UK's decommissioned nuclear submarines kept in storage for decades

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

I am indeed, sitting on a rank. One more job and I’ll probably be done for the night. How you still up?

 

Couldn't sleep. Now watching half-court buzzer-beaters on YouTube, so I guess if I've descended to that then it's time to call it a night. I'll sleep soundly though, wearing my "spoon" JKB badge of honour!

 

[luckyBatistuta]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Couldn't sleep. Now watching half-court buzzer-beaters on YouTube, so I guess if I've descended to that then it's time to call it a night. I'll sleep soundly though, wearing my "spoon" JKB badge of honour!

 

 

  

 

 

 

I’m off to watch half-court buzzer-beaters now 

 

 

c’ya spoooooooooooooooon

[AlphonseCapone]

6 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

What you on about ya spoon !

 

Red Jambo - Corbynite are we ?

 

The argument is that it acts as a deterrent. That deterrent is to safeguard the UK.

 

When was the last time Britain got invaded ? The Argies ? The Iraqis ? Eh Naw

 

There's enough Wums on here pal so no need for me to add to the list.

 

I think the last time the British mainland was invaded was at the battle of Hastings in 1066. We developed nuclear weapons in the 1940s. That's 900 years without invasion without having nuclear weapons. 

[Governor Tarkin]

5 hours ago, luckyBatistuta said:

How you still up?

 

Crystal meth.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Governor Tarkin

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I think the last time the British mainland was invaded was at the battle of Hastings in 1066. We developed nuclear weapons in the 1940s. That's 900 years without invasion without having nuclear weapons. 

Clydebank and London might/may disagree. Oh and I'd say King Billy was the last successful invasion.

Edited April 5, 2019 by ri Alban

[Governor Tarkin]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I think the last time the British mainland was invaded was at the battle of Hastings in 1066. We developed nuclear weapons in the 1940s. That's 900 years without invasion without having nuclear weapons. 

 

I think a lot of us who didn't live through it as adults often underestimate the threat posed by Stalinist Russia and the Soviet Union.

 

They'd just chucked 20 million lives at defeating the Nazis and murdered a similar number of their own people.

 

To think that they would have baulked at the prospect of turning swathes of Western Europe into a nuclear desert just to prove a point is probably naive.

 

I'd say that MAD was a necessary deterent at the time.

[AlphonseCapone]

38 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Clydebank and London might/may disagree. Oh and I'd say King Billy was the last successful invasion.

 

Wasn't King Billy essentially invited over? 

[Maroon Sailor]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I think the last time the British mainland was invaded was at the battle of Hastings in 1066. We developed nuclear weapons in the 1940s. That's 900 years without invasion without having nuclear weapons. 

 

Haven't had a world war since the 1940's either.

 

Something has helped or been done to deter that

[AlphonseCapone]

33 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

I think a lot of us who didn't live through it as adults often underestimate the threat posed by Stalinist Russia and the Soviet Union.

 

They'd just chucked 20 million lives at defeating the Nazis and murdered a similar number of their own people.

 

To think that they would have baulked at the prospect of turning swathes of Western Europe into a nuclear desert just to prove a point is probably naive.

 

I'd say that MAD was a necessary deterent at the time.

 

I can't comment on what the perceived or actual threat was like during the cold war as like you say I didn't live through it. So my comments on nuclear weapons aren't about then, they are about renewing them. I simply see it as the UK wanting to still be perceived as a big global player. For as long as both the USA and Russia have nukes, ain't no one invading either or their close allies. Germany won't get invaded by Russia despite not having nukes. 

[AlphonseCapone]

7 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

Haven't had a world war since the 1940's either.

 

Something has helped or been done to deter that

 

You can't prove that's down to the existence of nukes anymore than I can prove it's down to the stability of Europe thanks to the European economic community then the European Union. 

 

Nuclear weapons have brought the earth close to its own destruction. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by AlphonseCapone

[The Real Maroonblood]

On 03/04/2019 at 15:01, Cade said:

Folk still claiming that THA RUSSHUNS are going to invade the UK unless we have nukes?

It’s laughable.

[Governor Tarkin]

51 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I can't comment on what the perceived or actual threat was like during the cold war as like you say I didn't live through it. So my comments on nuclear weapons aren't about then, they are about renewing them. I simply see it as the UK wanting to still be perceived as a big global player. For as long as both the USA and Russia have nukes, ain't no one invading either or their close allies. Germany won't get invaded by Russia despite not having nukes. 

 

The thing is, none of us know what the geopolitical landscape will look like in the future, or what the next global crisis will be and how nations/actors will react.

 

Consider something as innocuous as a volcanic eruption which brought about a series poor growing seasons in the Northern hemisphere leading to famine and pestilence. There is historical precedence for this. How would populations react? What would the knock on effects be? Who would attempt to take advantage of the situation?

 

We have had the good fortune to live through a period of relative peace and prosperity in our First World bubble, but this is an aberration; the exception to the historical rule.

 

Who knows when the Visigoths or Vandals will come to sack our Rome, but rest assured they will come.

