By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Live UK political debates

FootballFan on 16 April 2010
CrazyHorse said:
rastari said:
FootballFan said:
rastari said:
Nothing discussed wasn't already mentioned in the manifesto's, So it was a fairly useless debate really. It would of been nice if they had been asked questions about subjects that haven't been discussed alot this election tbh. Although imo clegg won that one he was more direct with the audience and managed to separate himself from the other two more, I agree with cleggs views on getting rid of trident 100 billion is a hell of a lot of money too spend renewing some missiles we won't ever need.


Its a deterent. We don't plan on using them. It's just to send a message to N.Korea and Iran that if they mess around with us or any of our Allies, they would get the shit blown out of them.

The world is fragile and this protection is needed. I guess you would say lets not have police walking around the streets? Or maybe we should not have an army?

As has already been stated we could blow the shit out of them without the need to spend 100 billion updated our nuclear weapons (which aren't exactly the most eco freindly of things and have a ridicoulous half life.) the world isn't that fragile tbh, We aren't going to be attacked by iran or N.korea our regular army is enough of an deterent to ensure this (We are actually more of a threat to them). And if the world is fragile it's because people keep on making more nuclear weapons, You wander why N.korea and Iran want nuclear weapons it's because USA are walking around with a ton of them and are a massive threat to the middle east.

The money will be spent on either replacing or prolonging the Vangaurd Class submarines which are the delivery system for the missiles not on the actual weapons themselves (the total number we have will likely be cut). Where is this £100Bn figure from? The replacemnt of the subs is projected to cost up to £20Bn at most afaik (less if only 3 new subs are built instead of 4).

The question for me on this issue is whether there is another method of delivery that could be use that can reduce these costs. I guess the issue with land based launchers is that they are susceptible to attack.

 

@FootballFan

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that just because some people believe in nuclear disarmament that they are some kind of tree-hugging pacifists.

For nuclear disarmament to work I think that all major nuclar countries need to follow the same scipt. It's no good just the UK, USA and Russia disarming when N.Korea and Iran won't budge. Im all for getting rid of Nuclear/Chemical warfare but only a few countries removing the capabilities is just ridiculous.

I never suggested that, however im not a great fan of negotiating with the enemy either.

Clearly I would love it if we removed our army and police forces and made those people unemployed but we need to be realistic, the world isn't just butterflies and dafodils.



Around the Network
CrazyHorse on 16 April 2010
FootballFan said:
CrazyHorse said:

The money will be spent on either replacing or prolonging the Vangaurd Class submarines which are the delivery system for the missiles not on the actual weapons themselves (the total number we have will likely be cut). Where is this £100Bn figure from? The replacemnt of the subs is projected to cost up to £20Bn at most afaik (less if only 3 new subs are built instead of 4).

The question for me on this issue is whether there is another method of delivery that could be use that can reduce these costs. I guess the issue with land based launchers is that they are susceptible to attack.

 

@FootballFan

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that just because some people believe in nuclear disarmament that they are some kind of tree-hugging pacifists.

1.For nuclear disarmament to work I think that all major nuclar countries need to follow the same scipt. It's no good just the UK, USA and Russia disarming when N.Korea and Iran won't budge. Im all for getting rid of Nuclear/Chemical warfare but only a few countries removing the capabilities is just ridiculous.

2.I never suggested that, however im not a great fan of negotiating with the enemy either.

Clearly I would love it if we removed our army and police forces and made those people unemployed but we need to be realistic, the world isn't just butterflies and dafodils.

1. This is the problem with nuclear deterrent now. We are no longer in the cold war and the current threats we face from nuclear attack are probably the ones least likely to be deterred. I'm not sure how a nuclear deterrent would work against stopping a terrorist attack and leaders of rogue states may not always be inclined to think about the safety of their citizens in a retaliatory strike, particularily if they feel they are about to be ousted or killed. Not saying that means we need to get rid of our arsenal but a new strategy is needed.

2. It seemed to be implied from your response to Rastari. I just get tied of people throwing around those kind of statements when someone suggests that the nuclear  deterrent / trident needs rethinking. Apologies if I misinterpreted it.



mrstickball on 16 April 2010

Actually, the UK nuclear stockpile isn't enough of a deterrent to prevent wars.

