Unarmed Nuclear Sub

[ftm 3,357]

liebour leader corbyn has state he is now happy for trident to continue as long as it doesn't have a nuclear missile attached???????? hmmm like giving cops guns and no bullets -

[walshie 2,804]

There's a simple explanation for that. Corbyn is a bellend.

[BGD 6,437]

Under his proposal they would have ICBMs with conventional warheads attached, much more likely to see use than nuclear warheads. Basically it'd give the UK the ability to strike anywhere in the world with devasting accuracy and destruction with a moments notice but without the dire consequences of a nuclear warhead.

 

Not really the same as a gun with no bullets is it

[jacknife 2,005]

Just means that our enemies can live on in their lands after a strike

 

This island becomes a dust bowl

 

So is he doing it for us or our enemies......he's a tosser

[Lenmcharristar 10,363]

corbyn better of dissapeared

[BGD 6,437]

Let's be real no one will be living on in any country that launches a nuclear weapon at a NATO member state whether the member state has its own nuclear deterrent or not

[villaman 9,982]

Corbyn should be hung with the rest of the lefty's

[The one 8,592]

It's the threat of using them that stops the wars knowing he won't press the buttons no going to putt many manic leaders off attacking us

[Wildling 520]

Let's be real no one will be living on in any country that launches a nuclear weapon at a NATO member state whether the member state has its own nuclear deterrent or not

Do you seriously believe that America or France would trade New York or Paris for London if England was threatened with Nuclear attack by a hostile power!

[BGD 6,437]

 

Let's be real no one will be living on in any country that launches a nuclear weapon at a NATO member state whether the member state has its own nuclear deterrent or not

Do you seriously believe that America or France would trade New York or Paris for London if England was threatened with Nuclear attack by a hostile power!

Every other European nation relies on protection from the NATO nuclear detterent, including nations that are far more likely to get into conflict with Russia.

[walshie 2,804]

Let's be real no one will be living on in any country that launches a nuclear weapon at a NATO member state whether the member state has its own nuclear deterrent or not

 

"You'd better not attack us, or we'll tell America." I think I'd rather have our own protection thanks.

[Truther 1,579]

I think there's only 2 countries to worry about, israel, and n.korea. israel wouldn't let anyone just overrun them at any cost, and n.korea are run by a fat prick who shouldn't be allowed to own a hoop and stick. The rest are run by the same people, the argy bargy is just BS. Have a look at how many dollars prop Russia up

 

https://youtu.be/I2UpM8Ci_ao

[jacknife 2,005]

 

 

Let's be real no one will be living on in any country that launches a nuclear weapon at a NATO member state whether the member state has its own nuclear deterrent or not

Do you seriously believe that America or France would trade New York or Paris for London if England was threatened with Nuclear attack by a hostile power!

Every other European nation relies on protection from the NATO nuclear detterent, including nations that are far more likely to get into conflict with Russia.

 

We are one of the 5 permanent members take our nukes and it just leaves one EU country with them France

[Born Hunter 17,960]

Under his proposal they would have ICBMs with conventional warheads attached, much more likely to see use than nuclear warheads. Basically it'd give the UK the ability to strike anywhere in the world with devasting accuracy and destruction with a moments notice but without the dire consequences of a nuclear warhead.

 

Not really the same as a gun with no bullets is it

 

It's like replacing a firearm with a BB gun. It's absolutely no deterrent. We already posses the means to strike any target in the world with a conventional missile. The deterrent HAS to be nuclear at this stage, it's the only weapon available that has the effect of deterrence due to it's level of destruction. Non-nuclear is just not an option, not unless we can rain down hundreds of thousands of them on the enemy.

 

If we had the ability to achieve the results of a nuclear strike with conventional weapons then we could talk about this. But we can't.

[bird 10,014]

There's a simple explanation for that. Corbyn is a bellend.