Page 2 of 4
Posted: 22 Jun 2006, 16:55
by weebleswobble
It will cost at least
25 Billion pounds...that in itself is a disgrace
No More Cold War
Nutbags will not be deterred, they are after all Nutbags
So what if France will have more and bigger toys
Posted: 22 Jun 2006, 17:22
by Badlander
weebleswobble wrote:
So what if France will have more and bigger toys
French
government please. I don't want to be held responsible for that sh!t.
Not in my name. 
Re: Does Britain need an independent nuclear deterrent?
Posted: 22 Jun 2006, 18:01
by 9while9
markfiend wrote:So I hear that Gordon Brown wants to
renew and update Britain's nukes.
OK, I know the Labour party abandoned the unilateral disarmament policy a long time ago, but I never thought they'd go as far as
renewing Trident. What a waste of money.
We all saw what a great job a deterrent does to stop major attacks back on 9/11 and 7/7.
Thoughts anyone?
Not to worry MarkFiend,
America has saved Britain's arse in the past
and will do so again.
Posted: 22 Jun 2006, 18:35
by DarkAngel
markfiend wrote:So I hear that Gordon Brown wants to
renew and update Britain's nukes.
We all saw what a great job a deterrent does to stop major attacks back on 9/11 and 7/7. Thoughts anyone?
Having nukes won't stop a terrorist attack. But a terrorist having nukes is the biggest world danger I can imagine. Therefore; I'm can't personally see the benefit in updating Britain's nukes. Maybe it will create jobs - who knows the real reasons politicians do what they do.
timsinister wrote:In the long term, I think we do require an independant nuclear option, as the gulf between us and America increases.
Now this comment surprises me. I believe American/U.K. relationship is firm and unmoving. If, for any reason, the U.K. is attacked we
will bomb the sh*t out of the attacker - no negotiations needed.
Posted: 22 Jun 2006, 18:35
by Dark
Whilst f**king up everywhere else and wanting us to help?
Posted: 22 Jun 2006, 18:37
by DarkAngel
Dark wrote:Whilst f**king up everywhere else and wanting us to help?
We are all political F**k ups in one way or another. Our alliance is real.
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 00:14
by paint it black
markfiend wrote:Why don't you point out these alleged flaws in my logic then?
Who is Mr Hawkins and what right idea does he have?
a) mr hawkins writes books about black holes and does sums in his spare time, his idea, now being adopted, builds upon the inevitability and the fear of cataclysm. If the human race is to survive then there needs to be an outpost and as soon as possible
b) good point, don’t have time at work, but goes something like –
i) Investigate the historical context for the strong anglo-american alliance [crippling war debts, truman doctrine, extension of empire etc]
ii) Understand the drivers for the ‘new empire(s)’ ~ commerce, defence and fuel
iii) Understand how these aims are to be met ~ pre-emptive strikes on anybody who threatens ii) and increased democracy for the rest in order to create new ‘free trade countries’ [see also, reconstruction programmes and ownership of oil]
iv) Understand the need to keep Europe from uniting as a unified power and the need for on-going globalisation as otherwise iii) will fail
v) All the above means in my book, is that the ‘bad guys’, the rogue states, the terrorists, are obliged to retaliate, which they do, in the only way they can.
vi) The middle eastern nuclear deterrent (though probably not now as effective as chemical or biological weapons) one would guess will come from israel with the backing of america [and by default, the uk] if they were to become ‘rogue’ then I believe the uk [acting on behalf of america] would need to be at hand
vii) I really don’t see this as anything about the logic, or morality of global nuclear warfare [that’s where you come in]. for me this is all about economics and how far and how much people are prepared to play that game [see, as has already been discussed, china’s needs to penetrate new markets ~ but that’s another discussion].
viii) Put simply a) america won’t let the uk have the option to pull out b) if the uk were to pullout the defence industry would take a massive hit which the banks couldn’t support without expansion into new territories c) the longtermness of these projects means that the uk could never catch up, if ever it needed to, which according to mr Hawkins, it will
sorry if it's not what you expected. i'll leave to you clever people now
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 00:48
by weebleswobble
Badlander wrote:weebleswobble wrote:
So what if France will have more and bigger toys
French
government please. I don't want to be held responsible for that sh!t.