If you haven't read the news lately, North Korea attacked a South Korean warship and sunk it. They are trying to start a war, despite the allies (everyone but NK in this case) having plenty of deterrent. When you have nothing left to lose, you will do anything to go out with a bang, it seems.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

valen200 on 16 April 2010

I understand there is a huge shift in British politics and that these debates are a new thing. Could any please help me sum understand the exact issues at hand. Please forgive my American ignorance of the world around me. In my defense I would know a lot more about the UK if they made game consoles like japan. Has anyone considered trying that?




"But as always, technology refused to be dignity's bitch."--Vance DeGeneres

 

http://cheezburger.com/danatblair/lolz/View/4772264960

SciFiBoy on 16 April 2010

I watched the debate, I thought it was okay, didnt do much to change what I think of the 2 main party leaders, though I was quite impressed by how Clegg did, never really rated him as a party leader before.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 16 April 2010
mrstickball said:
Actually, the UK nuclear stockpile isn't enough of a deterrent to prevent wars.

If you haven't read the news lately, North Korea attacked a South Korean warship and sunk it. They are trying to start a war, despite the allies (everyone but NK in this case) having plenty of deterrent. When you have nothing left to lose, you will do anything to go out with a bang, it seems.

That's why I never trusted Kim Jong Il with nukes in the first place.  He's a crazy enough guy that he'd launch Nukes at Japan before he died just to be remembered as the guy who nuked Japan.



darthdevidem01 on 16 April 2010

I'm REALLY not interested in our politics cus they seemed boring, but as I can VOTE now I watched the debate and thoughts from a complete NOVICE in politics:

1. CLEGG by far seems the most sincere, friendly & I dunno it seems like he is the most dependable and someone who might take us in the right direction. And I liked how he actually explained how the regional immigration thing would work and gave proof of other countries having it

2. Cameron was ok, his voice is very annoying but I think he did ok I guess.

3. Brown....WTF! Half the time he was COPYING what Clegg said & pretending it was HIS IDEA by saying "I'm sure Clegg agrees with me" yet he has done NOTHING for 13 Years. The other 49% of the time he was arguing with Cameron, then for 1% of the time he made jokes about the posters cameron put up about him.

So Clegg wins for me.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

tombi123 on 16 April 2010
darthdevidem01 said:
I'm REALLY not interested in our politics cus they seemed boring, but as I can VOTE now I watched the debate and thoughts from a complete NOVICE in politics:

1. CLEGG by far seems the most sincere, friendly & I dunno it seems like he is the most dependable and someone who might take us in the right direction. And I liked how he actually explained how the regional immigration thing would work and gave proof of other countries having it

2. Cameron was ok, his voice is very annoying but I think he did ok I guess.

3. Brown....WTF! Half the time he was COPYING what Clegg said & pretending it was HIS IDEA by saying "I'm sure Clegg agrees with me" yet he has done NOTHING for 13 Years. The other 49% of the time he was arguing with Cameron, then for 1% of the time he made jokes about the posters cameron put up about him.

So Clegg wins for me.

13 years? Don't you mean 3... Chancellor isn't the same as Prime Minister. He said "I'm sure Clegg agrees with me" on two policies. Plus he stated his position on those two policies before Clegg did, so he couldn't have copied... more likely they both come up with those policies independently. 

I really don't care how friendly or charismatic my PM is. It really shouldn't matter. I only care about policy. On policy Clegg came out on top with Brown a bit behind. I just agreed with Clegg about more of the issues. Cameron came a distant third on policy. He kept evading questions and some of his policies are plain stupid. Like the marriage tax cut and not wanting to get rid of the non-elected members of the House of Lords.



rastari on 17 April 2010
FootballFan said:
CrazyHorse said:
rastari said:
FootballFan said:
rastari said:
Nothing discussed wasn't already mentioned in the manifesto's, So it was a fairly useless debate really. It would of been nice if they had been asked questions about subjects that haven't been discussed alot this election tbh. Although imo clegg won that one he was more direct with the audience and managed to separate himself from the other two more, I agree with cleggs views on getting rid of trident 100 billion is a hell of a lot of money too spend renewing some missiles we won't ever need.


