Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/
Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.

On 16/07/2016 00:49, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.


But is trident replacement the best value for money and is it what is
needed in these times.

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

Spend the money in the areas of defence where it is needed most.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

alan_m wrote
bm wrote

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.

Even sillier than that fool usually manages.

Trident is only useful against Russia, and what the US has leaves that for
dead.

Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.

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.

and is it what is needed in these times.

Corse it isnt. Britain certainly needs something to use in places like
Kosovo
when the yanks arent interested in getting involved, but that's it now.

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

Trident is completely useless against them.

Spend the money in the areas of defence where it is needed most.

Indeed. May is a fool.

On 16/07/2016 06:38, alan_m wrote:

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

They've proved that they don't even need a bomb, just the truck.

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 00:49:10 +0100, bm wrote:

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.

Damn right. We need a credible threat to keep the uppity Krauts in check.
Did you see they way they crushed poor little Greece? They'd do the same
to us if only they could now, the thugs.

In article ,
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.

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 16/07/2016 00:49, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.


But is trident replacement the best value for money and is it what is
needed in these times.

It is if you want to enter the World's willy waving contest

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

Spend the money in the areas of defence where it is needed most.

Agreed

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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.
Quick, get Jeremy in power, he'll soon sort it out.

In article . com,
bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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.






Quick, get Jeremy in power, he'll soon sort it out.

--
*IF A TURTLE DOESN'T HAVE A SHELL, IS HE HOMELESS OR NAKED?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 16/07/2016 13:41, bm wrote:


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

Do you propose nuking Russia when they cut off Europe's gas supply?

Russia can do more damage, much cheaper, by hacking into the
Government's computer system and just deleting the benefits/pension/tax
credit data base and just waiting for the rioting in the streets.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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.

LOL, this is true, so you don't agree with MAD and you don't think we should
have a big stick?
Maybe we should just ask'em over for coffee

On 16/07/16 16:05, alan_m wrote:
On 16/07/2016 13:41, bm wrote:


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

Do you propose nuking Russia when they cut off Europe's gas supply?


Nope. Since we dont depend on it I say let em.


Russia can do more damage, much cheaper, by hacking into the
Government's computer system and just deleting the benefits/pension/tax
credit data base and just waiting for the rioting in the streets.




--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 16/07/2016 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/07/16 16:05, alan_m wrote:
On 16/07/2016 13:41, bm wrote:


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

Do you propose nuking Russia when they cut off Europe's gas supply?


Nope. Since we dont depend on it I say let em.


Russia can do more damage, much cheaper, by hacking into the
Government's computer system and just deleting the benefits/pension/tax
credit data base and just waiting for the rioting in the streets.




'Trident' isn't being renewed. Just the four submarines that carry the
missiles.

tim... wrote
alan_m wrote
bm wrote

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.

But is trident replacement the best value for money and is it what is
needed in these times.

It is if you want to enter the World's willy waving contest

Nope, it's always been completely irrelevant to that.

We spend billions on providing a method of deploying a weapon and
isis/daesh will use the DIY method of putting theirs in the back of a
truck and driving it to London.

Spend the money in the areas of defence where it is needed most.

Agreed

I don’t. The last thing Britain needs is what can be used
in another Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc that it
should never have been involved in in the first place.

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.

And wouldn’t happen anyway given what the yanks
would do to Russia if it was actually that stupid.

And the current Tridents would be fine if say Hollande
gets comprehensively ****ed off about Murdoch exposing
what he pays his hairdresser and decides to nuke Britain.

Quick, get Jeremy in power, he'll soon sort it out.

alan_m wrote
bm wrote

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

Do you propose nuking Russia when they cut off Europe's gas supply?

The current Tridents will do fine for that and likely the yanks can stop
them being used if it doesn’t like what they are being used for anyway.

Russia can do more damage, much cheaper, by hacking into the Government's
computer system and just deleting the benefits/pension/tax credit data
base and just waiting for the rioting in the streets.

There wouldn’t be rioting in the streets if that happened.

On Saturday, 16 July 2016 15:57:47 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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?

On Saturday, 16 July 2016 09:22:55 UTC+1, Julian Barnes wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 00:49:10 +0100, bm wrote:

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.

Damn right. We need a credible threat to keep the uppity Krauts in check.
Did you see they way they crushed poor little Greece? They'd do the same
to us if only they could now, the thugs.

If the Ukranians had kept their Nukes, would the Russians have invaded?
If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 15:57:47 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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?

Trident is no deterrence at all. Its the yanks that are the real
deterrence and that would be true regardless of what Britain has.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 09:22:55 UTC+1, Julian Barnes wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 00:49:10 +0100, bm wrote:

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.

Damn right. We need a credible threat to keep the uppity Krauts in check.
Did you see they way they crushed poor little Greece? They'd do the same
to us if only they could now, the thugs.

If the Ukranians had kept their Nukes, would the Russians have invaded?

Yep, because they would know that they wouldnt be nuking Russia.

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?

Different matter entirely.

On 17/07/2016 08:48, harry wrote:

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?


Yes.

We were all told before the invasion that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction - and that didn't stop it from happening.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"alan_m" wrote in message ...

On 17/07/2016 08:48, harry wrote:

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?


Yes.