Not in my name.
Vous moyen vous n'avez pas un en votre cour arrière ? Gouvernements sanglants, non adaptés pour courir un mille encore moins un pays
Apologies for the cr@p translation - when you do it in reverse it is complete
B0ll0cks!
clicky
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 08:35
by DeWinter
Unless I'm much mistaken, Britain's nuclear missiles are dependent on the US navigation system, so there's no way Britain could launch an attack without America being involved. So it's hardly an independent deterrent.
If Gordon wants new nuclear missiles and power stations, let them all be placed in Kirkaldy.
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 09:01
by King of Byblos
Nuclear weapons are pretty much a by-product of nuclear energy... all the stuff left over happens to be able to be turned into bombs, so
if we have nuclear power wouldn't it be better for a 'safe' country to tie thier waste up in bombs they may never use rather than trying to get rid/leave it lying around to be turned into dirty-bombs?
&re tracking systems
Currently there is only one GPS in the world, however, the EU is currently launching its own satellittes [?sic], what's the betting Trident II will use that in a big two-finger-salute to the US?
there are more than 3 coutries with ICBM's; France can definately add nukes to theirs and North Korea 'probably' can:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5099360.stm
Re: Does Britain need an independent nuclear deterrent?
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 09:44
by Doktor Gott
9while9 wrote:
Not to worry MarkFiend,
America has saved Britain's arse in the past
and will do so again.
No, America has acted to stop the spread of communism you mean..
Remember, the British did actually fend off the Luftwaffe pretty much on their own, stalling German plans for an invasion of the country. And personally I'd think that the Russians were far more responsible for the "saving" of Europe from Nazism - even if they did replace it with something just as bad.
Also, American "help" didn't come free to Britain, I think we finally paid off our war debt in the late 90s unless I'm mistaken.
D-Day wasn't about the liberation of France, it was a desperate effort to stop Stalin rolling west of Berlin and to the Atlantic coast..
So "help" is the word used in the loosest possible sense..
****************************
@King of Byblos - France's missiles are what could be considered INF weapons, they don't have true intercontinental capability.
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 10:03
by timsinister
DarkAngel wrote:
timsinister wrote:In the long term, I think we do require an independant nuclear option, as the gulf between us and America increases.
Now this comment surprises me. I believe American/U.K. relationship is firm and unmoving. If, for any reason, the U.K. is attacked we
will bomb the sh*t out of the attacker - no negotiations needed.
As Ez points out, the unification of Europe - an independant power bloc with no reliance on the US - would negate England requiring any assistance from America. Plus, as the US' foreign policy continues, the British public will become more and more dissatisfied with our involvement in the government's* adventurism. Basically, what Dark said.
DeWinter raises a good point, but according to
Wikipedia - and where else, eh? - our ICBM program is located entirely on our four
Vanguard-class submarines, with their own targeting systems which - one assumes - does not tap into any American locating gear. After all, what if a pre-emptive strike had already knocked out the US' systems?
I'd say the argument is shifting more from the necessity and intent of owning these weapons, to a more political viewpoint - do we need these weapons to ensure our sovreignty, our independance from American military assistance?
* - Please note I said
government, not
people.
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 11:11
by markfiend
paint it black wrote: a) mr hawkins writes books about black holes and does sums in his spare time, his idea, now being adopted, builds upon the inevitability and the fear of cataclysm. If the human race is to survive then there needs to be an outpost and as soon as possible
Oh
that Mr Hawkins. I'd have called him Professor Hawkin
g myself, but I'm just picking nits
I'm not aware of this aspect of his work, I imagine that by "outpost" you/he are talking about space colonisation? If so it's something I've been in favour of for a long time; largely for similar reasons
The planet's f*cked, we need to get at least some of humanity of it if our species is to survive.
paint it black wrote: b) good point, don’t have time at work, but goes something like –
i) Investigate the historical context for the strong anglo-american alliance [crippling war debts, truman doctrine, extension of empire etc]
ii) Understand the drivers for the ‘new empire(s)’ ~ commerce, defence and fuel
iii) Understand how these aims are to be met ~ pre-emptive strikes on anybody who threatens ii) and increased democracy for the rest in order to create new ‘free trade countries’ [see also, reconstruction programmes and ownership of oil]
I'd argue taht the US (and the UK following behind) is rapidly becoming more of a plutocracy than a true democracy, but I digress.
