Deva Chat - 18 seasons as the voice of the city
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> TRIDENT, For or against?
Neil Fishers Big...
post Jul 18 2016, 10:16 AM
Post #1


Club Director
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 19844
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Penymynydd
Member No.: 2595



unsure.gif


--------------------
NEIL FISHER I AM NOT WORTHY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 10:25 AM
Post #2


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



Against.

Money spent on a weapons system that can never be used when money needs to be spent on the NHS, the Education system, kids growing up in poverty (which for a 1st world country is diabolical), more housing is needed (social and private) along with infrastructure and energy needs for an ever growing population.

£100billion would probably sort the vast majority of that out.

So do our Government address these issues by spending the money where its actually needed? Nooo they are most likely going to decide that what the people of this country really need is more Nuclear Missiles! Yay for us! crying.gif

This post has been edited by Derry Exile: Jul 18 2016, 10:34 AM


--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
open yer eyes ma...
post Jul 18 2016, 11:03 AM
Post #3


Devachat Fantasy Football Champion 09/10
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 6874
Joined: 15-March 04
From: A town called Malice
Member No.: 850



Really tough one for me as on one hand, the amount of money this is costing could rightly be spent on other areas of need.

However to simply scrap the whole thing will throw an awful lot of people on the scrapheap, loss of jobs, whole towns becoming ghost towns etc.

That said, trident is the nuclear warhead that isn't going to change, it is the submarines that are needed to fire them.
So in essence yes the warheads will more than likely never be used, the submarines will be needed to guard our waters.

Whatever decision is made on them, it will not please a whole load of people either way.
Tough choice


--------------------
Down on their knees
Begging us please
Praying that we don't exist

We exist
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain duff
post Jul 18 2016, 11:11 AM
Post #4


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 2025
Joined: 9-July 10
From: Exiled to Preston, Lancs.
Member No.: 5529



Against. It is a waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere, not least on military equipment that can actually be used. While we have wasted billions on Trident over the years the actual Royal Navy is in a terrible state with more admirals than actual warships (we'd struggle to throw a 5 mile exclusion zone around the Isle of Man currently). I hear a lot about 'deterrent' but have never believed it. Our nuke subs didn't deter Argentina invading British territory in 1982 (if a nuclear armed sub had been in the South Atlantic at the time all it could have done was sail around in pretty circles), it never deterred Irish terrorists before nor Islamic ones now (including the twin towers attacks on the country with the largest nuclear arsenal), and for all the attempts to paint Russia as an enemy again I simply don't accept that it is.

The problem is that like legalising drugs very few politicians dare to be honest about current failed and expensive policies (be that the failed 'war on drugs' or WMD's that can never be used) so they carry on in the same sleepwalking macho way wasting billions as they go.


--------------------
"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life"
Bill Shankly
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Believe.
post Jul 18 2016, 11:28 AM
Post #5


Squad player
****

Group: DC Members
Posts: 441
Joined: 22-May 10
Member No.: 5458



QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 11:25 AM) *
Against.

Money spent on a weapons system that can never be used when money needs to be spent on the NHS, the Education system, kids growing up in poverty (which for a 1st world country is diabolical), more housing is needed (social and private) along with infrastructure and energy needs for an ever growing population.

£100billion would probably sort the vast majority of that out.

So do our Government address these issues by spending the money where its actually needed? Nooo they are most likely going to decide that what the people of this country really need is more Nuclear Missiles! Yay for us! crying.gif


I don't think you've grasped the concept or purpose of a deterrence. The Greeks and the Romans used to say "if you desire peace, prepare for war". That was 2000 years ago and it is as valid today as it ever was. Among the reasons those empires fell was because they forgot that maxim. Do you think Russia would have rolled into Ukraine if Ukraine had nuclear weapons? Of course the intention is that they will never need to be used, because that is how a deterrent is supposed to work. Somebody once said "speak softly..... but carry a big stick". It would be nice to live in a world where everybody got along and things like war and stuff didn't happen, but unfortunately most of have to live in the real world. It's fair to say too that no one in modern Britain lives in REAL poverty. In my job I see many people pleading poverty but when you see what they spend their money on its most often a case of idiotic financial management.


