ChatterBank1 min ago
He Puts A New Meaning On Dumb !
69 Answers
Dumb and Dumber..and Jezza
A soon to be released comedy blockbuster...this movie will have you splitting your sides..youll be laughing so much youll be screaming for a doctor...
http://
Does he understand what the subs are for, or is he really as dumb as most people are giving him credit for...
A soon to be released comedy blockbuster...this movie will have you splitting your sides..youll be laughing so much youll be screaming for a doctor...
http://
Does he understand what the subs are for, or is he really as dumb as most people are giving him credit for...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The whole point of Trident,surely,is to have them permanently deployed in one of four nuclear submarines on maritime patrol 365/24/7. If it kicks off we have a nuclear sub that is capable of traveling 40 times around the world and can stay sub surface without finding a base to refuel. That is the whole point of the deterrent. They are prepared all the time with nuclear reaction.
As Corbyn doesn't seem to grasp the strategic roles the UK armed forces are tasked with he should purchase The Last Ship by William Brinkley.
As he appears to live in a fantasy utopia he could do no worst than read this fictional book.It outlines,in simple terms,the need to have nuclear ready vessels at all times.
https:/
As he appears to live in a fantasy utopia he could do no worst than read this fictional book.It outlines,in simple terms,the need to have nuclear ready vessels at all times.
https:/
“So - building more Subs but not more Missiles is utterly sensible. ….but procuring just the subs seems the right thing to do at present.”
Probably agree, sunny-d. But:
“Whether we then fit the Tridents into the Vanguards is another debate - …”
A debate that seems unlikely to gain much air time:
“Labour could back the construction of new Trident submarines but not arm them with nuclear missiles, Jeremy Corbyn has said.”
“[The submarines] don’t have to have nuclear warheads on them,” Mr Corbyn told the Andrew Marr Show.”
The man is a buffoon. If he wants to pursue a policy of no Trident (or replacement) then fair enough. The electorate will have its say in 2020. But to suggest that we go ahead and build the submarines with plans to leave them empty is about as dopey as it gets. Oh, hang on though, I forgot – he needs to support of the Unions (whose members will build the submarines) so maybe not so daft after all. Get the taxpayer to fund jobs for people who will build billions of pounds worth of useless kit.
Poor man. Torn between his ideology his party's need for cash !!
Probably agree, sunny-d. But:
“Whether we then fit the Tridents into the Vanguards is another debate - …”
A debate that seems unlikely to gain much air time:
“Labour could back the construction of new Trident submarines but not arm them with nuclear missiles, Jeremy Corbyn has said.”
“[The submarines] don’t have to have nuclear warheads on them,” Mr Corbyn told the Andrew Marr Show.”
The man is a buffoon. If he wants to pursue a policy of no Trident (or replacement) then fair enough. The electorate will have its say in 2020. But to suggest that we go ahead and build the submarines with plans to leave them empty is about as dopey as it gets. Oh, hang on though, I forgot – he needs to support of the Unions (whose members will build the submarines) so maybe not so daft after all. Get the taxpayer to fund jobs for people who will build billions of pounds worth of useless kit.
Poor man. Torn between his ideology his party's need for cash !!
"This man is certifiable, building more submarines but don't equip them with missiles. We could take this a stage further, build more aircraft carriers but save money by not putting aircraft on them."
http://
Not just him then.
http://
Not just him then.
"No we don't ... we are no longer a useful or important player in the global nuclear sandpit ... just a faded old hasbeen trading on past glories and unwilling to face the harsh truth of 21st century realpolitik ... " - ah the anti British having fun again. Lisen sunshine we can still fire nukes doesn't matter what you think it's still hurt.
The ONLY reason the UK persists with pointless and phenomenally costly Nuclear weapons is to secure our seat on the United Nations Security Council and keep our Veto.
Nuclear weapons are completely useless defensively. Al Qaeda, ISIS etal know we have a Nuclear option, but they also know we will NEVER use it.
Putin assasinates people in London, does what the feck he likes in the World, because he knows this country will NEVER use our Nuclear options. Completey useless and vastly expensive.
The only reason Nuclear Disarmourment is a vote loser, is because so many jobs depend on it. Mostly in Labour voting areas.
That is not to say Corbyn's fudge is credible, it isn't.
Nuclear weapons are completely useless defensively. Al Qaeda, ISIS etal know we have a Nuclear option, but they also know we will NEVER use it.
Putin assasinates people in London, does what the feck he likes in the World, because he knows this country will NEVER use our Nuclear options. Completey useless and vastly expensive.
The only reason Nuclear Disarmourment is a vote loser, is because so many jobs depend on it. Mostly in Labour voting areas.
That is not to say Corbyn's fudge is credible, it isn't.
"Putin assasinates people in London, does what the feck he likes in the World, because he knows this country will NEVER use our Nuclear options. Completey useless and vastly expensive.
Well, we aren't going to nuke Moscow because Putin assassinates people.
Plainly. If that was the case, "goodbye world"
That is not the reason for having nuclear weapons. But the deterrent is meant to be there to prevent a nuclear war, odd as it may seem. In other words, one side with missiles will supposedly not use them if they know that they will also be zapped. That is why the Russians got so twitchy about Star Wars and SDI: the fear that their missile launches would be detected and zapped too soon.
So goes the thinking anyway. But it doesn't seem a good idea to me to remove ours.
Well, we aren't going to nuke Moscow because Putin assassinates people.
Plainly. If that was the case, "goodbye world"
That is not the reason for having nuclear weapons. But the deterrent is meant to be there to prevent a nuclear war, odd as it may seem. In other words, one side with missiles will supposedly not use them if they know that they will also be zapped. That is why the Russians got so twitchy about Star Wars and SDI: the fear that their missile launches would be detected and zapped too soon.
So goes the thinking anyway. But it doesn't seem a good idea to me to remove ours.
Latest Posts
Animals & Nature3 mins ago
69M Uninformed Horrible People....and...
News3 mins ago
News5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.