paint it black wrote:iv) Understand the need to keep Europe from uniting as a unified power and the need for on-going globalisation as otherwise iii) will fail
v) All the above means in my book, is that the ‘bad guys’, the rogue states, the terrorists, are obliged to retaliate, which they do, in the only way they can.
vi) The middle eastern nuclear deterrent (though probably not now as effective as chemical or biological weapons) one would guess will come from israel with the backing of america [and by default, the uk] if they were to become ‘rogue’ then I believe the uk [acting on behalf of america] would need to be at hand
Israel does have its own nuclear weapons. Page Mordecai Vanunu.
paint it black wrote: vii) I really don’t see this as anything about the logic, or morality of global nuclear warfare [that’s where you come in]. for me this is all about economics and how far and how much people are prepared to play that game [see, as has already been discussed, china’s needs to penetrate new markets ~ but that’s another discussion].
OK, I do see the economic argument has some merit; but I don't know, I just think it's insane to spend £25 000 000 000 on a weapons system we hope never to use. In a perfect world (I know, you can't get there from here...) think of what could be accomplished with that money.
paint it black wrote: viii) Put simply a) america won’t let the uk have the option to pull out
I think this is the point. But why should we be at the US's beck and call?
paint it black wrote: b) if the uk were to pullout the defence industry would take a massive hit which the banks couldn’t support without expansion into new territories c) the longtermness of these projects means that the uk could never catch up, if ever it needed to, which according to mr Hawkins, it will
sorry if it's not what you expected. i'll leave to you clever people now
Don't apologise!
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 15:19
by Jaimie1980
I don't think anyone should have them but that's in that ideal world of mine.
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 16:37
by wild bill buttock
It just makes me so bloody angry.Another example of how much Tony and his middle class wankers have completely sold out all of their socialist values.
The Ironic thing is that most of this "New Labour" bunch were supporting CND in the 80's and were probably on the same demos I was.
£25 billion for something we don't need and have NEVER needed.f**king obscene!!!
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 17:08
by DarkAngel
timsinister wrote:DarkAngel wrote:
timsinister wrote:In the long term, I think we do require an independant nuclear option, as the gulf between us and America increases.
Now this comment surprises me. I believe American/U.K. relationship is firm and unmoving. If, for any reason, the U.K. is attacked we
will bomb the sh*t out of the attacker - no negotiations needed.
As Ez points out, the unification of Europe - an independant power bloc with no reliance on the US - would negate England requiring any assistance from America. i
First of all, a completely unified Europe is probably not ever going to happen due to the many strong differences between nations. An allied Europe seems to already exist. To want complete independence is what every country wants - which explains our many and differing governments.
Alliances with other countries does not indicate dependence - they are based upon agreements. Alliances are important because as individuals and communities, we need each other. The stronger the alliance, the safer everyone feels. Our governements are allied because they choose to be.
Which leads me to my final point. There are many, many ways you and I as well as everyone else can point to failures or inadequacies in governments. But, we must always remember, that acts of war are always instigated by people who are so extremely different than those of us even taking the time to think right now. Acts of war are started by sociopaths. Sociopaths feel no compassion and are capable of the worst possible horror and not feel even the slightest tinge of guilt or regret. These people are intrinsically different from everyone else - and sometimes they get in control of governements. If any of you have ever spent time with a sociopath you will completely understand. If you think I'm full of sh*t, volunteer at a prison and spend some quality time with a true sociopath trying to "connect" with that person and you will see what I mean.
When a sociopath gets in control of a government and commits a horrifying act of war upon people you love, all of our differences would fade away very quickly.
Posted: 26 Jun 2006, 11:07
by Jaimie1980
The fact that there's nuclear weapons in the world scares me. One should ask one's self where the threat really comes from. I'm scared by the fact that Iran may have them but I'm equally scared by the fact that the USA and Britain has them too. It's totally naive to see it as us and them. The people in power in the West subscibe to a value system different to mine. They don't represent my interests. On the other hand I resent the fundamentalists wishing to impose a way of life on me I don't want.
