| |||||||
| View Poll Results: Does the UK need a nuclear deterrent? | |||
| Yes | | 15 | 60.00% |
| No | | 5 | 20.00% |
| Don't know, don't care | | 5 | 20.00% |
| Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| ||||
| Personally I say yes, a deterrent is required, but at the minimum level possible. Something like cutting the next gen fleet to 3 subs, each with 12 missiles, so a total of 36 missiles would be sufficient to make any future state think twice before attack, but also show to the world that the path to a total future disarmament (if ever totally possible) continues. |
| ||||
| I honestly don't see why we'd need nukes. Who the fuck is going to honestly launch anything at us? We're political bum-boys with America (Read: Nuke central), and we don't honestly do that much except nod along with America. Education and the NHS are a much more valuable resource than missiles which are designed to just sit there and do shit all. If someone wants to fuck us over, they'll probably toss around with dirty bombs and all that jazz. Launching a nuke at another nation in this day and age is just asking for a Yank bitchslap to the face. |
| ||||
| But what if a giant meteor was heading directly for Skegness? We don't have the option of sending up a titanium plated space shuttle and landing people on it with a gattling gun equipped moon buggy and blowing it up from the inside. So we'd have to launch nukes at it. If we didn't have nukes, then the kids of the future could be deprived of boring caravan based holidays and our very society would crumble from the inside.
__________________ -- Cheers, Ratel |
| ||||
| MIRVs Multiple re-entry vehicles...each missile contains multiple warheads, when the missiles re-enter the Earth's atmosphere they split up and each warhead can hit multiple targets....I think that's how it works anyway.
__________________ -- Cheers, Ratel |
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| ||||
| Quote:
Except 200 isnt divisable by 16 , so their arent 200 warheads. its actually 12 per missile , giving 192. And yes. We need them. Seriously, the america argument is a crock of horseshit. If anyone thinks that nato, or the US would retalliate for us, and guarantee total global nuclear war you are mistaken. They wouldnt, and rightly so. 60 million in britain. If someone fired a nuclear barrage at us, who would risk the other 6 billion on the earth? If it was my desicion I wouldnt. I guarantee the US administration wouldnt either. |
| ||||
| Ok, the maths makes sense now I know the 200 was a 'rounded' figure. Of course we need them, the 'deterrent' factor is too big to ignore, especially being that every tom dick and harry have their own nuclear armaments these days.
__________________ |
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| ||||
| Quote:
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Forsmark / Sweden close to Nuclear Meltdown! | selm | General discussion | 163 | 08-09-2006 04:15 PM |