harry wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harry wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
bm wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

But is trident replacement the best value for money

Corse it isnt. It is in fact ****ing billions against
the wall to no useful purpose what so ever.

Crikey. You've actually got something right.
Must go and have a lie down.

That's ok then, lets drop it. When the Russians
kick-off we'll issue everyone with pitchforks.

If the Russians decided to 'kick off' with nuclear weapons against the
UK, there wouldn't be many left to issue everyone with anything.

Do you not comprehend the meaning of deterrence

Go on then harry. You explain just how it works.

Does the 'threat' of dying deter suicide bombers?
The nutcase who drove that truck?

It deters the Russians and the likes of North Korea.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Trident.

The nuclear deterrent stopped WW2 in less than
a week and saved tens of thousands of lives.

Trident has done nothing like that.

It has maintained the peace for over seventy years now
in Europe, the longest period without a war in history.

Trident didnt, what did that was the yank nukes.

And Russia was never going to invade europe anyway.

The new form of war is assymetric war. Eg Al Qaeda.

In which Trident is completely useless.

But the old form of war has not gone away.

Yes it has, because of yank and russian nukes.

If the Ukrainians had kept their nuclear
missiles, would the Russian have invaded?

Yep, because the ukrainians knew what would happen to
the ukraine if they were actually stupid enough to nuke russia.

If Saddam had an atomic bomb, would the Yanks have invaded?

Yep, because he never had any way to deliver it.