Nukes - needed or not?

Nuclear weapons - do we need them?

  • Yes - retargeted on Washington

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No - scrap the lot and buy something useful

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
#1
So - is the nuclear deterrent a great big pile of expensive, radioactive dog toffee or a key plank of national defence? Should we perhaps get rid of them and spend the money on kit we might use one day - like (where do you start) more Wah64Ds, or the light MLRS, or rifles that work, or ensuring the CVFs actually get built, or putting a radar on Harriers, or giving everyone a pay rise? Or is it all that stands between us and mushroom clouds over Basingstoke?
 
#2
well since we had falklands former yugoslavia gulf 1 and 2 afganistian
sierra leaone northern ireland and polaris and then trident have been very useful scrap the lot sell on e bay or fire the lot at the middle east
that would give them something to really hate the west for :D
 
#3
The "delightful" town of Crawley has a sign on entry roads proclaiming it to be a "Nuclear Free Zone".

I think we should lob a Bucket of Instant Sunshine on it to test that theory.

Just gimme a minute to white out me windows.

Any other candidates? (Besides Paris, obviously). 8)
 
#5
Harwich in Essex, the only thing going for it is the ferry to Holland - and Blandford for being a money grabbing from soldiers, shite hole, pointy headed bunch of arrse.
 
#6
SLOUGH of course also nuclear free zone . if i rember the sign was outside ta drill hall itching for it.
as in come freindly bombs and fall on slough theres nothing here for human life :D
 
#7
SLOUGH of course also nuclear free zone . if i rember the sign was outside ta drill hall itching for it.
as in come freindly bombs and fall on slough theres nothing here for human life :D
and tony would only press button if bush told him too
 
#8
Of course we need the bomb ! Watching the news recently I've managed to crack the code:

Cat A. Countries without the bomb that President Bush dislikes (ie Iraq) get invaded and screwed over.

Cat B. Countries with the bomb that President Bush dislikes (ie North Korea) get treated with respect and kid gloves.

Hence the rush by countries in Cat A. (ie Iran) to join Cat B. asap.

There, isn't it simple.

Hang on though, the UK seems to be in Cat C.

Cat C. Countries with the bomb that President Bush likes that get screwed over anyway as their PM is a spineless puppet.
 
#9
we should be more like israel dont admit to have bomb . do whatever
we feel like get yanks to give us cash and the latest kit .And whinge if yanks dont do what we want them to ie invade syria iran anywhere else
who think wearing a towel on the head is trendy :D
 
#10
Can't say i like the idea of a towel but the idea is a nice-one..lol
Category 'C' sucks!

The government has spent 68 years (as far is a can tell) pulling the army's teeth-out with under-funding and poor-kit while pushing it into more and more conflicts...i'm concerned that sometime somthing will give and we'll be mightily screwed.

Sell the stupid nukes, keep two or three just for erasing anyone in an emergency and then buy our ordinary units some better kit.
Surely we don't need enough nukes to blow-up to world.

(unlike america who has enough nukes to break-up the moon and russia who's nukes would do the same if they didn't leak so much)
:wink:
 
#11
Packard said:
The "delightful" town of Crawley has a sign on entry roads proclaiming it to be a "Nuclear Free Zone".
The delightful Borough of Greenwich also used to have 'Nuclear Free Zone' signs, including one on the bus stop outside the Royal Naval College, just 30 feet from a nuclear reactor!!
 
#12
While we're at it , can we lob one in on Southampton? They had those stupid fuquing "Nuclear-Free City" signs at one time, but someone apparently defaced them, so they vanished. However, the Grand Panjandrums of the City Council have stated that any nuclear-powered
vessels belonging to the Royal Navy should stay away, as they're not welcome in Southampton,......Barstewards!!

:evil: :evil:
 
#13
the peoples republic of brighton wanted to be a nuclear free zone and asked the TA centre to state if they had nukes or not :roll: MOD replied as standard They niether confirm or deny if nuclear weapons are based
at a specific Location :lol:
Consternation at the council :oops:
Now they gone all new labour don't want to be seen as being anti anything :p
 
#15
as a pompey resident i have to agree with nut strangler nuke souhthampton.
all scummers must die
 
#16
A sign on entering Liverpool also proclaims it to be a nuclear free zone.

As a nuclear explosion causes widespread destruction and long-term genetic damage leading to mutation, I think it's already been hit.

:D
 
#17
Noticed someone mentioned slough, :twisted: a few years ago I was working on the shopping centre while it was being refurbed. I noticed a nice shiney sign which proclaimed slough's freedom from all things nuclear. Being bored I decided it might well look nice int a mate of mine's house so said sign was promtly removed from the wall wrapped and presented to me mate for christmas!. :lol:
 
V

vespa

Guest
#18
targets in no particular order ,
France
North Korea
Turkey just before the football match :D
Zimbabwe
Scottish nationlist party HQ
Plaid Cymru HQ
IRA bunkers and training camps especially during a Celtic football match
Argentina :twisted:
Spain (to protect Gibraltar UK)
put all asylum seekers especially Capt Hook in a boat loaded with a timed nuke device

there i think ive covered it :p
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#19
Vespa -

Sound policies for a fairer world, every one. You missed one large target, though - the whole of the middle east, from Cairo, east to Tehran, and from Damascus, south down to Aden. No-one would notice in most cases, expecially not Israel, Iran and Iraq. Just wait 'til I'm on R&R.

Oh, and make them air burst / neutron weapons, so we don't damage the oil-bearing strata that these bas*ards live over (and therefore consider that they own).

The longer I'm here, the more I hate 'em all...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top