I doubt every choice would be wasteful, or even the majority
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
I doubt every choice would be wasteful, or even the majority
Ah another 30 seconds "I'm tough on security" blurb from the MPs. How fun.
We can't plan our way out of a wet paper bag tbf. Look at the Heathrow expansion and HS2 railway fiascos. Years on and nothing has happened.
I thought they weren't even ready until early 2030s? Aren't we dependent on the the US extension as well which is only until 2042 right now. Whats the plan after that?
Margaret Richie just nailed it in the commons - it's status over safety. Very true. I'd go so far as to say there is no enemy you can fight with nukes - both sides lose, it's just that simple. It reminds me of this:
As for the infrastructure, there's always wastage so I wouldn't be overly confident. It's renewed anyway, so at least people will have jobs.
It also has to be remembered that there would be a cost involved to scrapping Trident and also according to an iquiry no alternative could be operational before 2035 at the earliest, and projected that 2040 was more likely. This would mean that to some extent the current Trident replacement plans would need to be continued until then if the UK were to keep its nuclear deterrent.
I read 2028 for the subs to be ready. Dont know about your other point.
Its not a failsafe though. The argument for trident is even if everyone in the UK is dead we can still kill millions of people.
Parking all our nukes in one base in Scotland just means that would get taken off line as a first strike.
I'm sure you even park a sub But if they did I'm sure the rag and bone man would be round sharpish!
Lets get real. The nuclear threat these days is not from a state that will care if we retaliate or not.
Not right now. But the question is could it be within the next 60 years?
Maybe ... certainly not if other nations followed our example though. It is actually a fairly similar principle to gun laws in a America.
Personally I'm convinced that the next time nuclear weapons will be used it will because of an accident of some sort.
Just drive them to Ireland and leave them somewhere and they will end up halfway round the world in a week with new plates and a crap paint job.
Quite probably. I particularly like all the MP's who talk big about "multilateral disarmament", yet are presumably doing absolutely nothing to try or attempt to bring this into effect. Not that it's an easy thing to do, or at all possible...but if certain politicians believe in multilateral disarmament, it'd be nice to see them making an effort to do something about that. As it stands it's just a convenient reason to support nukes. At least the ones who fully believe in them are honest.
I do multilateral timesheets at work.
The Skynet argument?
I haven't really contemplated how too much, although human error seems fairly likely thinking about it.
Basically what I think is that for each day that countries have nuclear weapons there is a chance of some sort of accident, as we move through the years we will move asymptotically toward 100% chance - the more weapons that exist the quicker we will get there. It's not a question of if but when to me.
I just want less of them on the planet.
472 to 117
Comfortable majority, not a surprise.
I know. Humanity eradicated by some hungover fat-fingered moron.
A few times allegedly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
Not to mention the times that aircraft carrying nuclear weapons have crashed or they have had to be jettisoned.
I think the Foreign and Defence shadow secretaries were among the abstentions.
The technology will be outdated well before then. If we're that concerned about looking so far ahead we should probably be doing quite a bit more and funding more on tackling climate change! Not as sexy as nukes though
I just dont get abstaining over such key votes. It seems a gross failure to me. Ridiculous
The nuke launch button, if such a thing existed, should be labelled "Game Over!". Who, seriously, would press that - I mean who that is sane? May said today she would.
Would be pretty ridiculous to be arguing for the continuation of the deterrent if she wasn't prepared to use it (publicly, at least).
depends whether it was a tactical strike to wipe out a rogue country, or something that would trigger armageddon
Yeah May said she would push the button killing many women and children. Thank goodness she won't be around to make that choice.
Agreed.
Exactly. On a par with the ridiculous deterrent of sending nuclear subs to sea without their nuclear warheads....imagine if some clown came up with that idea!
Oh thank goodness. I can sleep safe tonight knowing that, if we were nuked by an enemy, we'd use the remaining time to ensure their innocent civilians were killed too.
Confirmed figures now -
Hard couple of months coming up.
Yep, Labour will really have to pull the stops out if they intend to find ways in which that 54% aren't allowed to vote.
Won't need to do all 54%, just 5-10 will do.
Labour should just rename themselves the abstention party and be done with it. Or better yet, open up shop in Switzerland, they'll fit right in.