--------------------
MANIFEST DESTINY: CHESTER & HALIFAX TOWN BACK IN THE FOOTBALL LEAGUE.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil Fishers Big...
post Jul 18 2016, 11:31 AM
Post #6


Club Director
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 19844
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Penymynydd
Member No.: 2595



QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 11:25 AM) *
Against.

Money spent on a weapons system that can never be used when money needs to be spent on the NHS, the Education system, kids growing up in poverty (which for a 1st world country is diabolical), more housing is needed (social and private) along with infrastructure and energy needs for an ever growing population.

£100billion would probably sort the vast majority of that out.

So do our Government address these issues by spending the money where its actually needed? Nooo they are most likely going to decide that what the people of this country really need is more Nuclear Missiles! Yay for us! crying.gif

I heard this morning that the job losses would be in excess of 11,000, plus other local shops etc totally reliant on the shipyard.
I personally think that we need it as a deterrent more than anything else, any country threatening to "nuke" us will only get the same back.
It would be great to rid the world of these weapons, but it just ain't going to happen.
Can you imagine saying to North Korea or Russia, "We'll get rid of ours if you get rid of yours?"


--------------------
NEIL FISHER I AM NOT WORTHY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 11:52 AM
Post #7


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 12:31 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 11:25 AM) *
Against.

Money spent on a weapons system that can never be used when money needs to be spent on the NHS, the Education system, kids growing up in poverty (which for a 1st world country is diabolical), more housing is needed (social and private) along with infrastructure and energy needs for an ever growing population.

£100billion would probably sort the vast majority of that out.

So do our Government address these issues by spending the money where its actually needed? Nooo they are most likely going to decide that what the people of this country really need is more Nuclear Missiles! Yay for us! crying.gif

I heard this morning that the job losses would be in excess of 11,000, plus other local shops etc totally reliant on the shipyard.
I personally think that we need it as a deterrent more than anything else, any country threatening to "nuke" us will only get the same back.
It would be great to rid the world of these weapons, but it just ain't going to happen.
Can you imagine saying to North Korea or Russia, "We'll get rid of ours if you get rid of yours?"


The counter argument to that could be that those jobs would be protected by building other equipment the Navy needs, like an Aircraft Carrier - are we still 'borrowing' one at the moment?

I understand what a deterrent is, and to answer another poster I too have seen real poverty after travelling to Mumbai and Pune and seeing the slums (they all still have satellite dishes on their shacks mind!)

It sickens me that in an age of austerity, when public services are cut, which includes care services for the elderly - we would rather spend this amount of money building Nuclear Submarines than addressing the real issues facing this country.



--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lobster
post Jul 18 2016, 11:53 AM
Post #8


Just one fool among the shower
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 21134
Joined: 26-February 03
From: Wirral
Member No.: 203



I don't feel very well informed on the subject in truth. I get the arguments for and against it, but what strikes me is it's probably as much a threat to our own safety as a deterrent to anyone else. What if it was targeted by terrorists?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 11:59 AM
Post #9


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 12:53 PM) *
I don't feel very well informed on the subject in truth. I get the arguments for and against it, but what strikes me is it's probably as much a threat to our own safety as a deterrent to anyone else. What if it was targeted by terrorists?


I believe that Royal Marines Commandos guard the 2 that are in dock.


--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mancot Blue
post Jul 18 2016, 12:11 PM
Post #10


...
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 36149
Joined: 19-February 03
Member No.: 173



QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 11:25 AM) *
Against.

Money spent on a weapons system that can never be used when money needs to be spent on the NHS, the Education system, kids growing up in poverty (which for a 1st world country is diabolical), more housing is needed (social and private) along with infrastructure and energy needs for an ever growing population.

