On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 12:53:36 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 3 May 2015 23:24:17 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:26:01 +0100
Chris French wrote:

.. which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over
England. Not good, nor fair.

Will depend on what coalition is formed. But coalitions tend to give
the smaller party(ies) greater influence than their size might
suggest cos the bigger party needs to keep them sweet.

The Labour Party veers wildly between "No deal with the SNP" to
"We'll
deal with them on an ad hoc basis", giving me no confidence
whatsoever.

Though most ISTM likely outcome will be another referendum sooner
rather than later, with a yes vote more likely
Just like the EU, keep asking until you get the right answer. Surely
NO
meant NO? But again, my feeling is, let them go it alone, and see how
the finances work out, and don't come back asking for a bailout.

BTW, what does the SNP have against Trident?

The immense cost. Much better things to spend that sort of money on.

What would they replace it with,

Nothing. Trident doesn't stop anything from happening
except what that money can be spent on instead.

Yes it does. It stops Putin

No it does not. He has done what he wants to do regardless of
Trident and Trident has had no effect whatever on what he has
chosen to do, because he knows that Britain won't be using it.

You can't be sure of that,

Wrong.

Doesn't matter what you think no one cares.


there are far too many varibles to what he or his country will do.

Not as far as Trident is concerned. It has always been completely
irrelevant, essentially because the US has always had much more
than one pathetic sub at sea at any particular time.

So,


who is busy threatening people with nuclear attack.

He isn't that stupid and what stops him doing
that isn't Trident, its what the yanks have.

So you're saying he won't attack the UK because of the
YANKS or because of the nuclear weapons they have ?

No, that he won't attack Britain because it is completely irrelevant.

Irrelivent to what exactly. Britain wasnt; going to be atttacked by germany during WWII as it was irrelivent. Was Spain relivent in WWII ?


Had Russia settled down to be a proper democracy, that argument
wouldn't exist, but it hasn't and so the argument is, unfortunately,
valid.

No they are not with either Trident or what the yanks have either.

You can certainly make a case that what the yanks have has ensured
that no one with nuclear weapons has been stupid enough to use them,
that that has nothing whatever to do with Trident which never stopped
anything and was a complete waste of the money that was spent on it.

Maybe it's not trident itself

No maybe about it.

What makes you an expert on this is this a job you have in government ?



but the fact we are in a nuclear 'pack' with the USA,

Trident, with just one sub at sea at any time is completely irrelevant.

And how many do you think it takes to make a differnce 10, 100, 1000 ?


who may well feel more inclined to help than
the would if we had NO nuclear weapons.

Germany has nothing like Trident and is even more
likely to be helped if attacked by Russia than Britain is.

You're proof of this ? NOTHING.

Russia won't attack with nuclear, it doesn't need to with such a nuclear deterent. They'll go through the Ukrain into parts or Europe and from their set up convental weapons, making sure they don;t use nuclear, unless nuclear is used against them. America will do **** all just likem they did in WWII untell it affects them which it won't. The closest they'l be affected is if they's a war with UK, if we don;lt have nuclear them we'll be over run with convental weapony, america will do NOTHING unless it is attack.