Its a deterent. We don't plan on using them. It's just to send a message to N.Korea and Iran that if they mess around with us or any of our Allies, they would get the shit blown out of them.

The world is fragile and this protection is needed. I guess you would say lets not have police walking around the streets? Or maybe we should not have an army?

As has already been stated we could blow the shit out of them without the need to spend 100 billion updated our nuclear weapons (which aren't exactly the most eco freindly of things and have a ridicoulous half life.) the world isn't that fragile tbh, We aren't going to be attacked by iran or N.korea our regular army is enough of an deterent to ensure this (We are actually more of a threat to them). And if the world is fragile it's because people keep on making more nuclear weapons, You wander why N.korea and Iran want nuclear weapons it's because USA are walking around with a ton of them and are a massive threat to the middle east.

The money will be spent on either replacing or prolonging the Vangaurd Class submarines which are the delivery system for the missiles not on the actual weapons themselves (the total number we have will likely be cut). Where is this £100Bn figure from? The replacemnt of the subs is projected to cost up to £20Bn at most afaik (less if only 3 new subs are built instead of 4).

The question for me on this issue is whether there is another method of delivery that could be use that can reduce these costs. I guess the issue with land based launchers is that they are susceptible to attack.

 

@FootballFan

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that just because some people believe in nuclear disarmament that they are some kind of tree-hugging pacifists.

For nuclear disarmament to work I think that all major nuclar countries need to follow the same scipt. It's no good just the UK, USA and Russia disarming when N.Korea and Iran won't budge. Im all for getting rid of Nuclear/Chemical warfare but only a few countries removing the capabilities is just ridiculous.

I never suggested that, however im not a great fan of negotiating with the enemy either.

Clearly I would love it if we removed our army and police forces and made those people unemployed but we need to be realistic, the world isn't just butterflies and dafodils.

N.korea and Iran won't budge because of the threat America imposes,If a country attacked your neighbour and then issues a series of statements saying your country is a threat you would want to be protected from said country aswell. You say n.Korea and Iran won't budge but it's completely the other way it's us that won't budge, If we agreed not to have nukes I'm ceratin NK and iran would agree not to build theirs, However what we want atm is for us to have nukes and them to not have nukes.



bazmeistergen on 17 April 2010
CrazyHorse said:
rastari said:
FootballFan said:
rastari said:
Nothing discussed wasn't already mentioned in the manifesto's, So it was a fairly useless debate really. It would of been nice if they had been asked questions about subjects that haven't been discussed alot this election tbh. Although imo clegg won that one he was more direct with the audience and managed to separate himself from the other two more, I agree with cleggs views on getting rid of trident 100 billion is a hell of a lot of money too spend renewing some missiles we won't ever need.


Its a deterent. We don't plan on using them. It's just to send a message to N.Korea and Iran that if they mess around with us or any of our Allies, they would get the shit blown out of them.

The world is fragile and this protection is needed. I guess you would say lets not have police walking around the streets? Or maybe we should not have an army?

As has already been stated we could blow the shit out of them without the need to spend 100 billion updated our nuclear weapons (which aren't exactly the most eco freindly of things and have a ridicoulous half life.) the world isn't that fragile tbh, We aren't going to be attacked by iran or N.korea our regular army is enough of an deterent to ensure this (We are actually more of a threat to them). And if the world is fragile it's because people keep on making more nuclear weapons, You wander why N.korea and Iran want nuclear weapons it's because USA are walking around with a ton of them and are a massive threat to the middle east.

The money will be spent on either replacing or prolonging the Vangaurd Class submarines which are the delivery system for the missiles not on the actual weapons themselves (the total number we have will likely be cut). Where is this £100Bn figure from? The replacemnt of the subs is projected to cost up to £20Bn at most afaik (less if only 3 new subs are built instead of 4).

The question for me on this issue is whether there is another method of delivery that could be use that can reduce these costs. I guess the issue with land based launchers is that they are susceptible to attack.

 

@FootballFan

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that just because some people believe in nuclear disarmament that they are some kind of tree-hugging pacifists.

the 97 billion figure comes directly from the debate... no-one disputed it that I can recall... do we not have ICBMs in this country anymore?



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.