The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[chrisp65]

I bet Cameron will still be able to get one down the Pig's Head though.

[TrentVilla]

I bet Cameron will still be able to get one down the Pig's Head though.

So long as he doesn't leave his kid there.

[tonyh29]

This £100 Billion deterrent that will last 40 years. Firstly, I have absolute confidence that this military high tech project will be delivered on time and to budget. Secondly, I am thoroughly impressed that nothing can be designed or conceived in the next 40 years that could possibly undermine what will clearly be infallible technology.

This needs to be pitched to the public in the right way. We can have a british military shield that will last a thousand years, employ a thousand people and melt a thousand cities. OR, you can have an extra £5 in your pocket for a pint.

That should put it in perspective at the next election for the average voter.

on the basis that nothing has been developed in the 70 years since the first bomb I'm curious why you suddenly think they can come up with something in 40 years ?

 

The Tories estimate it will cost £20 Bn and Greenpeace £34bn.... So the £100bn figure you've borrowed from Corbyn seems to have already factored in overspend 

 

I guess the 15,000 defence jobs that depend on its renewal can be retrained as part of the 2,000,000 nurses we are going to employ instead with the money though

[chrisp65]

will we get these 2,000,000 nurses from the third world or actually plan to have some of our own - that's probably the clincher for me

[snowychap]

It would be an unexpected shame if those 'defence' jobs were ones with a low level of transferable skills.

[tonyh29]

will we get these 2,000,000 nurses from the third world or actually plan to have some of our own - that's probably the clincher for me

rest easy lots of them will be from Up North , or the third world as you call it 

[chrisp65]

will we get these 2,000,000 nurses from the third world or actually plan to have some of our own - that's probably the clincher for me

rest easy lots of them will be from Up North , or the third world as you call it 

I tend to use the M4 as my definition of north / south. It's only right the north gets a share.

[snowychap]

@MMV - Simply put we were in before the lock, although subsequent proliferation proves that lock isn't worth too much. If the objection is premised on "well why should we have them if so many others can't?" I say, "unlucky". I'm not overly concerned about a utopian world view, I am concerned about the safety of the UK.  If that means not being martyrs to principle and having an unfair advantage over others then good, frankly. 

There are two things there, aren't there?

The NPT has us (together with the other few) subscribing to a commitment of disarmament, doesn't it?

On the Utopian world view/deterrent theme, it's pretty much a game theory scenario, isn't it? To call it as a 'reality v Utopia' scenario is very much a(n intentionally) skewed analysis.

[HanoiVillan]

This £100 Billion deterrent that will last 40 years. Firstly, I have absolute confidence that this military high tech project will be delivered on time and to budget. Secondly, I am thoroughly impressed that nothing can be designed or conceived in the next 40 years that could possibly undermine what will clearly be infallible technology.

This needs to be pitched to the public in the right way. We can have a british military shield that will last a thousand years, employ a thousand people and melt a thousand cities. OR, you can have an extra £5 in your pocket for a pint.

That should put it in perspective at the next election for the average voter.

on the basis that nothing has been developed in the 70 years since the first bomb I'm curious why you suddenly think they can come up with something in 40 years ?

 

The Tories estimate it will cost £20 Bn and Greenpeace £34bn.... So the £100bn figure you've borrowed from Corbyn seems to have already factored in overspend 

 

I guess the 15,000 defence jobs that depend on its renewal can be retrained as part of the 2,000,000 nurses we are going to employ instead with the money though

The hilarious irony this week of all these true-blue Tories begging us to consider the plight of the British worker!

EDIT: I need to say Tony, this really isn't a good argument for you. The British government could literally pay every single one of those workers triple their current salary to simply sit at home and play Playstation for the next 40 years, and the British taxpayer would still be quids in, if your main concern is the impoverishment of workers. 

Edited October 2, 2015 by HanoiVillan

[Awol]

@MMV - Simply put we were in before the lock, although subsequent proliferation proves that lock isn't worth too much. If the objection is premised on "well why should we have them if so many others can't?" I say, "unlucky". I'm not overly concerned about a utopian world view, I am concerned about the safety of the UK.  If that means not being martyrs to principle and having an unfair advantage over others then good, frankly. 

There are two things there, aren't there?

The NPT has us (together with the other few) subscribing to a commitment of disarmament, doesn't it?

On the Utopian world view/deterrent theme, it's pretty much a game theory scenario, isn't it? To call it as a 'reality v Utopia' scenario is very much a(n intentionally) skewed analysis.

Our boats only carry 8 of a possible 16 missiles each and the number of deployed warheads was reduced from 48 to 40 in SDSR 2010. We have as a matter of policy been reducing our at sea nuclear capability in line with the proportional reductions by other major nuclear states. Short of unilateral disarmament we are fulfilling our NPT commitments of working towards a nuclear weapons free world.

However as long as other major powers intend to maintain the capability we are entitled to do the same. I suspect the next 50 years will see global nuclear proliferation and the effective if not actual official end of the NPT as functioning framework for nuclear  disarmament. 

I view unilateral disarmament in the hope it inspires the likes of Israel, Pakistan and others to follow as idealistic but naive at best. The idea of disarming on simple principle alone is dangerous moral grandstanding, IMO. Yes it would be great if we lived in a nuclear weapons free world but we don't and will not do so at any point in the conceivable future.

Until then I'd like the UK to retain the fully comp' cover it currently holds on the basis that it's better to have it and not need it than the alternative. 

[bickster]

This £100 Billion deterrent that will last 40 years. Firstly, I have absolute confidence that this military high tech project will be delivered on time and to budget. Secondly, I am thoroughly impressed that nothing can be designed or conceived in the next 40 years that could possibly undermine what will clearly be infallible technology.

This needs to be pitched to the public in the right way. We can have a british military shield that will last a thousand years, employ a thousand people and melt a thousand cities. OR, you can have an extra £5 in your pocket for a pint.

That should put it in perspective at the next election for the average voter.

on the basis that nothing has been developed in the 70 years since the first bomb I'm curious why you suddenly think they can come up with something in 40 years ?

 

The Tories estimate it will cost £20 Bn and Greenpeace £34bn.... So the £100bn figure you've borrowed from Corbyn seems to have already factored in overspend 

 

I guess the 15,000 defence jobs that depend on its renewal can be retrained as part of the 2,000,000 nurses we are going to employ instead with the money though

SNP figure iirc not Corbyn

[tonyh29]

This £100 Billion deterrent that will last 40 years. Firstly, I have absolute confidence that this military high tech project will be delivered on time and to budget. Secondly, I am thoroughly impressed that nothing can be designed or conceived in the next 40 years that could possibly undermine what will clearly be infallible technology.

This needs to be pitched to the public in the right way. We can have a british military shield that will last a thousand years, employ a thousand people and melt a thousand cities. OR, you can have an extra £5 in your pocket for a pint.

That should put it in perspective at the next election for the average voter.

on the basis that nothing has been developed in the 70 years since the first bomb I'm curious why you suddenly think they can come up with something in 40 years ?

 

The Tories estimate it will cost £20 Bn and Greenpeace £34bn.... So the £100bn figure you've borrowed from Corbyn seems to have already factored in overspend 

 

I guess the 15,000 defence jobs that depend on its renewal can be retrained as part of the 2,000,000 nurses we are going to employ instead with the money though

The hilarious irony this week of all these true-blue Tories begging us to consider the plight of the British worker!

EDIT: I need to say Tony, this really isn't a good argument for you. The British government could literally pay every single one of those workers triple their current salary to simply sit at home and play Playstation for the next 40 years, and the British taxpayer would still be quids in, if your main concern is the impoverishment of workers. 

