kevthedee Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I for one am shocked an SNP politician has expressed worry over the potential for a disaster to befall the country he represents. No proof in this story about any chance of "potential disaster" just snp using this story to scaremonger about trident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 No proof in this story about any chance of "potential disaster" just snp using this story to scaremonger about trident. Why don't you give us a story, meanwhile, from those bastions of impartiality, the Telegraph and The Daily Mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Russia is not the only Nuke threat. North Korea has a well known nuclear programme, yes it has limited range so far. Iran we know is trying hard to be a nuclear powered state. India and Pakistan are also nuclear powers. Why should we give up ours when they have no intention to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Why don't you give us a story, meanwhile, from those bastions of impartiality, the Telegraph and The Daily Mail. Off topic but http://whitehall1212.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/snp-grab-front-row-seat-from-skinner.html?m=1 Snp v skinner only one winner is this fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Off topic but http://whitehall1212.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/snp-grab-front-row-seat-from-skinner.html?m=1 Snp v skinner only one winner is this fight. Smell yer maw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 It all seems very petty - on all sides. If the SNP were to pick a fight, that wouldn't be too high up my list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 Russia is not the only Nuke threat. North Korea has a well known nuclear programme, yes it has limited range so far. Iran we know is trying hard to be a nuclear powered state. India and Pakistan are also nuclear powers. Why should we give up ours when they have no intention to do so. Building a nuclear weapon is the easy part. Building a delivery method is ridiculously hard, very few nations in the world have the capability to build and launch Intercontinental ballistic missile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Has Russia threatened Ukraine with nukes ? Yes, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-says-russia-was-preparing-to-use-nuclear-weapons-if-necessary-and-blames-us-for-ukraine-crisis-in-crimea-documentary-10109615.html And Denmark http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/22/us-denmark-russia-idUSKBN0MI0ML20150322 And why the UK having nuclear weapons spared it from nuclear attack in the Warsaw Pact war plans - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 Let's not forget MAD = mutually assured destruction Even if we launched every nuke at Russia, they'd still come out of it. Russia though could rather easily kill every living thing on these islands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Let's not forget MAD = mutually assured destruction Even if we launched every nuke at Russia, they'd still come out of it. Russia though could rather easily kill every living thing on these islands Which is why British doctrine is to target the leaders. Might make someone think twice if they know multiple nuclear warheads are going to land directly on their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 We need big bombs so we can sit at the top table and isis are a coming to get us so they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 Which is why British doctrine is to target the leaders. Might make someone think twice if they know multiple nuclear warheads are going to land directly on their heads. You really don't believe the Russians would prepare for this? I highly doubt Putin will be sitting in his office having a coffee during a nuclear attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 You really don't believe the Russians would prepare for this? I highly doubt Putin will be sitting in his office having a coffee during a nuclear attack And you really don't believe we prepare for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 What about all those other Countries that have a land and/or sea border with the big bad Russians. How will the survive - Norway, Finland, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Iran, Georgia, Armenia, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, Mongolia and Japan Japan is the perfect example. I've never heard of China threatening them with nukes even though they don't like each other. It's a load of shite, no one will fire them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowmore Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Japan is the perfect example. I've never heard of China threatening them with nukes even though they don't like each other. It's a load of shite, no one will fire them. I'm not sure you understand this. They are a deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I'm not sure you understand this. They are a deterrent. Why doesn't every country have them then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I'm not sure you understand this. They are a deterrent. I don't think you do. When was the last time a large, sophisticated, country attacked another one ? Putin and co wouldn't give up their cushy lives to go to war with western Europe, nukes or not. It's absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 There's little advantage in having them with current global dimplomacy, but things can change. I don't think they're really worth the cost, but there are some advantages in having them. I dont like where they're stored though. I'd be for getting rid, I don't think the UK is all that much of a world power and it would make very little difference if we didn't have them. There are bigger countries than us that get on fine without them,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Yes, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-says-russia-was-preparing-to-use-nuclear-weapons-if-necessary-and-blames-us-for-ukraine-crisis-in-crimea-documentary-10109615.html And Denmark http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/22/us-denmark-russia-idUSKBN0MI0ML20150322 And why the UK having nuclear weapons spared it from nuclear attack in the Warsaw Pact war plans - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine Don't think you read the Wiki Article or the references linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.