Post Your Electoral manifesto.

Hertz32

Imagine you are in a room with 50 people, all of whom have wants and needs. 5 of them have buttons that control the explosives that are strapped to every single person in the room. 

Not one of those 5 will use the button, but they sure as shit dont care as much about the wants of the people without buttons. 
Would you want a button? Or does the idea of having control through potentially violent means mean that you'd say no? 

Hertz32

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

dano said:

Gassage said:

dano said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

4 and 9 just made you unelectable. 

Why 4?
And, when was the last time we needed to use Trident?

It's a deterrent so it's never been used. But the threat of a deterrent has been used for many years. 

When has the UK ever used it as a threat or deterrent?

Cold war ? 

Nope. We were never threatened.

And we had nuclear weapons, the vulcan bomber was on constant standby. I dont know that you'd be able to say the same had they not been. 

So when would they have been used?

You're asking the wrong question again

Hertz32

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

The only people that dont want a nuclear deterrent, dont understand how a nuclear deterrent works. 
Its used every day of the year since since it went operational, it gives us international political leverage we would otherwise miss out on. We are a small nation, dont forget that.

So, as you clearly understand how it works, when would you use it? Describe the scenario.

Its in use today, if we didnt have it then what would stop russia using us as a hostage against the US? 

If you are asking what scenario I'd release the warheads, then I'll point out that that isnt what Trident is used for. It's a political tool, not a military one. 

Right. So you'd spend £41Bn on something that you admit you'll never use, when there's people dying of cold on the streets , and when that something is purely for national vanity?

I'd spend £41bn on something thats used every day, creates jobs and is a powerful political tool

Fretwired

HAL9000 said:

All pay rises to be across the board ie if the CEO awards himself 20% then everybody else also gets 20%.

CEOs of public companies don't award themselves pay rises. They are voted through or rejected by shareholders and in most cases the pay is performance based. Government should get no say on how private companies are run or how workers are paid. Labour went down that route and got into trouble with the unions and big business.

Gassage

Hertz32 said:

You're asking the wrong question again

I'm not. I am asking a question you can't answer and is wholly the right question.

Gassage

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

The only people that dont want a nuclear deterrent, dont understand how a nuclear deterrent works. 
Its used every day of the year since since it went operational, it gives us international political leverage we would otherwise miss out on. We are a small nation, dont forget that.

So, as you clearly understand how it works, when would you use it? Describe the scenario.

Its in use today, if we didnt have it then what would stop russia using us as a hostage against the US? 

If you are asking what scenario I'd release the warheads, then I'll point out that that isnt what Trident is used for. It's a political tool, not a military one. 

Right. So you'd spend £41Bn on something that you admit you'll never use, when there's people dying of cold on the streets , and when that something is purely for national vanity?

I'd spend £41bn on something thats used every day, creates jobs and is a powerful political tool

Like Health and Education.

Good man.

Hertz32

It's really not, its a question that demonstrates that you don't fully understand what it's used for. 
You know what? If the UK was in immediate nuclear danger, you would use it. I doubt any UK prime minister would be the first to press the button but they should damn well be prepared to if doomsday came.Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

You're asking the wrong question again

I'm not. I am asking a question you can't answer and is wholly the right question.

Gassage

Hertz32 said:

It's really not, its a question that demonstrates that you don't fully understand what it's used for. 
You know what? If the UK was in immediate nuclear danger, you would use it. I doubt any UK prime minister would be the first to press the button but they should damn well be prepared to if doomsday came.Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

You're asking the wrong question again

I'm not. I am asking a question you can't answer and is wholly the right question.

I totally understand, more so than you appear do to.

The simple answer is it has never been used.

The second answer is it's all about bragging rights and being at the nuclear power table which is quite pathetic.

Do Norway have it? Germany? Italy? Austria? Switzerland? Denmark? Finland?

TTony

Gassage said:

I totally understand, more so than you appear do to.

The simple answer is it has never been used.

I'm with @Hertz32 on this one.

Has it been "used" in that someone has pressed a button to make a big boomy thing?  No.  Clearly not.

Has it been "used" in that it has discouraged some nasty people from getting a little aggressive with Britain, or with its interests worldwide?  Well, that, we'll never *know* for sure.  But if you wind back to the days of the proper cold war, nukes in Cuba, etc, then I'd say that our possession of our own little arsenal quite possibly influenced some of the thinking back then.  But, we'll never know whether it was used or not in that way in that sort of a situation.  

You can't prove your contention.

I'll agree that the deterrent is probably of less relevance today as the basis of war has changed and global political differences are less likely to be settled with a bit of mutual destruction.  But then we thought that the basis of war had changed when we dismantled our armed forces back in the 90s & 00s, so perhaps we'd better not chuck the nukes just yet, as they might come in handy one day.


Plus, I'm with @Hertz32 because he doesn't edit history when someone points out that he was wrong.
:P

Hertz32

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

The only people that dont want a nuclear deterrent, dont understand how a nuclear deterrent works. 
Its used every day of the year since since it went operational, it gives us international political leverage we would otherwise miss out on. We are a small nation, dont forget that.

So, as you clearly understand how it works, when would you use it? Describe the scenario.

Its in use today, if we didnt have it then what would stop russia using us as a hostage against the US? 

If you are asking what scenario I'd release the warheads, then I'll point out that that isnt what Trident is used for. It's a political tool, not a military one. 

