Yeh but things like that would make money back
and 25 million is small potatoes in comparison to other spends like weapons that will never be fired.
( Peej, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:53, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

Quite

(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:54, Reply)

you think nuclear weapons
aren't necessary?

Because unilateral disarmanent is a brilliant idea isn't it?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 15:56, Reply)

I think there are many countries that do very well without nuclear weapons
and Trident is too expensive.
( Peej, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:03, Reply)

it's not too expensive for what it is
though I think the contracts have been poorly handled.

And people can chuck around terms like 'we're not a first-rank country anymore' (true) 'they're only for prestige' (false) but the fact remains, we do need them. We're not the safest of countries by a long way.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:06, Reply)

I think now would be a good point to agree to disagree

( Peej, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:09, Reply)

Not the safest of countries?
And what fucking use is a nuclear warhead going to be when tackling terrorism? We aren't dealing with a whole country that you might possibly be able to in some way justify using a nuclear weapon on. A lesser number of land based nukes would be a fraction of the cost of running submarines and would keep us just as "safe"
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:10, Reply)

sorry
at what point did I claim it was for use in tackling terrorism. How about not jumping to conclusions. In my personal opinion there are several countries that have the capability to become fully nuclear powers who are not the safest or most stabile of countries. Nuclear is, as it has always been, a deterrent.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:15, Reply)

An unusable deterrant too
If a state wanted to use a nuclear weapon against us land based missile would be just as good a "detterant" but if they did use nuclear weapons what use is firing one back? Use of nuclear weapons is not morally justifiable in any situation.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:18, Reply)

Submarine-based nukes are pretty much a first-strike weapon.

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:23, Reply)

Tony Blair's justification for spending billions of £££s on a Trident replacement?
"Well, the French have nuclear weapons too".

Thanks Tony.

In the words of Dougals Adams "Zaphod is this guy, you know?"
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:41, Reply)

And of course all the other European countries with no deterrent get nuked all the bloody time

( Peej, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:23, Reply)

well it's no good
just planning for the current situation is it? That's a ridiculous standpoint to take 'it hasn't happened so far, so why should it'
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:25, Reply)

So they are all taking a ridiculous standpoint?

( Peej, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:26, Reply)

no
I just don't think many of them are in the same political situation as Britain is. We have to plan for ourselves, just as they are planning for themselves. And yes, we do run more of a risk than Poland does
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:27, Reply)

Poland has previous though doesn't it
If I was Poland I'd be looking over my shoulder
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:35, Reply)

In all fairness
Poland should be looking over *both* shoulders.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:47, Reply)

It does when I'm behind it
I like to sway side to side and then make it call me daddy.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:49, Reply)

I quite like a concept from some of Ken McLeod's novels -
selling nuclear insurance policies to non-nuclear countries.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:16, Reply)

I suggest that you and I team up, go to gullible non-nuclear countries
pretending to be representing countries with weapons and sell them these policies.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)

It's a foolproof plan,
assuming they won't find out we've been lying until they get nuked and we don't nuke anyone back, at which point there's not going to be much they can do about it.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:21, Reply)

I cannot see a single flaw in this plan

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 17 Jun 2010, 16:57, Reply)