Since the whole War on Terror thing began I've had the feeling many other people must have had of being not under attack from the East but in the middle of a conflict. I don't want freemarket capitalism or fundamentalist Islam and I despise the fact that there's fools representing both who have access to nuclear weapons.
Posted: 26 Jun 2006, 11:29
by markfiend
I read something worrying in The Observer yesterday. It seems that the CND leadership has been taken over by idiots in the George Galloway mould - while being opposed to the UK having nuclear weapons, it appears that they are in favour of Iran having them.
Online
here (scroll down)
Posted: 26 Jun 2006, 13:56
by timsinister
Whether or not Europe forms into a true National State, I don't really have faith in a continuing Anglo-US alliance, as our faith in both nation's administration drops, and our societies develop in different directions. I'm trying to think of what the US offers us, and what we can obtain through the EU, and how one matches up against the other...
As for the moral justification of War, and the viewpoint that only 'sociopaths start wars', I'd be a little sceptical. The motivations for the present conflict are wide and varied, but supported by a wide base of people. Are they all sociopathic? Ignorant yes, but psychologically affected, no. Greed, revenge, territorial claims, fear, intimidation - lots of factors, but none of them requiring a mentally disturbed system of values, surely?
Posted: 26 Jun 2006, 14:30
by markfiend
markfiend wrote:I read something worrying in The Observer yesterday. It seems that the CND leadership has been taken over by idiots in the George Galloway mould - while being opposed to the UK having nuclear weapons, it appears that they are in favour of Iran having them.
I withdraw that:
CND statement on Iran
As for "only sociopaths start wars"; that would tend to suggest there's a sociopath in the White House
Also, don't forget that in WWII the allies declared war on Germany, not the other way round.
As for the UK's vacillation between the US and the EU, the uncharitable amongst us could suggest that links to the US are largely due to linguistic bigotry.
Posted: 26 Jun 2006, 14:31
by DarkAngel
timsinister wrote:
As for the moral justification of War, and the viewpoint that only 'sociopaths start wars', I'd be a little sceptical. The motivations for the present conflict are wide and varied, but supported by a wide base of people. Are they all sociopathic? Ignorant yes, but psychologically affected, no. Greed, revenge, territorial claims, fear, intimidation - lots of factors, but none of them requiring a mentally disturbed system of values, surely?
Alright then, name one leader who instigated a war through bloodshed who wasn't a sociopath.
Posted: 26 Jun 2006, 14:36
by DarkAngel
markfiend wrote:markfiend wrote:
As for the UK's vacillation between the US and the EU, the uncharitable amongst us could suggest that links to the US are largely due to linguistic bigotry.
Wow, your really hit the nail on the head Mark. Impressive.
O.K. - not really. Don't you think in our case it could run just a bit deeper than that. Our countries are two of the most educated.
Which is a benefit and a detriment when it comes to looking at other countries who operate from a different paradigm. We apply our rules of etiquette and tolerance to those who do not read and follow the same rulebook. Kind of like the way we used to do battle - we would all stand in a staight line and so would our enemies...following the same rules. Do you think Iran or Pakistan will follow England's rules?????
Posted: 26 Jun 2006, 14:38
by markfiend
Yeah, actually, that was deliberately facetious. It didn't come off well did it?
Posted: 26 Jun 2006, 14:42
by DarkAngel
see above.
Posted: 26 Jun 2006, 14:44
by DarkAngel
DarkAngel wrote:timsinister wrote:
As for the moral justification of War, and the viewpoint that only 'sociopaths start wars', I'd be a little sceptical. The motivations for the present conflict are wide and varied, but supported by a wide base of people. Are they all sociopathic? Ignorant yes, but psychologically affected, no. Greed, revenge, territorial claims, fear, intimidation - lots of factors, but none of them requiring a mentally disturbed system of values, surely?
Alright then, name one leader who instigated a war through bloodshed who wasn't a sociopath.
Note - linguistics count here. Note the words, the order of the words, the meaning of the words when addressing the challenge.