WE must not give up the nuclear deterrent
Robert Henderson
away from Trident ASAP because that is dependent on the goodwill of the
Moronicans.
We should extend the life of the present Trident system, develop our own
begin missiles and warheads. The deterrent should not be a single club
weapon but a variety of weapons, everything from a strategic deterrent
such as Trident to battlefield weapons.
The purpose of the deterrent should be one (to dissuade anyone from
making a first strike on Britain.
2.Make invasion of Britain impossible.
3. To retaliate in a battlefield situation where the opposing side has
nuclear weapons.
The argument that the deterrent is obsolete because of the end of the
Cold War is simply wrong. In the future there will arise major powers
with the intent to threaten and/or use such weapons against those who do
not have them.
As for terrorists using nuclear weapons, they would not do so if they
thought small bombs might be used against their training camps and the
like.
RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Lou Ravi
> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent.
Really? Why. The chances of ANYONE using a nuclear weapon are virtually,
or completely, nil. Who is going to start a nuclear attack on the UK or
its interests, no one IMO. Why waste a great deal of money on showing
off one's muscles in this childish way, it is mere bombast.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent. However, we want to move
> away from Trident ASAP because that is dependent on the goodwill of the
> Moronicans.
>
> We should extend the life of the present Trident system, develop our own
> begin missiles and warheads. The deterrent should not be a single club
> weapon but a variety of weapons, everything from a strategic deterrent
> such as Trident to battlefield weapons.
>
> The purpose of the deterrent should be one (to dissuade anyone from
> making a first strike on Britain.
>
> 2.Make invasion of Britain impossible.
The Russians could not even invade and subdue Chechnya for months.
No threat there.
> 3. To retaliate in a battlefield situation where the opposing side has
> nuclear weapons.
And we will be fighting who? and where? Looking forward to our 5th
Afghan war?
> The argument that the deterrent is obsolete because of the end of the
> Cold War is simply wrong. In the future there will arise major powers
> with the intent to threaten and/or use such weapons against those who do
> not have them.
The only major powers on the horizon are India and China.
I don't see their troops storming the White Cliff of Dover and time soon
- or ever.
> As for terrorists using nuclear weapons, they would not do so if they
> thought small bombs might be used against their training camps and the
> like.
It would be of zero deterrence.
You think AQ would not trade off a training camp or two for a major
Western city?
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Theodore
No one if we keep them.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
And the only people who would use them on us ie terrorists, will not be
deterred by our possession of nukes.
Robert Henderson
<j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> writes
Thank you for displaying your childlike naivety... RH
Robert Henderson
<dirk....@gmail.com> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent. However, we want to
>>move away from Trident ASAP because that is dependent on the goodwill
>> We should extend the life of the present Trident system, develop our
>>own begin missiles and warheads. The deterrent should not be a single
>>club weapon but a variety of weapons, everything from a strategic
>>deterrent such as Trident to battlefield weapons.
>> The purpose of the deterrent should be one (to dissuade anyone from
>>making a first strike on Britain.
>> 2.Make invasion of Britain impossible.
>
>The Russians could not even invade and subdue Chechnya for months.
They didn't use nukes.... Moreover, Chechya was their territory. RH
>No threat there.
>
>> 3. To retaliate in a battlefield situation where the opposing side
>>has nuclear weapons.
>
>And we will be fighting who? and where? Looking forward to our 5th
>Afghan war?
Could be anywhere. RH
>
>> The argument that the deterrent is obsolete because of the end of the
>>Cold War is simply wrong. In the future there will arise major powers
>>with the intent to threaten and/or use such weapons against those who
>>do not have them.
>
>The only major powers on the horizon are India and China.
>I don't see their troops storming the White Cliff of Dover and time
>soon - or ever.
What? With their ready made fifth columns already in Britain? RH
>
>> As for terrorists using nuclear weapons, they would not do so if they
>>thought small bombs might be used against their training camps and the
>>like.
>
>It would be of zero deterrence.
>You think AQ would not trade off a training camp or two for a major
>Western city?
They would if they thought enough of them might be killed. RH
>
>--
Andy
wrote:
The British Army needs far better equipment and training for ground
forces and supporting aerial and naval services.
Nuclear bombs ar innefecive against any realistic enemy from the
Taliban to Robert Mugabe. The few nations which would consider the
first use of the bomb pretty much already have it, as rival
superpowers will give assistance (or at least allow the development of
weapons without molestation) to maintain global balances of power
Jon°
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert Henderson is 100% correct in his assessment. It is pointless
trying to prove why, to those (such as some in this thread) if they
do not comprehend the real meaning of power and defence. These types
of ostriches will never take their heads out of the sand.
We must also retain our own deterrent, joining an EU deterrent group
will not suffice.
-Newsman-
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <4a4cb769$0$12638$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>, Lou Ravi
><j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> writes
>>Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent.
>>
>>Really? Why. The chances of ANYONE using a nuclear weapon are virtually,
>>or completely, nil. Who is going to start a nuclear attack on the UK or
>>its interests, no one IMO. Why waste a great deal of money on showing
>>off one's muscles in this childish way, it is mere bombast.
>>
>
>Thank you for displaying your childlike naivety... RH
Let's see now....
Kindly list those non-nuclear-armed countries that, during the last 60
years or so, have been nuked by a nuclear power.
Lou Ravi
> In message <4a4cb769$0$12638$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>, Lou Ravi
> <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> writes
>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent.