We were all told before the invasion that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction - and that didn't stop it from happening.

"We were told". The people in charge knew different and told porkies.

HTH

On 17/07/2016 09:31, alan_m wrote:
On 17/07/2016 08:48, harry wrote:

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?


Yes.

We were all told before the invasion that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction - and that didn't stop it from happening.

Even in Blair's wildest fantasies, I don't recall him trying to convince
anyone that Saddam had ICBMs or Nuclear missile subs... Some chemical
weapons and a few Scuds might *just* be categorised as WMD, but Trident
it is not.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 15:57:47 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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?

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/07/2016 12:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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



And is it sensible to give President Donald Trump the codes to the
missile silos?

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 7/16/2016 12:49 AM, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/
Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.





Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.
We need a strong surface fleet and an increase in troop numbers - not
spending billions on nuclear weapons.

bm wrote:

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a pacifist,
just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern weapons
they urgently require and are desperately short of,
for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On Sunday, 17 July 2016 12:25:38 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 15:57:47 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
bm wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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?

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

It deters the Russians and the likes of North Korea.
The nuclear deterrent stopped WW2 in less than a week and saved tens of thousands of lives.
It has maintained the peace for over seventy years now in Europe, the longest period without a war in history.

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

But the old form of war has not gone away.
If the Ukrainians had kept their nuclear missiles, would the Russian have invaded?
If Saddam had an atomic bomb, would the Yanks have invaded?

On Sunday, 17 July 2016 14:53:50 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 17/07/2016 12:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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



And is it sensible to give President Donald Trump the codes to the
missile silos?


Drivel.
Missile silos are long obsolete.

On Sunday, 17 July 2016 09:31:44 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 17/07/2016 08:48, harry wrote:

If Saddamm had had nukes, would the Yanks have invaded?


Yes.

We were all told before the invasion that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction - and that didn't stop it from happening.


You are a ****-fer-brains.
Bliar and Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.
That was what the dodgy dossier was all about, lies for home consumption.

If Saddam had had them he would have used them.

On Sunday, 17 July 2016 19:16:03 UTC+1, rick wrote:
On 7/16/2016 12:49 AM, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/
Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.





Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.
We need a strong surface fleet and an increase in troop numbers - not
spending billions on nuclear weapons.

We need both. Unfortunately.

On 17/07/2016 19:15, rick wrote:
On 7/16/2016 12:49 AM, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If
someone has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/

Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.





Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.

Its not supposed to.

We need a strong surface fleet and an increase in troop numbers

True...

- not
spending billions on nuclear weapons.

We need both, for different reasons.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 19:15:58 +0100, rick wrote:

Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.

Or an illegal immigrant for that matter.

We need a strong surface fleet and an increase in troop numbers - not
spending billions on nuclear weapons.

We certainly need something to deter the on-going invasion of
undesirables we're currently suffering from.

On 17/07/2016 19:50, harry wrote:


You are a ****-fer-brains.
Bliar and Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.
That was what the dodgy dossier was all about, lies for home consumption.


Isn't the same with the recent referendum? Paraphrasing: World war 3 is
will start if we vote to leave the EU. if we leave immigration will end
tomorrow, we will all be destitute or better off etc.

I guess if we had a referendum about going to that war the result may
have been 50:50 based on the 'facts' presented by the politicians at the
time.

If Saddam had had them he would have used them.


He may have used them against Al-Qaeda

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/07/2016 19:47, harry wrote:

And is it sensible to give President Donald Trump the codes to the
missile silos?


Drivel.
Missile silos are long obsolete.


Another reason to abandon the silos on the submarines.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"rick" wrote in message
...
On 7/16/2016 12:49 AM, bm wrote:
Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed. If someone
has
a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.
C'mon in chaps, what would you like?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...t-replacement/
Wow, looking good.

In other news, Ms Sturgeon aka future queen of Scotland -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36800536
She can go fish.

Trident will not keep out a terrorist with a dirty bomb, nor stop a
suicide bomber.

Neither will any other military either.

We need a strong surface fleet

Nope, no point in that anymore.

and an increase in troop numbers

To use for what ?

- not spending billions on nuclear weapons.

It isnt actually spent on nuclear weapons, just on delivering them.

Timothy Murphy wrote
bm wrote

Let's hope that Jeremy Stupid can't get the renewal quoshed.
If someone has a big stick, we need the biggest.
Unilateral disarmament? Yea, right.

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a
pacifist, just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern
weapons they urgently require and are desperately short of,

That last is bull****.

for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

Like getting involved in Syria to no useful purpose what so ever ?

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:17:03 +0100, alan_m wrote:


I guess if we had a referendum about going to that war the result may
have been 50:50 based on the 'facts' presented by the politicians at the
time.

I very much doubt it. The public are far less inclined to get involved in
foreign strife than our crooked and meddlesome politicians are.

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.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:35:45 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:

I believe that the Trident renewal is wrong not because I am a pacifist,
just the opposite - it deprives our military of the modern weapons they
urgently require and are desperately short of,
for the actual conflicts that they are in today,
and will be in the foreseeable future.

It needn't, though. We could spend the 350 million per week we'll save
when we leave the EU on equipment our armed forces need so badly rather
than squandering it on the International Health Service as Boris and Gove
are so keen to do.