I wasn't really making that argument more pointing out the flaw in this we could better spend it elsewhere argument using the established currency of nurses 

You could equally argue had we not bailed the banks out that we'd also have been able to sit at home in PlayStation Utopia but that's sorta the point , Governments will always find other ways to blow our money ...Least with trident we get to keep the boogie man from our door 

Edited October 2, 2015 by tonyh29

[bickster]

Which boogie man… seriously. Which threat to the UK is a nuclear deterrent deterring?

 

[sharkyvilla]

Putin?

[tonyh29]

Which boogie man… seriously. Which threat to the UK is a nuclear deterrent deterring?

 

Hold on I seem to have misplaced my crystal ball , but in the meantime here are next weeks lottery numbers   ..The world changes  , who knows how events will turn out .. Maybe we will arm another nation of good guys in a fight against the bad guys only for the good guys to turn bad 

but possibly a reason Israel isstill on the map is because they have some Nukes as a final threat   ... possibly the same reason the Americans are kept in check over on the 38th parallel  ... true we aren't Israel or the DPRK but who knows in a few years we could be living in a world with Trump and Boris leading their respective countries and Lord help us all then  ....

 

 

 

[snowychap]

 ...Least with trident we get to keep the boogie man from our door 

Dirk Diggler?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

On the one hand I see plenty of countries getting along fine without a nuclear deterrent, and I do feel uneasy with the inequality between those with and without & the defence of putting UK interests first consists of a type of nationalism which I have no time for. Added to that the expense, which is enormous, and the ethics of potentially using it and killing millions at the push of a button, which I simply can not and won't defend - never mind any potential misuse by the UK's own government (but, of course, that isn't a consideration).

Nevertheless, we don't know what the future holds, and given our inaction over inequality and climate change, and given the fallout of our actions in the middle-east, the world will likely become a more unstable place in the medium-long term. With that in mind, part of me thinks that I would much rather have a nuclear deterrent just in case while working toward a better world, and hope that we don't use it, then deal with disarmament further down the line when things look a bit rosier. However, as I can't find it in myself to defend any potential use of a nuclear weapon, I can't really defend having one in the first place.

So, yeah.

 

[tonyh29]

On the one hand I see plenty of countries getting along fine without a nuclear deterrent, and I do feel uneasy with the inequality between those with and without & the defence of putting UK interests first consists of a type of nationalism which I have no time for. Added to that the expense, which is enormous, and the ethics of potentially using it and killing millions at the push of a button, which I simply can not and won't defend - never mind any potential misuse by the UK's own government (but, of course, that isn't a consideration).

Nevertheless, we don't know what the future holds, and given our inaction over inequality and climate change, and given the fallout of our actions in the middle-east, the world will likely become a more unstable place in the medium-long term. With that in mind, part of me thinks that I would much rather have a nuclear deterrent just in case while working toward a better world, and hope that we don't use it, then deal with disarmament further down the line when things look a bit rosier. However, as I can't find it in myself to defend any potential use of a nuclear weapon, I can't really defend having one in the first place.

So, yeah.

 

What if a giant asteroid is heading towards us and the only way to stop it is to drill a hole and detonate a nuclear warhead deep inside it ?

[chrisp65]

However, as I can't find it in myself to defend any potential use of a nuclear weapon, I can't really defend having one in the first place.

So, yeah.

 

What if a giant asteroid is heading towards us and the only way to stop it is to drill a hole and detonate a nuclear warhead deep inside it ?

It's never ever the only way. I think the same affect could be achieved with lots of much smaller impacts.

Rather than one big hollywood bang, we could fire old Hollywood bangers at it. A steady stream of hasbeen film heroes would, over a period of time, chip away and eventually destroy the asteroid. The exact speed etc., would be calculated depending exactly how imminent our demise was.

A rapid fire despatch of Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Nick Cage, Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, and Tommy Lee Jones should be enough to establish how many more we would need to round up and ping into oblivion.

Really doesn't need anything more than that.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Can we not fire Michael Bay at it instead?