Jump to content

Nuclear Weapons - mostly good, or a bit bad?


chrisp65

Nuclear Bombs  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the UK have it's own nukes?

    • No, get rid now, let's all just be nice to each other
      16
    • No, we should rely on a NATO controlled minimal nuke defense
      5
    • No, we should share the French nukes via an EU army
      0
    • Not really sure
      6
    • Yes, but just a little one, minimum spend
      6
    • Yes, whatever it takes to stay safe
      14
    • YES YES YES - your next Putin / ISIS / Argies / Blatter
      9


Recommended Posts

With lots of talk of the desperate need to end austerity, properly arm the troops, fund the NHS etc., I wonder if we need a referendum on our nuclear deterrent?

With the cost of the only option being considered guestimated at between £30 and £100 billion, perhaps we could spend the money on something else - or even, not spend it at all!

After all, are we really going to use them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need them. Otherwise how will we fight the alien overlords when they attack? 

 

Lol dumbass.

 

Go watch Independance Day documentary, conventional weapons don't work.

 

You have to send Cousin Eddie to kill them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We need them. Otherwise how will we fight the alien overlords when they attack? 

 

Lol dumbass.

 

Go watch Independance Day documentary, conventional weapons don't work.

 

You have to send Cousin Eddie to kill them.

 

 

Just be thankful advanced alien warships run their forcefield systems on a Windows 95 platform

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth Waltz makes a compelling argument that ALL nations should have nuclear weapons to encourage peace.

We certainly shouldn't get rid of ours, IMO. A problem of international relations is you do not know what tomorrow brings, and in a world that has invented a weapon capable of wiping cities off the map, I would not want to face such a weapon without something comparable for the opposition to consider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We shouldn't just have them, we should use them

Small heath

Liverpool

North Korea

Wherever Russell brand is

Wherever Jim Davidson is

Wherever Noel Fielding is

Nuke the **** out of them places.

Deal with fallout later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also worth noting that some nations (coughUSAcough) have experimented with making 'usable' nuclear weapons, that is nukes that could level a building more efficiently or destroy bunker systems in 1 hit.

Are those also off the table in a no scenario? Bearing in mind there is an argument that making usable nukes also arguably means the nuclear taboo goes and that makes the real WMD stuff more viable for actually being used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of those heart says no, head says yes questions. I really don't know my opinion on the issue

Me too. I became less idealistic about nukes after reading international relations in uni. I sort of hate that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against the weapons on principle.

 

I'm against renewing trident on the basis that we're being bullied into doing it by a US defence industry that wants us to spend 2% of our GDP on arms so that they can spend the money on their own arms. It's pointless and we're being bullied into it - Oi you! Dinner money!

 

Still, I'm sure once we've finished painting the Russians as mental there'll be sufficient support for closing down more unprofitable social services and buying more bombs that no one wants to use but protect us from nations that aren't any kind of threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

by 'we' do you mean the UK or VT?

 

I believe the UK 'could', but probably buy in tech from the US like good little puppies.

 

I believe VT could, but the battle is still raging over whether to run it on Kitkat or Cobol and whether the stickers would peel off in the high temperatures generated on explosion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against the weapons on principle.

 

I'm against renewing trident on the basis that we're being bullied into doing it by a US defence industry that wants us to spend 2% of our GDP on arms so that they can spend the money on their own arms. It's pointless and we're being bullied into it - Oi you! Dinner money!

 

Still, I'm sure once we've finished painting the Russians as mental there'll be sufficient support for closing down more unprofitable social services and buying more bombs that no one wants to use but protect us from nations that aren't any kind of threat.

I'm very much with you, OBE - save for thinking that Putin's the second most dangerous man on the planet (after Zuckerberg, obviously).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favour of anything that pisses of the SNP and the Greens... So let's get even more of them and if we can shut down a NHS hospital or two to help towards paying for it , then even better

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • limpid locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â