£100billion would probably sort the vast majority of that out.

So do our Government address these issues by spending the money where its actually needed? Nooo they are most likely going to decide that what the people of this country really need is more Nuclear Missiles! Yay for us! crying.gif



Pretty much summed up for me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil Fishers Big...
post Jul 18 2016, 12:17 PM
Post #11


Club Director
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 19844
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Penymynydd
Member No.: 2595



QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 12:59 PM) *
QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 12:53 PM) *
I don't feel very well informed on the subject in truth. I get the arguments for and against it, but what strikes me is it's probably as much a threat to our own safety as a deterrent to anyone else. What if it was targeted by terrorists?


I believe that Royal Marines Commandos guard the 2 that are in dock.

Tom Watson is voting FOR, and says the Unions are all for Trident, Len McClusky supports for, and yet supports Jeremy Corbyn who will vote AGAiNST, McCuskys Union is about to give Corbyn £250 thousand pounds for his campaign, crazy world!
I think that we would have a different Labour Party today if only they could've persuaded Alan Johnson to run.


--------------------
NEIL FISHER I AM NOT WORTHY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deva Chanter
post Jul 18 2016, 12:21 PM
Post #12


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 2348
Joined: 7-June 09
From: Chester
Member No.: 4436



QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 12:31 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 11:25 AM) *
Against.

Money spent on a weapons system that can never be used when money needs to be spent on the NHS, the Education system, kids growing up in poverty (which for a 1st world country is diabolical), more housing is needed (social and private) along with infrastructure and energy needs for an ever growing population.

£100billion would probably sort the vast majority of that out.

So do our Government address these issues by spending the money where its actually needed? Nooo they are most likely going to decide that what the people of this country really need is more Nuclear Missiles! Yay for us! crying.gif

I heard this morning that the job losses would be in excess of 11,000, plus other local shops etc totally reliant on the shipyard.
I personally think that we need it as a deterrent more than anything else, any country threatening to "nuke" us will only get the same back.
It would be great to rid the world of these weapons, but it just ain't going to happen.
Can you imagine saying to North Korea or Russia, "We'll get rid of ours if you get rid of yours?"

Is that not all just a bit childish though? The argument effectively comes down to, "well, at least if somebody nukes us and evaporates millions of innocent people, at least we can evaporate millions of their innocent people in response". The fact that the human race has reached a point whereby mutually assured destruction has become a mainstream position is sickening.

Also, the continuous use of the second argument as some sort of justification doesn't add up. If anybody cared to understand the history of North Korea, they would know full well that the development of their nuclear weapons programme was a defensive manoeuvre in response to the United States previous use of nukes on Japan, and their positioning of nuclear weapons on South Korean soil.

The idea that we can preach as a nation to be in favour of disarmament and be a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, all the while whilst we renew our nuclear capability, makes a total mockery of international law. And yet, we act surprised when countries like Iran or North Korea decide to flounce those very laws themselves.


--------------------
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 12:31 PM
Post #13


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



QUOTE (Deva Chanter @ Jul 18 2016, 01:21 PM) *
QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 12:31 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 11:25 AM) *
Against.

Money spent on a weapons system that can never be used when money needs to be spent on the NHS, the Education system, kids growing up in poverty (which for a 1st world country is diabolical), more housing is needed (social and private) along with infrastructure and energy needs for an ever growing population.

£100billion would probably sort the vast majority of that out.

So do our Government address these issues by spending the money where its actually needed? Nooo they are most likely going to decide that what the people of this country really need is more Nuclear Missiles! Yay for us! crying.gif

I heard this morning that the job losses would be in excess of 11,000, plus other local shops etc totally reliant on the shipyard.
I personally think that we need it as a deterrent more than anything else, any country threatening to "nuke" us will only get the same back.
It would be great to rid the world of these weapons, but it just ain't going to happen.
Can you imagine saying to North Korea or Russia, "We'll get rid of ours if you get rid of yours?"

