Poll
Question: Which Party Will You Be Voting For?
Conservative - 54 (30.5%)
Labour - 63 (35.6%)
Liberal Democrat - 29 (16.4%)
UKIP - 6 (3.4%)
Green - 5 (2.8%)
SNP - 0 (0%)
Plaid Cymru - 0 (0%)
Other - 2 (1.1%)
Not Voting - 9 (5.1%)
Spoiled Ballot - 9 (5.1%)
Total Voters: 153

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 ... 71   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: General Election - Who's Getting Your Vote?  (Read 195870 times)
Batch
Not a Batch

Offline Offline

Posts: 55172





Ignore
« Reply #645 on: Friday, June 2, 2017, 22:09:50 »

my favourite in response to Corbyn's bring heckled on QT was from Frankie Boyle:

All the average British punter wants is to be paid less than £10 an hour and be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, and good luck to em
Logged
theakston2k

Online Online

Posts: 5307




Ignore
« Reply #646 on: Friday, June 2, 2017, 22:39:46 »

Tweet of the night in my opinion.


Use #trident first it's suicide. Use it 2nd it was never a deterrent. Expensive vanity project benefiting nobody! #bbcqt #bbcquestiontime
That's overly simplistic. Without nuclear weapons there would almost certainly have been a Third World War by now and not forgetting the development of them led to nuclear power. The mutual destruction a nuclear conflict would cause puts even the most aggressive leaders trying anythig against a country armed with or allied to a country with nuclear weapons. As a deterrent nuclear weapons have worked perfectly, I'd even argue that we should be trying to make ourselves self sufficient as we are reliant on the US for the maintenance of them. When the chips are down you can't rely on others to protect you.
Theortetically if we disarmed could we really rely on France or the US to protect us and voluntarily get involved in a nuclear conflict? I can't see it and some of the more unstable leaders would probably think the same.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #647 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 00:43:13 »

I'd even argue that we should be trying to make ourselves self sufficient as we are reliant on the US for the maintenance of them. When the chips are down you can't rely on others to protect you.

In my youth... we tried to have an independent deterrent. We're talking a time in the 50's, into the 60's, when defence spending was 10% of GDP, not the current 2%

Our bomb was based on a delivery system of planes, the so called V bombers.... Vulcan, Victor, Valiant. Problem was that it soon became apparent, that they'd be shot down before getting close enough into Soviet airspace to deliver. So a scramble for a missile system happened.... Blue Streak, Blue Steel were developed, but useless. a bit like a Scud. Interestingly, there's a Blue Streak up at Wroughton...fascinating.

So we accepted the need to buy in Polaris.  

If you want to develop our own system now it would cost. I'm not sure even the most rabid Tory, would argue the case.
« Last Edit: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 00:52:28 by Reg Smeeton » Logged
Legends-Lounge

Offline Offline

Posts: 8157

Non PC straight talking tory Brexit voter on this




Ignore
« Reply #648 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 10:31:37 »

That's overly simplistic. Without nuclear weapons there would almost certainly have been a Third World War by now and not forgetting the development of them led to nuclear power. The mutual destruction a nuclear conflict would cause puts even the most aggressive leaders trying anythig against a country armed with or allied to a country with nuclear weapons. As a deterrent nuclear weapons have worked perfectly, I'd even argue that we should be trying to make ourselves self sufficient as we are reliant on the US for the maintenance of them. When the chips are down you can't rely on others to protect you.
Theortetically if we disarmed could we really rely on France or the US to protect us and voluntarily get involved in a nuclear conflict? I can't see it and some of the more unstable leaders would probably think the same.
This.
Logged
jayohaitchenn
Wielder of the BANHAMMER

Offline Offline

Posts: 12507




« Reply #649 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 10:50:32 »

That's overly simplistic. Without nuclear weapons there would almost certainly have been a Third World War by now and not forgetting the development of them led to nuclear power. The mutual destruction a nuclear conflict would cause puts even the most aggressive leaders trying anythig against a country armed with or allied to a country with nuclear weapons. As a deterrent nuclear weapons have worked perfectly, I'd even argue that we should be trying to make ourselves self sufficient as we are reliant on the US for the maintenance of them. When the chips are down you can't rely on others to protect you.
Theortetically if we disarmed could we really rely on France or the US to protect us and voluntarily get involved in a nuclear conflict? I can't see it and some of the more unstable leaders would probably think the same.