 

I'd much rather a world where nukes didn't exist, but if other potentially hostile nations have them then I'd rather we had them too.

 

 

[AlphonseCapone]

12 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

The thing is, none of us know what the geopolitical landscape will look like in the future, or what the next global crisis will be and how nations/actors will react.

 

Consider something as innocuous as a volcanic eruption which brought about a series poor growing seasons in the Northern hemisphere leading to famine and pestilence. There is historical precedence for this. How would populations react? What would the knock on effects be? Who would attempt to take advantage of the situation?

 

We have had the good fortune to live through a period of relative peace and prosperity in our First World bubble, but this is an aberration; the exception to the historical rule.

 

Who knows when the Visigoths or Vandals will come to sack our Rome, but rest assured they will come.

 

I'd much rather a world where nukes didn't exist, but if other potentially hostile nations have them then I'd rather we had them too.

 

 

 

I do appreciate your points about the unpredictability of the future and there is a common fallacy to assume things always will be how they are, which history clearly shows is never the case.

On that, I think our biggest threats in the future are cyber, not weaponry.

 

But if the Visigoths or Vandals do come calling, either they are launching a nuclear strike beforehand in which case all our nukes out at sea will be good for is a revenge attack in our dead names or they come at us using conventional forces, in which case would we really respond with a nuke and risk them responding in kind? Unlikely imo, we'd most likely go at with our conventional forces. I just can't logically understand where nukes ever come into play in a way that makes us safer. 

 

On your last paragraph, isn't that the sort of logic that sees young men carrying blades, which actually increases rather than decreases the risk of someone getting stabbed? 

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Wasn't King Billy essentially invited over? 

4 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I think the last time the British mainland was invaded was at the battle of Hastings in 1066. We developed nuclear weapons in the 1940s. That's 900 years without invasion without having nuclear weapons. 

Not to Scotland, he wasn't.

[Governor Tarkin]

Visigoths or Vandals

41 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

On that, I think our biggest threats in the future are cyber, not weaponry.

 

 

Agreed. But the threat of extreme physical violence will always be in the background.

 

40 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

But if the Visigoths or Vandals do come calling, either they are launching a nuclear strike beforehand in which case all our nukes out at sea will be good for is a revenge attack in our dead names or they come at us using conventional forces, in which case would we really respond with a nuke and risk them responding in kind? Unlikely imo, we'd most likely go at with our conventional forces. I just can't logically understand where nukes ever come into play in a way that makes us safer. 

 

 

If the Visigoths or Vandals know that by launching a strike they are essentially guaranteeing their own destruction, they will have grounds to reconsider. 

 

41 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

On your last paragraph, isn't that the sort of logic that sees young men carrying blades, which actually increases rather than decreases the risk of someone getting stabbed? 

 

I can see the base logic in your comparison but it's an incredibly simplistic one. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here having this conversation. 

 

 

 

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

Haven't had a world war since the 1940's either.

 

Something has helped or been done to deter that

Aye, the EU.

[Cade]

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Cade

[Lovecraft]

So kids should be allowed to carry knives in case others do?

 

 

 

 

[Lovecraft]

30 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

Visigoths or Vandals

 

Agreed. But the threat of extreme physical violence will always be in the background.

 

 

If the Visigoths or Vandals know that by launching a strike they are essentially guaranteeing their own destruction, they will have grounds to reconsider. 

 

 

I can see the base logic in your comparison but it's an incredibly simplistic one. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here having this conversation. 

 

 

 

Agreed also, but that violence will be caused by the great Facebook uprising when the Chinese or Russians disable our internet, and people have to lift their heads away from their phones for more than a day.

 

 

 

 

[The Comedian]

They are dismantling a submarine in Rosyth just now, have been for a while. 

[Governor Tarkin]

42 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

 

 

That scene did go through my mind when I was typing my reply to AC.

[jumpship]

1 hour ago, Lovecraft said:

So kids should be allowed to carry knives in case others do?

 

 

 

 

That post screams America to me.. 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-argue-teaching-young-kids-shoot-prevents-gun/story?id=22317419

[AlphonseCapone]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

Visigoths or Vandals

 

Agreed. But the threat of extreme physical violence will always be in the background.

 

 

If the Visigoths or Vandals know that by launching a strike they are essentially guaranteeing their own destruction, they will have grounds to reconsider. 

 

 

I can see the base logic in your comparison but it's an incredibly simplistic one. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here having this conversation. 

 

 

 

 

Of course, comparing knife crime to nuclear war is pretty is simplistic and probably even ridiculous  It was purely an exercise in logic really.

 

I think we'll just need to agree to disagree overall though

[SwindonJambo]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Aye, the EU.

 Nope.  Try NATO.

[Governor Tarkin]

7 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

I think we'll just need to agree to disagree overall though

 

[Lovecraft]

2 hours ago, jumpship said:

That post screams America to me.. 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-argue-teaching-young-kids-shoot-prevents-gun/story?id=22317419

 

Yep.

 

Bizarre logic.

 

It's all about creating fear, so they can spend all our money on things we don't use.