Is that not all just a bit childish though? The argument effectively comes down to, "well, at least if somebody nukes us and evaporates millions of innocent people, at least we can evaporate millions of their innocent people in response". The fact that the human race has reached a point whereby mutually assured destruction has become a mainstream position is sickening.

Also, the continuous use of the second argument as some sort of justification doesn't add up. If anybody cared to understand the history of North Korea, they would know full well that the development of their nuclear weapons programme was a defensive manoeuvre in response to the United States previous use of nukes on Japan, and their positioning of nuclear weapons on South Korean soil.

The idea that we can preach as a nation to be in favour of disarmament and be a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, all the while whilst we renew our nuclear capability, makes a total mockery of international law. And yet, we act surprised when countries like Iran or North Korea decide to flounce those very laws themselves.


It's disgusting is what it is.



--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 12:33 PM
Post #14


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 12:31 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 11:25 AM) *
Against.

Money spent on a weapons system that can never be used when money needs to be spent on the NHS, the Education system, kids growing up in poverty (which for a 1st world country is diabolical), more housing is needed (social and private) along with infrastructure and energy needs for an ever growing population.

£100billion would probably sort the vast majority of that out.

So do our Government address these issues by spending the money where its actually needed? Nooo they are most likely going to decide that what the people of this country really need is more Nuclear Missiles! Yay for us! crying.gif

I heard this morning that the job losses would be in excess of 11,000, plus other local shops etc totally reliant on the shipyard.
I personally think that we need it as a deterrent more than anything else, any country threatening to "nuke" us will only get the same back.
It would be great to rid the world of these weapons, but it just ain't going to happen.
Can you imagine saying to North Korea or Russia, "We'll get rid of ours if you get rid of yours?"


You've asked the question NFBF but failed to say what your position is on this (although from the tone of your replies I assume you're strongly 'FOR' renewal of Trident).


--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lobster
post Jul 18 2016, 12:44 PM
Post #15


Just one fool among the shower
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 21134
Joined: 26-February 03
From: Wirral
Member No.: 203



The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 12:48 PM
Post #16


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 01:44 PM) *
The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.


In a Nuclear war there are no 'Good guys'.

Those who hit the button first are Evil, those who hit the button in retaliation are just as bad.


--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil Fishers Big...
post Jul 18 2016, 01:05 PM
Post #17


Club Director
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 19844
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Penymynydd
Member No.: 2595



QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 01:48 PM) *
QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 01:44 PM) *
The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.


In a Nuclear war there are no 'Good guys'.

Those who hit the button first are Evil, those who hit the button in retaliation are just as bad.

I'm FOR.
Ironically the Russians may have not been able to get the recipe for Nuclear weapons if it hadn't been for a collection of British spies, the worst being Melita Norwood a civil servant who fed the Russians nuclear secrets for 40 years before she was exposed, she joined the Communist party in 1937.
When exposed, she said she gave the Russians secrets because she believed Communism was the answer to everything.
Ironically, she never lived in her "perfect world" in Russia, but resided in country cottage in this country with roses around the door, living off her Civil Service pension!


--------------------
NEIL FISHER I AM NOT WORTHY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 01:08 PM
Post #18


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 02:05 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 01:48 PM) *
QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 01:44 PM) *
The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.


In a Nuclear war there are no 'Good guys'.

Those who hit the button first are Evil, those who hit the button in retaliation are just as bad.

I'm FOR.
Ironically the Russians may have not been able to get the recipe for Nuclear weapons if it hadn't been for a collection of British spies, the worst being Melita Norwood a civil servant who fed the Russians nuclear secrets for 40 years before she was exposed, she joined the Communist party in 1937.
When exposed, she said she gave the Russians secrets because she believed Communism was the answer to everything.
Ironically, she never lived in her "perfect world" in Russia, but resided in country cottage in this country with roses around the door, living off her Civil Service pension!