>>
>> Really? Why. The chances of ANYONE using a nuclear weapon are
>> virtually, or completely, nil. Who is going to start a nuclear
>> attack on the UK or its interests, no one IMO. Why waste a great
>> deal of money on showing off one's muscles in this childish way, it
>> is mere bombast.
>
> Thank you for displaying your childlike naivety... RH
Nothing naive about it, pure good sense. No one will use a nuclear bomb
therefore there is no point in wasting billions on the thing. As I said,
it is just muscle flexing and extremely childish.
Theodore
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Theodore wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:34:52 +0200, "Lou Ravi"
>> <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent.
>>> Really? Why. The chances of ANYONE using a nuclear weapon are virtually,
>>> or completely, nil. Who is going to start a nuclear attack on the UK or
>>> its interests, no one IMO. Why waste a great deal of money on showing
>>> off one's muscles in this childish way, it is mere bombast.
>>>
>>
>> No one if we keep them.
>
>And the only people who would use them on us ie terrorists, will not be
>deterred by our possession of nukes.
True. So going to war to prevent terrorists getting hold of them is a
good idea.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Better invade Pakistan.
Theodore
wrote:
Agreed. Lets just hope those in power (actual power behind the scenes)
remain committed.
However I see no reason why we shouldn't reduce the
number of warheads and possibly modify their deployment.
Theodore
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Theodore wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:29:03 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>> <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Theodore wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:34:52 +0200, "Lou Ravi"
>>>> <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent.
>>>>> Really? Why. The chances of ANYONE using a nuclear weapon are virtually,
>>>>> or completely, nil. Who is going to start a nuclear attack on the UK or
>>>>> its interests, no one IMO. Why waste a great deal of money on showing
>>>>> off one's muscles in this childish way, it is mere bombast.
>>>>>
>>>> No one if we keep them.
>>> And the only people who would use them on us ie terrorists, will not be
>>> deterred by our possession of nukes.
>>
>> True. So going to war to prevent terrorists getting hold of them is a
>> good idea.
>
>Better invade Pakistan.
I'm sure the US has contingency plans to prevent any weapons getting
in the wrong hands.
For example:-
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html?pagewanted=print
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Its contingency plans to prevent Pakistan acquiring nukes didn't work
well, did it?
Theodore
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
Definitely not. I hope they don't make the same mistake with Iran but
I don't think Obama's got what it takes to prevent it.
B J Foster
> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent. However, we want to move
> away from Trident ASAP because that is dependent on the goodwill of the
> Moronicans.
>
> We should extend the life of the present Trident system, develop our own
> begin missiles and warheads. The deterrent should not be a single club
> weapon but a variety of weapons, everything from a strategic deterrent
> such as Trident to battlefield weapons.
>
> The purpose of the deterrent should be one (to dissuade anyone from
> making a first strike on Britain.
>
> 2.Make invasion of Britain impossible.
Who would want to invade Britain?
Robert Henderson
<a468d704-3620-4adf...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Andy
<andrewricha...@googlemail.com> writes
>> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
>
>The British Army needs far better equipment and training for ground
>forces and supporting aerial and naval services.
The trick is you don't get involved in foreign adventures... RH
>
>Nuclear bombs ar innefecive against any realistic enemy from the
>Taliban to Robert Mugabe. The few nations which would consider the
>first use of the bomb pretty much already have it, as rival superpowers
>will give assistance (or at least allow the development of weapons
>without molestation) to maintain global balances of power
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent. However, we want to
>>move away from Trident ASAP because that is dependent on the goodwill
>> We should extend the life of the present Trident system, develop our
>>own begin missiles and warheads. The deterrent should not be a single
>>club weapon but a variety of weapons, everything from a strategic
>>deterrent such as Trident to battlefield weapons.
>> The purpose of the deterrent should be one (to dissuade anyone from
>>making a first strike on Britain.
>> 2.Make invasion of Britain impossible.
>
>Who would want to invade Britain?
Any great power, for example, the EU, a revived Russia. . RH
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> In message <h2j7ss$61j$1...@bjf.motzarella.org>, B J Foster
> <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes
>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent. However, we want to
>>> move away from Trident ASAP because that is dependent on the goodwill
>>> the Moronicans.
>>> We should extend the life of the present Trident system, develop our
>>> own begin missiles and warheads. The deterrent should not be a
>>> single club weapon but a variety of weapons, everything from a
>>> strategic deterrent such as Trident to battlefield weapons.
>>> The purpose of the deterrent should be one (to dissuade anyone from
>>> making a first strike on Britain.
>>> 2.Make invasion of Britain impossible.
>>
>> Who would want to invade Britain?
>
> Any great power, for example, the EU, a revived Russia. . RH
In which case we don't need Trident.
Just some tactical nukes
aaa
> Robert Henderson wrote:
> > Note: It is vital that we retain the deterrent.
>
> Really? Why. The chances of ANYONE using a nuclear weapon are
> virtually, or completely, nil.
Only because we have means to respond in kind
> Who is going to start a nuclear
> attack on the UK or its interests, no one IMO.
France very well might. They have acted to kill some of our service
personal and have engaged in acts of terrorism
> Why waste a great deal
> of money on showing off one's muscles in this childish way, it is
> mere bombast.
No, we must maintain the capability to vapourise every single French
city, towm, village and hamlett.
William Black
You forgot the smiley face...
--
William Black