This is why I can't take any of your arguments seriously mate. You have a personal problem with the government and you can't explain why. You have a hard-on for Trident and you can't explain why. Arguments are pointless if you can't back up your point and you've made the fundamental flaw of allowing your personal feelings toward a person/group of people take over.
Politicians are capable of much more than you think but you can't see that because you're blinded by your personal bitterness towards past (may I just emphasise the word past) governments.
Bitterness towards past Governments? Who was in power in 1998 when I joined the Army and has been ever since? Luckily I'm completely balanced - I despise most Tories and Lib Dems just as much.
I have explained why I hate the current Government - they've sent men infinitely better than them to die in third world shit holes while stabbing them repeatedly in the back at home. They've done everything they can to bring the British Armed Forces to their knees while involving them in more and more wars. They've fucked this whole country up just as much as the Tories did before them and just as much as the Tories probably will when they get back in again, before they eventually hand over to Labour when their turn for fucking things up comes round again.
I asked you specifically several posts ago to stop using dated examples. Anything pre-Cold War isn't relevant to the modern nuclear age so please don't use it as evidence.
Because it's a proven fact that 35,000 years of human nature has changed in the last 6 decades? The fact is that history is littered with hundreds of examples of wars that had to be fought, just as the future will hold wars that have to be fought.
I've been marching through London about the US and UK entering an illegal war against Iraq. I am glad that Saddam is removed from power but it should have been done at least a decade ago. It is our fault that he got to the level of power that he had so it is our fault that we are at war, not Iraq's fault.
So you're glad that we got rid of Saddam but you don't like the way we did it but you think we should have done it sooner? Is that not a little confused and a tad hypocritical?
You've used a weak example in partnership with a weak initial point. Yes, nuclear deterrents have 'saved lives' in the past (if you look at it with an incredibly narrow viewpoint) but they have also resulted in a world where people lived in fear of nuclear attack.
Nuclear weapons have meant that Europe has gone longer now than it ever has in its history without a major war. If NATO (USA & UK) and WarPac (USSR) hadn't of had nukes then we would have already had WW3. That is a fact that you cannot escape. Possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent to anyone else with nuclear weapons attacking you. That is also a fact that you cannot escape.
This fear is over but you still feel it and that feeling is unfounded.
The fear is over? It may not be the over riding threat now as it was in the 1960s - 80s, but it is still a very real threat and it will be until the day when every single nuke is destroyed. Until that day comes, we have to do everything in our power to deter others from nuking us.
How so? In the real world that we live in there is no threat of nuclear attacks unless we allow the US to go crazy with it's nukes on Iran (and even then we're safe).
In the real world? When Russia still has thousands of nukes and is massively increasing defence spending while looking to gain dominance over Europe with their oil and gas reserves? Where Pakistan is steps away from having a nuclear armed Taleban government? Where Iran is possibly attempting to build their own bomb? Where China has somewhere between 80 and 2000 warheads and will soon come into conflict with the west more and more for rapidly depleting resources as they seek to bring their economy and industry into the 21st century? That real world?
If you actually took the time to look up about the NPT conferences you'd see that the nearest one is in 2010 and that there could be more negotiations scheduled before 2012/2014. There is absolutely no harm in delaying the start of work on Trident until then.
So we get to 2010 without doing anything about a replacement and it turns out that no one wants to give up their nukes. So we leave it until 2014 and still no one wants to give them up. Do we order the replacement then (risking leaving ourselves without a deterrent while the new Subs and missiles are built, tested and delivered) or do we say "well, we'll give it another go in 2020"?
Massive steps towards disarmament can be taken if governments are given a chance to do it.
We are disarming - we currently have 200 warheads, we will soon have 160. That is a massive cut in our nuclear power.
A single poll in the times may have suggested that but a quick google search will find you several polls that suggest otherwise.
Ah right, because those polls are more accurate than the other? When more people vote for a fat sub human sitting in a tv studio 'house' than for who they want as Prime Minister I would suggest that any opinion poll is worthless.
You're not giving the public enough credit. Yes, there is the section that is poorly educated, but we have the highest amount of university educated people for years, etc. The people that vote are more than capable of making an educated (or at least part informed) decision.
A dyslexic hamster could get good A Levels and go to university these days. How many national security briefings have the average person attended to make an informed decision about the need for a future nuclear deterrent?
I'd much rather have the general public voting on something than the likes of you, in all fairness. With all due respect, I support you in your occupation and I think very highly of you as a person but you're so biased its unbelievable.
Again, what does the average person understand about anything they haven't read about in the papers?
I didn't say I wanted invasion of African nations in struggle. My point is; why not help countries in need rather than destroying countries with an oil supply?
How should we help them? They could start by helping themselves.
Why do you say that? Is it because war is your only answer to problems in the world?
Because I'm a realist and I believe war is coming sometime in the future as resources begin to run out.