As lovely a story that is, how is it relevant?

Why are you For?


--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
open yer eyes ma...
post Jul 18 2016, 02:58 PM
Post #19


Devachat Fantasy Football Champion 09/10
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 6874
Joined: 15-March 04
From: A town called Malice
Member No.: 850



QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 02:05 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 01:48 PM) *
QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 01:44 PM) *
The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.


In a Nuclear war there are no 'Good guys'.

Those who hit the button first are Evil, those who hit the button in retaliation are just as bad.

I'm FOR.
Ironically the Russians may have not been able to get the recipe for Nuclear weapons if it hadn't been for a collection of British spies, the worst being Melita Norwood a civil servant who fed the Russians nuclear secrets for 40 years before she was exposed, she joined the Communist party in 1937.
When exposed, she said she gave the Russians secrets because she believed Communism was the answer to everything.
Ironically, she never lived in her "perfect world" in Russia, but resided in country cottage in this country with roses around the door, living off her Civil Service pension!


As lovely a story that is, how is it relevant?

Why are you For?

laugh.gif


--------------------
Down on their knees
Begging us please
Praying that we don't exist

We exist
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 03:10 PM
Post #20


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



QUOTE (open yer eyes man @ Jul 18 2016, 03:58 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 02:05 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 01:48 PM) *
QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 01:44 PM) *
The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.


In a Nuclear war there are no 'Good guys'.

Those who hit the button first are Evil, those who hit the button in retaliation are just as bad.

I'm FOR.
Ironically the Russians may have not been able to get the recipe for Nuclear weapons if it hadn't been for a collection of British spies, the worst being Melita Norwood a civil servant who fed the Russians nuclear secrets for 40 years before she was exposed, she joined the Communist party in 1937.
When exposed, she said she gave the Russians secrets because she believed Communism was the answer to everything.
Ironically, she never lived in her "perfect world" in Russia, but resided in country cottage in this country with roses around the door, living off her Civil Service pension!


As lovely a story that is, how is it relevant?

Why are you For?

laugh.gif



Ah Rowley Birkin QC, what a legend!

I'm afraid I was very, very drunk



--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil Fishers Big...
post Jul 18 2016, 04:48 PM
Post #21


Club Director
Group Icon

Group: DC Donatees
Posts: 19844
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Penymynydd
Member No.: 2595



QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 02:05 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 01:48 PM) *
QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 01:44 PM) *
The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.


In a Nuclear war there are no 'Good guys'.

Those who hit the button first are Evil, those who hit the button in retaliation are just as bad.

I'm FOR.
Ironically the Russians may have not been able to get the recipe for Nuclear weapons if it hadn't been for a collection of British spies, the worst being Melita Norwood a civil servant who fed the Russians nuclear secrets for 40 years before she was exposed, she joined the Communist party in 1937.
When exposed, she said she gave the Russians secrets because she believed Communism was the answer to everything.
Ironically, she never lived in her "perfect world" in Russia, but resided in country cottage in this country with roses around the door, living off her Civil Service pension!


As lovely a story that is, how is it relevant?

Why are you For?

For my reasons, read last years Labour manifesto on Trident.
The relevance of the spy story was to say that it was British spies that gave Russia the knowledge to make nuclear bombs, I thought it was an interesting point to make, especially that Russia was not that great that Malita Norwood wanted to live there, and ironically lived on a British Civil Service pension, the very country she chose to sell down the river.
Of course unlike Burgess and McLean who were forced to find refuge in the country they had supplied top secret information to.
They both found the Communist life "boring" and both had their ashes returned to Britain.


--------------------
NEIL FISHER I AM NOT WORTHY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 05:08 PM
Post #22


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 05:48 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 02:05 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 01:48 PM) *
QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 01:44 PM) *
The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.