How come the threat of nukes didn't stop Argentina fronting up to us then?
Logged
Batch
Not a Batch

Offline Offline

Posts: 55172





Ignore
« Reply #650 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:05:59 »

The nuclear threat in that form is over.

Who is going to nuke us now? North Korea? Will they care we have nukes if they do?
Logged
theakston2k

Online Online

Posts: 5307




Ignore
« Reply #651 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:07:33 »

How come the threat of nukes didn't stop Argentina fronting up to us then?
I'd imagine they thought that defence cuts previously there were a sign that we wouldn't bother to defend them if push came to shove and a nuclear strike over an island of 1600 people would be unlikely. Very different attacking a colony thousands of miles away as opposed to the UK itself.

If we get rid of our deterrent it is a decision that we will have to live with for the foreseeable future and who knows what the world will be like in say 30 years. Also factor in the lack of commitment from the US towards NATO and you'd suddenly be left with France having the only deterrent in the whole of Europe and what if their policy suddenly changes?

Any savings from scrapping it would just be wasted elsewhere on other 'vanity projects' anyway like renationalising the railways.
Logged
Batch
Not a Batch

Offline Offline

Posts: 55172





Ignore
« Reply #652 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:09:25 »

Labour's manifesto say they'd renew trident.
Corbyn using it or not is another issue.
Logged
theakston2k

Online Online

Posts: 5307




Ignore
« Reply #653 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:18:23 »

Labour's manifesto say they'd renew trident.
Corbyn using it or not is another issue.
Corbyns personal policy is to buy the new Vanguards and run them empty with no missiles in them in order to prevent job losses. Now that is the definition of a waste of money!
Logged
Flashheart

« Reply #654 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:24:23 »

Did he actually say he wouldn't use it at all, or that he wouldn't use it as a first strike?

I really don't think protection from outdated air/naval forces and a bunch of conscripts is what politicians have in mind when it comes to nuclear deterrent. The maximum damage the Argies could have caused was always going to be very limited, it was obvious that a nuclear strike would have been disproportionate in that case. It was never even officially declared as a war.

We may not (according to some) need such a deterrent now, but things can change quickly. A rise in patriotism in other countries like we've seen in youessay and Europe recently could make things a lot more hostile. Look at just how quickly Turkey is changing, and all from the appointment of one man.

I think it's all very idealistic and quite naive to say get rid. Politicians have decisions to make in regard to defence. We don't have crystal balls and what not. Neither can we know what might (or might not) have happened had we not had them in the past.
Logged
jayohaitchenn
Wielder of the BANHAMMER

Offline Offline

Posts: 12507




« Reply #655 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:27:15 »

My point was, it wasn't much of a deterrent if other countries are still attempting in invade.
Logged
Bob's Orange
Has brain escape barriers

Offline Offline

Posts: 28446





Ignore
« Reply #656 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:29:13 »

I love the student on the BBC question time show that stated - "I need my zero hours contract to buy food, Jeremy will starve me" whilst wearing a £150 Ralph Lauren cardigan.

He's since closed his twitter account but has been outed as a private school toff.

Fucking clown

Logged

we've been to Aberdeen, we hate the Hibs, they make us spew up, so make some noise,
the gorgie boys, for Hearts in Europe.
Flashheart

« Reply #657 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:30:10 »

My point is that I don't think for one minute Argentina in particular would have expected us to use our nukes for them invading the Falklands, and rightly so. Another country that could potentially cause us some real damage, however, that was intending to do so would have cause to think otherwise.
Logged
tans
You spin me right round baby right round

Offline Offline

Posts: 24895





Ignore
« Reply #658 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:48:56 »

I love the student on the BBC question time show that stated - "I need my zero hours contract to buy food, Jeremy will starve me" whilst wearing a £150 Ralph Lauren cardigan.

He's since closed his twitter account but has been outed as a private school toff.

Fucking clown



He wasnt a tory plant in the audience if ever ive seen one!
Logged
Bob's Orange
Has brain escape barriers

Offline Offline

Posts: 28446





Ignore
« Reply #659 on: Saturday, June 3, 2017, 11:56:12 »

He wasnt a tory plant in the audience if ever ive seen one!

Totally! What a melt.
Logged

we've been to Aberdeen, we hate the Hibs, they make us spew up, so make some noise,
the gorgie boys, for Hearts in Europe.
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 ... 71   Go Up
Print
Jump to: