Build new Trident now - Theresa May

[THE KING]

Why don't we have stockpiles of other chemical and biological weapons then? , you know, just for a deterrent .

[dirty dingus]

Theresa May - "It [Christian faith] is part of me. It is part of who I am and therefore how I approach things," she said.

When she was challenged on whether she would be prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill thousands of "innocent men, women and children", Mrs May firmly replied: "Yes."

What a hypocritical cow.

[Granny Danger]

So Labour agree to a free vote on this matter yet when Labour MPs exercise that right they get abused?

Hopefully if there's enough support to retain Corbyn as leader there will be enough support to change Labour Party policy on Trident.

[Antiochas III]

5 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

If I understand the Tory position correctly, we will only use the nukes if we are nuked by an enemy first.

That means that we only have to worry about being attacked by 8 other nations.

It's pretty unlikely that France or the USA will attack us.

Russia & China could absolutely destroy the UK with their 1st strike capability - any of our missiles that got through would barely make a dent.

I'm not aware of any reason why India or Pakistan would attack us - their weapons are pointed at each other.

Is there any realistic scenario where we would individually be at war with israel without the USA and/or Russia (with their huge nuclear arsenals) being involved too?

That leaves North Korea. Firstly, they don't have a delivery system that could hit the UK. Secondly, why would they pick us first?

Tell me again how spunking billions on Trident deters any of these major military threats?

It might be Tory Party stance but it's not NATO.  NATO have refused to sign any sort of No First Use treaty (which only China of the big 5 are a signatory to).  NATO will use them if they want.

 

Not a single nation that has WMD will be of any threat to us where our arsenal would be of any use.  Even states like North Korea wouldn't be stupid enough to ever use a nuke on anyone, especially this far away from them, although unlike us - they actually can use the military deterrent excuse. 

[doulikefish]

2 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

Amazing how so many Scottish MPs all think exactly the same...

Aye 58 out of 59

[doulikefish]

Did 40 odd labour mps really abstain again???? You honestly couldnt make this shite up and they wonder why they are fucked

[williemillersmoustache]

Only good thing to come out of yesterday was Mhairi Black being fucking immense, again.

[Fide]

What do the forum Blairites have to say on this matter?  I haven't read the thread.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

2 hours ago, dirty dingus said:

Theresa May - "It [Christian faith] is part of me. It is part of who I am and therefore how I approach things," she said.

When she was challenged on whether she would be prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill thousands of "innocent men, women and children", Mrs May firmly replied: "Yes."

What a hypocritical cow.

There is no such thing as a Christian Tory. If you look at the values and viewpoints, then Socialism is basically Christianity without the Imaginary Friend. Ignoring starving, homeless, mentally ill and disabled people in order to build a fúcking railway line and maintain the tools to kill millions? Not what I'd call Christian.

[Granny Danger]

15 minutes ago, Fide said:

What do the forum Blairites have to say on this matter?  I haven't read the thread.

Yeah I've asked the question on a few occassions and the silence has been deafening.

There's a lot of criticism about a 'lack of policies' from Corbyn but folk on here making these criticisms are unprepared to offer a view on a key policy issue like Trident.  Strange.

[Wee Willie]

1 hour ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

Amazing how so many Scottish MPs all think exactly the same...

 

1 hour ago, doulikefish said:

Aye 58 out of 59

Redrob and others convince me that yesterdays vote was democratic from a Scottish viewpoint.

Rule Britannia England 

[Jacksgranda]

I was always a (lukewarm) supporter of us having a nuclear deterrent - probably because we'd always had one. But I think this was a good time to phase it out, the old order has changed and the Cold war is over, although I'm not sure what good our nukes would have been, we'd have given the USSR a scratch while they would have pulverised us.

And we're still in NATO, so would be protected by their (American, I suppose) nuclear weapons.

I heard an expert (well, he was on the radio so he must have been an "expert") saying we should scrap Trident and build a new aircraft carrier and frigates and/or spend it on other conventional forces. Although he did say the last lot of destroyers built didn't work - I didn't catch how exactly they don't work, presumably they at least float.

Do the French have this sort of debate about their nuclear deterrent?

[Mark Connolly]

Did anyone see James Cartlidge's speech during the debate? A bizarre rant about the holocaust essentially being the reason why we need nuclear weapons.

Unsurprisingly, he is a Tory.

[GordonD]

16 hours ago, pandarilla said:

 

 

Caroline Flint just argued that by having nuclear weapons, we were able to get other smaller countries to get rid of theirs.

Think about that for a wee second. She's saying we need new nuclear weapons so that we can tell other countries not to build new weapons.

 

 

I've always wondered about that. What right do we have to tell countries like North Korea and Iraq that they can't have nuclear weapons? We may not like the fact that they have them, but how does that give us the right to stop them?

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, GordonD said:

I've always wondered about that. What right do we have to tell countries like North Korea and Iraq that they can't have nuclear weapons? We may not like the fact that they have them, but how does that give us the right to stop them?

And of course we all know that Israel has nukes but we're not allowed to talk about that.

I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.

 

 

[williemillersmoustache]

24 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I was always a (lukewarm) supporter of us having a nuclear deterrent - probably because we'd always had one. But I think this was a good time to phase it out, the old order has changed and the Cold war is over, although I'm not sure what good our nukes would have been, we'd have given the USSR a scratch while they would have pulverised us.

And we're still in NATO, so would be protected by their (American, I suppose) nuclear weapons.

I heard an expert (well, he was on the radio so he must have been an "expert") saying we should scrap Trident and build a new aircraft carrier and frigates and/or spend it on other conventional forces. Although he did say the last lot of destroyers built didn't work - I didn't catch how exactly they don't work, presumably they at least float.

Do the French have this sort of debate about their nuclear deterrent?

Apparently the new Daring class have big power management problems i.e they can't use all their powerful air search & surveillance kit and drive about at 25 knots without the thing overloading and scotty needing to press ctrl+alt+delete.

My issue is not the ownership of Nuclear weapons, it's the cost. The open ended infinite budget required to stay on board with the US's CASD programme is farcical for a country the size of the UK. It's obscene. I get the argument that there's no point in having them unless they are a credible, undetectable, inviolable deterrent but is this the only way to do it? I'm sure we could spend a bit of time on plucky British engineering and research to find a system capable of delivering a snidey wee back hand to the chops of any state mad enough to launch against us. 

The idea that we should be shopping at Harrods* for out deterrent when we are shopping at B&M and Aldi (if we are shopping at all) for things like schools hospitals and conventional armed forces is obscene.

*

 

 [\spoiler]

[WILLIEA]

20 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

. Although he did say the last lot of destroyers built didn't work - I didn't catch how exactly they don't work, presumably they at least float.

Do the French have this sort of debate about their nuclear deterrent?

The engines cut out without warning leaving them floating helplessly like a very expensive bathtub . They are supposed to be bringing them back to get fixed but I haven't seen any activity around Scotstoun that would indicate this is imminent.

No! The French don't have these debates, at least not on the same scale

[welshbairn]

25 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

 

And we're still in NATO, so would be protected by their (American, I suppose) nuclear weapons.

 

I've never been convinced that the Yanks would invite a full scale nuclear assault on their cities to protect us.

[mjw]

Amazing how so many Scottish MPs all think exactly the same...

Almost as amazing is how many English Tory MPs all think exactly the same.

[Ya Bezzer!]

Another slap in the face to Scotland.

Presumably that's £3 billion + coming from Scottish tax payers who have consistently voted against it through support of the SNP policy and now through the vote at the Commons.  And the actual cost will most likely be far higher than the projected cost (£31 billion) being bandied about now.