In a Nuclear war there are no 'Good guys'.

Those who hit the button first are Evil, those who hit the button in retaliation are just as bad.

I'm FOR.
Ironically the Russians may have not been able to get the recipe for Nuclear weapons if it hadn't been for a collection of British spies, the worst being Melita Norwood a civil servant who fed the Russians nuclear secrets for 40 years before she was exposed, she joined the Communist party in 1937.
When exposed, she said she gave the Russians secrets because she believed Communism was the answer to everything.
Ironically, she never lived in her "perfect world" in Russia, but resided in country cottage in this country with roses around the door, living off her Civil Service pension!


As lovely a story that is, how is it relevant?

Why are you For?

For my reasons, read last years Labour manifesto on Trident.
The relevance of the spy story was to say that it was British spies that gave Russia the knowledge to make nuclear bombs, I thought it was an interesting point to make, especially that Russia was not that great that Malita Norwood wanted to live there, and ironically lived on a British Civil Service pension, the very country she chose to sell down the river.
Of course unlike Burgess and McLean who were forced to find refuge in the country they had supplied top secret information to.
They both found the Communist life "boring" and both had their ashes returned to Britain.


That's not really answering my question is it NFBF or like a typical politician are you unable to give a straight answer?

Whilst the story is rather nice you still haven't said why, personally, you believe renewal is best for all of us..

I'm really hoping you can give a proper answer without rambling on about spies and stuff from 60 years ago


--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Che Guevara
post Jul 18 2016, 07:22 PM
Post #23


Castra Devana
*********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 8813
Joined: 26-August 04
Member No.: 1198



QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 06:08 PM) *
QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 05:48 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 02:05 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 01:48 PM) *
QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 01:44 PM) *
The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.


In a Nuclear war there are no 'Good guys'.

Those who hit the button first are Evil, those who hit the button in retaliation are just as bad.

I'm FOR.
Ironically the Russians may have not been able to get the recipe for Nuclear weapons if it hadn't been for a collection of British spies, the worst being Melita Norwood a civil servant who fed the Russians nuclear secrets for 40 years before she was exposed, she joined the Communist party in 1937.
When exposed, she said she gave the Russians secrets because she believed Communism was the answer to everything.
Ironically, she never lived in her "perfect world" in Russia, but resided in country cottage in this country with roses around the door, living off her Civil Service pension!


As lovely a story that is, how is it relevant?

Why are you For?

For my reasons, read last years Labour manifesto on Trident.
The relevance of the spy story was to say that it was British spies that gave Russia the knowledge to make nuclear bombs, I thought it was an interesting point to make, especially that Russia was not that great that Malita Norwood wanted to live there, and ironically lived on a British Civil Service pension, the very country she chose to sell down the river.
Of course unlike Burgess and McLean who were forced to find refuge in the country they had supplied top secret information to.
They both found the Communist life "boring" and both had their ashes returned to Britain.


That's not really answering my question is it NFBF or like a typical politician are you unable to give a straight answer?

Whilst the story is rather nice you still haven't said why, personally, you believe renewal is best for all of us..

I'm really hoping you can give a proper answer without rambling on about spies and stuff from 60 years ago


Its only a mere 40 billion upfront, then 2.3 billion per annum thereafter, its not like that money could be used elsewhere so I'm all for it rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Neil Young: You WERE the caretaker here.

Harry McNally: I'm sorry to differ with you sir, but YOU are the caretaker. You've always been the caretaker. I should know Sir - I've always been here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derry Exile
post Jul 18 2016, 08:21 PM
Post #24


I'm not Irish!
********

Group: DC Members
Posts: 5141
Joined: 14-January 05
From: Connahs Quay
Member No.: 1413



QUOTE (Che Guevara @ Jul 18 2016, 08:22 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 06:08 PM) *
QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 05:48 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE (Neil Fishers Biggest Fan @ Jul 18 2016, 02:05 PM) *
QUOTE (Derry Exile @ Jul 18 2016, 01:48 PM) *
QUOTE (XWWB @ Jul 18 2016, 01:44 PM) *
The arguments for keeping it do seem a lot like the arguments American gun nuts put up for the right to bear arms - that if everyone had a gun, it would mean the 'good guys' can overpower the 'bad guys'.

