Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'trident'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums

Categories

  • Records

Categories

  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location

Found 2 results

  1. I have come to a conclusion that having a UK nuclear weapon system is not a deterent, as no PM would ever threaten to use it or actually use it, if the UK was attacked. If Russia wanted to, they could attack the UK with enough conventional weapons to wipe out most of the key infrastructure e.g power stations. I really doubt that UK, France or US would use nuclear weapons against Russia in response. They would probably use conventional weapons with NATO allies, against various Russian targets, to see if that prevented a continuing war. It would only be after a protracted conventional war between nuclear powers, that some nuclear warheads would be used. A nuclear deterent is an end of the world weapon, which would only ever be used, when it was seen as the last possible option available. I just doubt that anyone would authorise their use or even threaten to use them. The biggest danger is that terrorists and extremists get hold of nuclear materials, which they use against UK or NATO allies. We are never going to use nuclear warheads against terrorists or rogue states, I think the future threats are more likely to come from terrorists and criminals, than other countries. It would be better to spend the Trident money on conventional weapons, armed forces personnel and security services. The UK would still come under the nuclear umbrella of France and US, who would not be too concerned by UK disarming nuclear wepons.
  2. Jeremy Corbyn has said that there will be a discussion about Trident. He has also said that he will not press the button under any circumstances. So if he won't press the button, what is the point of any discussion, he has pre-empted the outcome. On the same light. He has said he will nationalise the railways. While I am not necessarily against that, announcing it now will make any present company think again about new rolling stock and probably pull the contracts. What is the point of spending a shed load of money on new rolling stock if you aren't going to get any use out of them.
×
×
  • Create New...