Blair to upgrade Britain's nuclear weapons

Locust

Locust

Spy
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
720
Reaction score
0
Tony Blair has secretly decided that Britain will build a new generation of nuclear deterrent to replace the ageing Trident submarine fleet at a cost of more than £10bn - a move certain to dismay thousands of Labour Party loyalists in the approach to polling day.
Click to expand...

link
Why, oh why, do we need more nukes in the world? Idoits.
 
While I wouldn't call that article un-biased (a lot of heresay and a definite slant), it doesn't seem that they want more nukes. According to Blairs side the idea seems to be that they want to make sure replacements will be ready when the current missile systems are decommissioned in about twenty years (it takes a long time to build these things).
 
I don't have a problem with this at all. If we're going to have nuclear weapons, there's no use in having some pieces of crap that may/may not work when push comes to shove. It's not as if we're expanding our capabilities to huge levels, it's just maintaining our current position.
 
Getting ready for a second Cold War maybe. EU could pose a threat to the UK and US in the future.
 
the_lone_wolf said:
quoted for emphasis
Click to expand...
kinda off topic, but did you know that Russia is the only proper competetive to US, defenetly not economicly speaking, but in terms of military power and national defance system
 
GiaOmerta said:
Getting ready for a second Cold War maybe. EU could pose a threat to the UK and US in the future.
Click to expand...

You're insane.
 
proud to be an anti-nuclear resident. eh thats ireland btw.
 
GiaOmerta said:
You sure China isn't?
Click to expand...
China got the man powere, but Russia and US got the nuke power

if i'm not mistaken right now Russia is the biggest weapon exproter
 
iyfyoufhl said:
kinda off topic, but did you know that Russia is the only proper competetive to US, defenetly not economicly speaking, but in terms of military power and national defance system
Click to expand...
err, yeah, thats nice
 
Personally I don't mind the U.S. putting their weapons on our soil. Think about it, we maintain our high moral position and get to say to other nations that they shouldn't be developing nuclear weapons but at the same time we are being defended by American weapons.

The big *but* is that we become a target should a nuclear war actually break out between the U.S. and another sovreign nation, but that'd probably happan anyway because of our own nuclear weapons and alliance to the U.S.
 
mortiz said:
Personally I don't mind the U.S. putting their weapons on our soil. Think about it, we maintain our high moral position and get to say to other nations that they shouldn't be developing nuclear weapons but at the same time we are being defended by American weapons.
Click to expand...

Wait a moment, aren't we talking about British weapons?
 
kirovman said:
Wait a moment, aren't we talking about British weapons?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it mentions in the article about the U.S. plans to put weapons on British soil.
 
We're doing this to our nukes too. I dont want some 50 year old piece of shit that will probably blow up the silo its in, so I'm all for it. Its something that needs to be done.
 
omg, blair is dumb, now don't get me wrong, i support them having better weapons, more reliable e.t.c but i know there are plenty of would be labour voters who will turn to lib dems because of this anouncment, he could have waited.
 
please tell me u agree that it may be stupid politcally, but nt realistically.
 
Did anyone watch that "Britain's Cold War Superweapons" the other week?

http://channel4.co.uk/history/microsites/B/britains_cold_war_super_weapons/index.html

Basically showed that the British independently developed their own Hydrogen bomb in a quick time, and after that the Americans allowed collaboration of Nuclear research. They found the British weapons were superior in some ways to the Russian and American designs, but the Americans forced the British to use the American designs.

Also had things about missle technology and stuff, kind of sad, we ran out of money to fund it all eventually.
 
short recoil said:
omg, blair is dumb, now don't get me wrong, i support them having better weapons, more reliable e.t.c but i know there are plenty of would be labour voters who will turn to lib dems because of this anouncment, he could have waited.
Click to expand...
Thats why he didn't make the announcement. The article cites "sources."
 
short recoil said:
omg, blair is dumb, now don't get me wrong, i support them having better weapons, more reliable e.t.c but i know there are plenty of would be labour voters who will turn to lib dems because of this anouncment, he could have waited.
Click to expand...

Those that turn away from Labour because Blair is ensuring we don't accidentally nuke our own subs shouldn't let the door hit them on the way out.
 
I don't care if a person is conservative, liberal, or inbetween; no person should ever support the development of nuclear weapons. The very idea of supporting the greatest threat to humanity is absolutely ludacris. I would sooner support the death penality than acknowlege that weapons of mass destruction are acceptable. We as a race should be doing everything we can to abolish this threat.
 
Yeah, but once everyone has them its kinda hard to put them away. You have to do it slowly and gradually, which has been the goal. I'd similarly hate to see Britain get blow off the map in the future because someone not as nice as them got mad.
 
Kangy said:
I don't have a problem with this at all. If we're going to have nuclear weapons, there's no use in having some pieces of crap that may/may not work when push comes to shove. It's not as if we're expanding our capabilities to huge levels, it's just maintaining our current position.
Click to expand...
Come on Kangy, this really isn't what we need to be spending our money on.
Immigrant testing camps, that's what we need!
 
why don't they upgrade the biological weapons you guys have and develop a strain that infects only "chavs" or whatever they're called. Then, poof, end of problem... :)
 
Innervision961 said:
why don't they upgrade the biological weapons you guys have and develop a strain that infects only "chavs" or whatever they're called. Then, poof, end of problem... :)
Click to expand...
I support chemical and nuclear weapons far more than biological.
Biological weapons worry me more than anything else, due to their uncontrolable nature.
While chemical and nuclear are pretty terrible they can be and are used effectivley under control, tactical nukes can take out enemy bunkers or submarines, chemical weapons, well while "mass destruction" ones are terrible (sarin e.t.c) things like CS gas are very useful for controlling riots e.t.c

Biological is just terrible, not only are effects on humans horrible (i'd rather be blown up than shit out my guts until i die) but they can rapidly go out of control, just imagine a "flu" that had the power of ebola released in somewhere like london or new york.
 
I'm a friend of no president. I think they're all crooks. I just think he plays on morals to get votes from us conservatives. Sure I don't believe in abortion or any of that crap, but I am by no means a friend of the mason George Bush.
 
mortiz said:
Personally I don't mind the U.S. putting their weapons on our soil. Think about it, we maintain our high moral position and get to say to other nations that they shouldn't be developing nuclear weapons but at the same time we are being defended by American weapons.

The big *but* is that we become a target should a nuclear war actually break out between the U.S. and another sovreign nation, but that'd probably happan anyway because of our own nuclear weapons and alliance to the U.S.
Click to expand...

I would rather see Britain defended by British troops, no offence to the American troops, but i have far more faith in our own troops then i ever would any American forces.
 
but i have far more faith in our own troops then i ever would any American forces.
Click to expand...

...till they 'fire' their crappy rifles :p

(...sorry, couldn't resist :E)
 
Did you know that if we fire half of earths nuclear weapons, then we will all die....ALL OF US, not just the target, the whole world will die. So do we need more?


I think this is stupid......why create nuces that they are preventing others to produce? Their not even gona use them!!! Unless something wrong happends in the production......i can see it in the news:

"An insect on a scientist coat jumped into the nuclear weapon and created a chain reaction which blew the city to pieces"

lol.........seriously, we cant survive with this shit going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top