Right. So you'd spend £41Bn on something that you admit you'll never use, when there's people dying of cold on the streets , and when that something is purely for national vanity?

I'd spend £41bn on something thats used every day, creates jobs and is a powerful political tool

Like Health and Education.

Good man.

Are you implying that the money spent on trident would go to health and education? 
Because the money promised by politicians for the NHS after brexit hasnt materialised and I just want to be sure. 
The money would vanish a lot quicker than you think, the political system doesnt lend itself to keeping these promises but does lend itself to belittling people for not caring about one thing because they support another.

Gulliver

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

The only people that dont want a nuclear deterrent, dont understand how a nuclear deterrent works. 
Its used every day of the year since since it went operational, it gives us international political leverage we would otherwise miss out on. We are a small nation, dont forget that.

So, as you clearly understand how it works, when would you use it? Describe the scenario.

Its in use today, if we didnt have it then what would stop russia using us as a hostage against the US? 

If you are asking what scenario I'd release the warheads, then I'll point out that that isnt what Trident is used for. It's a political tool, not a military one. 

Right. So you'd spend £41Bn on something that you admit you'll never use, when there's people dying of cold on the streets , and when that something is purely for national vanity?

I'd spend £41bn on something thats used every day, creates jobs and is a powerful political tool

Like Health and Education.

Good man.

Are you implying that the money spent on trident would go to health and education? 
Because the money promised by politicians for the NHS after brexit hasnt materialised and I just want to be sure. 

The Brexit money hasn't materialised because that was an obvious and demonstrable fiction - that many people were duped into believing.

I'm no expert on the matter, but isn't there a way to fund a scaled-down version of Trident for say, £20bn and invest the left over £20bn into Health and Education?

Gassage

@Hertz32

this will assist you

Hertz32

Gassage said:

@Hertz32

this will assist you

I dont see how that aids my understanding of your point. 

All the scenarios he listed would warrant different tactics than pressing the button. You'd deal with them using military force or political will. And in the latter, a nuclear deterrent would aid negotiations. The use for a nuclear deterrent is never the use of its destructive capabilities. By the time you launch the weapon, it's already useless. 

Gassage

@Hertz32 So, how have places like Norway and Germany survived? I'd have thought they'd have been invaded by now.

Hertz32

Gassage said:

@Hertz32 So, how have places like Norway and Germany survived? I'd have thought they'd have been invaded by now.

I don't know, why hasnt russia invaded NATO member countries? 

They're both members of NATO and protected under article 5, but neither has the seat at the big table in the same way politically that we do because of Trident. 
Would we all die in a nuclear winter if we binned it? No. 
But we would lose the security that we have for the strong political foothold that belies our size. 

Gassage

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

@Hertz32 So, how have places like Norway and Germany survived? I'd have thought they'd have been invaded by now.

I don't know, why hasnt russia invaded NATO member countries? 

They're both members of NATO and protected under article 5, but neither has the seat at the big table in the same way politically that we do because of Trident. 
Would we all die in a nuclear winter if we binned it? No. 
But we would lose the security that we have for the strong political foothold that belies our size. 

Do you not think, as a country, we should stop worrying about being a ' big table' clusterfuck and become modest but real achievers?

Hertz32

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

@Hertz32 So, how have places like Norway and Germany survived? I'd have thought they'd have been invaded by now.

I don't know, why hasnt russia invaded NATO member countries? 

They're both members of NATO and protected under article 5, but neither has the seat at the big table in the same way politically that we do because of Trident. 
Would we all die in a nuclear winter if we binned it? No. 
But we would lose the security that we have for the strong political foothold that belies our size. 

Do you not think, as a country, we should stop worrying about being a ' big table' clusterfuck and become modest but real achievers?

No. 

Political strength isnt something to be ashamed of. 

Chalky

@Gassage - you clearly want to get rid of Trident and your passionate belief is impressive. But your arguments are woeful. Move on to another manifesto item...

So everybody in the company gets the same rise as the CEO? Even if they are shit? And your best salesman who has delivered many big new customers only gets the same rise as your worst salesman who hasn't brought in any new business at all?

Gassage

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

Hertz32 said:

Gassage said:

@Hertz32 So, how have places like Norway and Germany survived? I'd have thought they'd have been invaded by now.

I don't know, why hasnt russia invaded NATO member countries? 

They're both members of NATO and protected under article 5, but neither has the seat at the big table in the same way politically that we do because of Trident. 
Would we all die in a nuclear winter if we binned it? No. 
But we would lose the security that we have for the strong political foothold that belies our size. 

Do you not think, as a country, we should stop worrying about being a ' big table' clusterfuck and become modest but real achievers?

No. 

Political strength isnt something to be ashamed of. 

Do you really believe we have political strength when our PM is snubbed and is a joke and the US President Elect called South Korea before he did us?

I'd rather have strength of humility and humanity, something very lacking in our political system.

Fretwired

Gulliver said:

 
The Brexit money hasn't materialised because that was an obvious and demonstrable fiction - that many people were duped into believing.

I'm no expert on the matter, but isn't there a way to fund a scaled-down version of Trident for say, £20bn and invest the left over £20bn into Health and Education?

I think you'll find that:

1) We're still a member of the EU
2) We're still making contributions so,
3) the promised money is not yet free to be reallocated.

But don't let a small matter like the facts to get in the way of a good rant.