Should Trident be renewed?

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by PaulBlackpool, Jul 9, 2016.

  1. No surprise there.
     
  2. Davmac

    Davmac Active Member

    A vote for common sense.
     
  3. Davmac

    Davmac Active Member

    We can all sleep safely in our beds at night for the next 40 years....................:eek: I wonder if we will need to replace it again ????? :confused:

     
  4. One way or another, probably not... :(
     
  5. PaulBlackpool

    PaulBlackpool Screwfix Select

    At least the decision has safeguarded thousands of jobs in Barrow.
     
  6. arthurdrip

    arthurdrip New Member

    Ahh, Trident....from the Latin for three teeth. A delicate and complex subject. Like asking should all dogs be banned because of one dog bite. It's getting ridiculous in our household
     
  7. chippie244

    chippie244 Super Member

    It would have been cheaper to give every inhabitant of Barrow £1 000 000.
     
  8. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select


    Still half the cost of a certain railway line nobody wants.
     
  9. chippie244

    chippie244 Super Member

    At least the railway will get used.
     
  10. parahandy

    parahandy Screwfix Select

    The way the world's going there's a fair chance Trident might see some action too.
     
  11. chippie244

    chippie244 Super Member

    Trumps latest utterances does change things.
     
  12. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    Having nukes is like installing a state of the art security system in your home or business premises, you'd put warning signs up in the hope that only a fool would test it's credibility.
    Prevention is better than the cure, sort of thing!
     
    Deleted member 33931 and Davmac like this.
  13. That sums it up right enough.

    The contents of these 'letter of last resort' that new PMs send to each of the 4 submarines are never revealed. And I reckon there's a fair chance that some will have had either "Don't retaliate" or else "use your own judgement".

    What a call to have to make. I guess these commanders will have thought this all through beforehand, so they don't procrastinate should the time arrive.

    What would you do? I mean, if you knew for certain that nukes were heading to the UK and we'd (almost all of us innocent civilians) be pretty much wiped out in a few minute's time, would the 'answer' be to also try and wipe out what are mostly innocent civilians on the other side too?

    What purpose would that serve - a churlish feeling of "At least we got our own back!" for the last minute we'd be on this earth? Even tho' we wouldn't even be around to witness what we'd done? Would that be morally justified? Would it serve any rational purpose?

    I guess, tho', the situations could vary. If a somewhat-loony and aggressive country had designs on taking over the whole of Europe, for example, (like the Nazis did not that long ago...) and their first move was to simply wipe most of one country away with a targeted nuclear strike so as to intimidate the rest into easier submission, then perhaps a retaliatory strike against that aggressor would be morally justified. And perhaps that retaliatory strike would be by a different country to that immediately under attack.

    I just can't get my head around the various conundrums. But it would always have to declared that "Yes, we ARE prepared to press the button in retaliation."

    Which is just one reason why Corbyn will never be a leader. Even if PM, he couldn't actually make Trident go away - the majority of MPs would still vote for it. But all the other nations would know what was in his 'letter of last resort'... :rolleyes:
     
    longboat and Davmac like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice