republican idiot.
But thats fine cos that is what a lot of Americans want running their country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hes really not. He is so much different to anything that would have come before.
Every president in history has had some level of political experience, or at least military leadership back in the beginning of the country.
Trump has not. he is not equipped to be a president, let alone a town mayor.
His policies are the equivalent of running around shouting "America f*ck yeah" and waving a big flag.
posted on 19/1/16
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
Really? The point of having one is that you will never HAVE to retaliate. Because nobody will fire at you, knowing you COULD retaliate. That's what makes it a deterrent.
---------------------------
Flawed on every level. I've already posted this on this thread but people don't much like changing their minds but I'll give it a go anyway:
http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/trident-deterrence-and-uk-security
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not defending Trident. I just thought there was a flaw in the post above mine; it posited two scenarios as if they were the only two and I offered another.
posted on 19/1/16
comment by Stretford_Ender85 (U10955)
posted 56 seconds ago
Trident should be scrapped. Lots of developed countries in the world don't have one and their economies are thriving and health services aren't crumbling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems Some people would rather sacrifice health, education, public transport, elderly care etc so we can spend billions on something we never have nor never will use
posted on 19/1/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/1/16
His policies are the equivalent of running around shouting "America f*ck yeah" and waving a big flag.
****
thats what I said. Hes a Republican idiot
posted on 19/1/16
It would be pretty funny seeing Trump as president as an on looker from the outside if America kept them self to them self. But when you boil it down to the end we can't have this nutter as the president as it would effect us all even in the UK with America doing there best to be the 'World Police'. More stupid foreign policy and could screw up the global economy.
posted on 19/1/16
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
Really? The point of having one is that you will never HAVE to retaliate. Because nobody will fire at you, knowing you COULD retaliate. That's what makes it a deterrent.
---------------------------
Flawed on every level. I've already posted this on this thread but people don't much like changing their minds but I'll give it a go anyway:
http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/trident-deterrence-and-uk-security
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not defending Trident. I just thought there was a flaw in the post above mine; it posited two scenarios as if they were the only two and I offered another.
---------------------
Fair enough, but in any case I'd strongly urge you and anyone else to familiarise yourself with the information in the Scientists for Global Responsibility link I've posted. One of the two major issues of critical importance in our time (the other being climate change).
posted on 19/1/16
"The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament."
A bloke finally comes a long that wants to achieve this and he's dangerous for not producing more weapons that can incinerate this planet.
What do we actually have on this Island that somebody else would want to attack it for?
posted on 19/1/16
How much does the trident programme cost us each year? Billions.
Imagine how many nurses, doctors, teachers, police officers and fire fighters that would pay for.
posted on 19/1/16
What do we actually have on this Island that somebody else would want to attack it for?
****
ask the Russians.
The answer to your question is.... a nuclear deterrent
posted on 19/1/16
What do we actually have on this Island that somebody else would want to attack it for?
-----------
Well were sitting on about 30 yrs of coal but the tories have seen to it that no one will be getting their hands on that anytime soon
posted on 19/1/16
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 2 minutes ago
"The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament."
A bloke finally comes a long that wants to achieve this and he's dangerous for not producing more weapons that can incinerate this planet.
What do we actually have on this Island that somebody else would want to attack it for?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leibenraum?
Apologies for the spelling.
posted on 19/1/16
comment by a filet of hippo meat placed on some toast (U1301)
posted 1 minute ago
berbaking from your posted article:
The simplest explanation for the lack of an attack by the Soviet Union on NATO countries is that there was no intention to do so
..........................
this can not possibly be a serious paper. this is ludicrous. the soviets took over a shed load of countries and the author thinks they stopped at nato countries because they simply did not want to? that is beyond parody.
----------------------------------
That's highly likely the case, yes.
Russia suffered some of the worst casualties in the history of wars during the second world war (with no nuclear weapons involved). It, just the like the US and the British, obviously had aspirations of controlling and influencing as much as it was possible to do so, but it wasn't suicidal. It didn't want an actual war with the western powers, which is what would have happened had it overstepped its sphere of influence (nato countries).
posted on 19/1/16
BerbaKing
The link looks interesting and I intend to read it in full later (bit of work first). I noticed this bit:
"It may be the case that nuclear weapons have had some deterrent effect, but it is deeply flawed to argue that it is reliable. The absence of nuclear war doesn’t give clear proof of the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence in the same way that habitual smokers cannot claim that smoking is safe because they are still alive and well. One thing we do know is that we have not had a nuclear war despite nuclear weapons. The evidence from six decades without nuclear war is that we have come perilously close to nuclear destruction on many occasions. This has arisen due to a range of causes: false alarms; military exercises that became too realistic; faulty equipment; human error; and political brinksmanship. There are numerous examples from history showing when nuclear deterrence has failed, not least the Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982."
All very well - it's hard argue with most of that. But surely what he doesn't know is what things would have been like WITHOUT nuclear deterrents. I can't really see the relevance of the Falklands, either. Like I suggested earlier, the nuclear deterrent is surely intended to prevent nuclear attacks, not invasions of territories thousands of miles away.
posted on 19/1/16
during the second world war (with no nuclear weapons involved
****
eh?
Page 3 of 30
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10