In reality, it doesn't really work like that as it comes down to who pulls the trigger first, and that's always going to be the 'bad guys', so you're just giving the ultimate power to the most deranged and reckless.


In a Nuclear war there are no 'Good guys'.

Those who hit the button first are Evil, those who hit the button in retaliation are just as bad.

I'm FOR.
Ironically the Russians may have not been able to get the recipe for Nuclear weapons if it hadn't been for a collection of British spies, the worst being Melita Norwood a civil servant who fed the Russians nuclear secrets for 40 years before she was exposed, she joined the Communist party in 1937.
When exposed, she said she gave the Russians secrets because she believed Communism was the answer to everything.
Ironically, she never lived in her "perfect world" in Russia, but resided in country cottage in this country with roses around the door, living off her Civil Service pension!


As lovely a story that is, how is it relevant?

Why are you For?

For my reasons, read last years Labour manifesto on Trident.
The relevance of the spy story was to say that it was British spies that gave Russia the knowledge to make nuclear bombs, I thought it was an interesting point to make, especially that Russia was not that great that Malita Norwood wanted to live there, and ironically lived on a British Civil Service pension, the very country she chose to sell down the river.
Of course unlike Burgess and McLean who were forced to find refuge in the country they had supplied top secret information to.
They both found the Communist life "boring" and both had their ashes returned to Britain.


That's not really answering my question is it NFBF or like a typical politician are you unable to give a straight answer?

Whilst the story is rather nice you still haven't said why, personally, you believe renewal is best for all of us..

I'm really hoping you can give a proper answer without rambling on about spies and stuff from 60 years ago


Its only a mere 40 billion upfront, then 2.3 billion per annum thereafter, its not like that money could be used elsewhere so I'm all for it rolleyes.gif


Remember Che, we're all in this together!!


--------------------
"Derry Exile, he speaks for the Nation!" - Elwood P Dowd 24/11/07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain duff
post Jul 18 2016, 08:34 PM
Post #25


Reserve skipper
*******

Group: DC Members
Posts: 2025
Joined: 9-July 10
From: Exiled to Preston, Lancs.
Member No.: 5529



There are 195 sovereign states worldwide. Including Israel only 9 have nuclear weapons. Why do we think we are so much more important when it comes to owning WMD's that can never be used than 186 other countries?

One nation has already unilaterally got rid of its nuclear weapons, which was South Africa under Mandela (racist apartheid SA had illegally developed its own nuclear arsenal with the help and support of Israel). Since South Africa became a nuclear free state has it become less safe or more safe? Has it opened itself up to outside threats, or removed itself from them?

Like I said earlier (and particularly given that my dad served in the RN during WWII) I would much rather spend the cost of Trident on proper ships, equipment and military forces that would actually help protect us when needed, not a useless white elephant that seems designed only to make eejit British politicians from all parties (except the SNP of course) feel macho and self-important (and many in the current military including very senior officers privately agree with this).

As for jobs then places like Barrow could easily be used for building more useful subs and ships so it is a false argument. In any case, I often wonder if those union leaders (including my own union GMB) would come out with the same arguments about the 'necessity' of making these obscene and vastly overpriced WMD's for jobs if there were still thousands of British workers employed making Mustard gas, and sadly I think they would. Thankfully we stopped making Mustard gas many years ago but have found other types of employment for people to do, as well of course as not being attacked by others with chemical weapons (it seems the 'deterrent' argument failed there as well!).


--------------------
"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life"
Bill Shankly
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Protected by SBST and Project Honeypot Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st January 2018 - 10:21 PM