WiganWarriorsFans.com

Whelley Warrior wrote: And as much as people are not happy about the cost of Trident, they will welcome the decision to keep it as a deterrent, especially in view of the world situation today and the threat of the 'Islamic State' trying to take over the world.

i'm not fussed on if we keep Trident or not but this deterrent argument is nonsense, IS isnt a country its a organization that can strike anywhere, thats why they are dangerous and so hard to deal with.

Trident is a deterrent to other Nuclear powers saying if you nuke us we will nuke you. its a obscene argument, you would hope no one in their right mind would Nuke a country and if someone did (russia for example) after the missile have been shot down (if they manage to) which isnt by the trident sub btw you would hope we wouldnt just Nuke a country in retaliation.

Trident is a outdated idea form the cold war era, saying that though, it is also a large part of the economy for that area so you cant just get rid of it without a contingency in place for the economic damage it would cause.

southernpie wrote:

Caboosegg wrote:

fozzieskem wrote:The damage Corbyn has done to Labour is,in my view irrepairable,they will never be taken seriously ever again as a party of government.

im sorry, but id have to disagree, i didnt vote for Corbyn and although i like some of his view i disagree with a fair few as well, however Voters put him in power its the other MPs inability to listen to their Constituents that has caused the damaged, a prime a example is Angela Eagles constituency supporting Corybn which she ignored.

And why in my eyes we do not have a democracy in this country, I was bought up to believe any MP had an obligation to represent the majority view of his constituency. I found out personnaly to my dismay a few years ago, they are more interested in following the party line or their own views to advance their own careers. Hence different politicians being put up in various constituencies, with no affiliation to the electorate living there, purely to advance the party line.

Exactly, and also here in Wigan, we have Lisa Nandy always doing the same on many issues, including the recent EU referendum where she made no effort to sound out the opinions of the people who voted for her to represent them in Parliament.

Whelley Warrior wrote:
And as much as people are not happy about the cost of Trident, they will welcome the decision to keep it as a deterrent, especially in view of the world situation today and the threat of the 'Islamic State' trying to take over the world.

What possible use is Trident with respect to the threat of the 'Islamic State'? You do realise it doesn't actually exist as a state and Trident is no use whatsoever in combating terrorists?

Should we have fired one at at that truck in Nice to aid our French allies?

As to the electorate's view of it as a deterrent we saw with Brexit around 17m will believe any old pack of lies so I am not sure what makes them qualified to judge something as complex as our defence policy.

I will leave that not to Corbyn and Labour but to a certain Mr Blunt. Tory MP.

He said Trident comes at the expense of the rest of our defensive capability and he is spot on in my view.

Jobs could be created in the very same shipyards building maritime patrol vessels we actually need! Or completing the order for Navy Destroyers that was pared down to the minimum instead.

Also remember it was the Tories leading the coalition who scrapped and had destroyed the Nimrod replacements which were actually sat on the production line leaving us with no similarly capable maritime patrol aircraft because we supposedly could not afford it. Yet we have £40bn of loose change available for a useless weapon.

We are not properly capable of protecting our own coastline against conventional threats (including illegal immigrants which should be of interest to you) and yet pump billions into a missile system that will never be fired.

That money could, IMO, be far better spent on conventional weapons and not making servicemen and servicewomen redundant.

If we must have a nuclear deterrent, look for cheaper alternatives such as aircraft delivered weapons. At least then you could potentially target one area whereas with Trident and its multiple warheads it's wipe out a country or don't bother to fire it.

So Dave is Trident useful or not? either way explain your view.

150,000' register to vote in Labour leadership

More loony leftys or genuine? Tad worrying. I hope the Labour Party has not been hijacked. Why will they not FO and form Momrntum with Jeremy!

The "should we keep a Nuclear deterrent" argument can be easily put to bed with one statement.

If Japan had nukes they would not have had 2 atomic bombs dropped on them.


No if's no but's.

That is why we need one.

DaveO wrote:

Whelley Warrior wrote:
And as much as people are not happy about the cost of Trident, they will welcome the decision to keep it as a deterrent, especially in view of the world situation today and the threat of the 'Islamic State' trying to take over the world.

What possible use is Trident with respect to the threat of the 'Islamic State'? You do realise it doesn't actually exist as a state and Trident is no use whatsoever in combating terrorists?

Should we have fired one at at that truck in Nice to aid our French allies?

As to the electorate's view of it as a deterrent we saw with Brexit around 17m will believe any old pack of lies so I am not sure what makes them qualified to judge something as complex as our defence policy.

I will leave that not to Corbyn and Labour but to a certain Mr Blunt. Tory MP.

He said Trident comes at the expense of the rest of our defensive capability and he is spot on in my view.

Jobs could be created in the very same shipyards building maritime patrol vessels we actually need! Or completing the order for Navy Destroyers that was pared down to the minimum instead.

Also remember it was the Tories leading the coalition who scrapped and had destroyed the Nimrod replacements which were actually sat on the production line leaving us with no similarly capable maritime patrol aircraft because we supposedly could not afford it. Yet we have £40bn of loose change available for a useless weapon.

We are not properly capable of protecting our own coastline against conventional threats (including illegal immigrants which should be of interest to you) and yet pump billions into a missile system that will never be fired.

That money could, IMO, be far better spent on conventional weapons and not making servicemen and servicewomen redundant.

If we must have a nuclear deterrent, look for cheaper alternatives such as aircraft delivered weapons. At least then you could potentially target one area whereas with Trident and its multiple warheads it's wipe out a country or don't bother to fire it.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Whether we invest more in our armed forces could easily be solved by cutting benefits, raising taxes, cutting funding to the NHS etc etc

The reason a submarine is used is because it's not as easily traceable as an aircraft. As for taking out a country, a city would me than likely, than a country.
If anybody thinks that a saving made on Trident would be spent by this government on worthwhile projects really needs to think carefully.
Whelley, if you are going to use ISIS as an example, then the only place to aim for would be Raqqa, and I have serious doubts as to any significant effect?

Wintergreen wrote:The "should we keep a Nuclear deterrent" argument can be easily put to bed with one statement.

If Japan had nukes they would not have had 2 atomic bombs dropped on them.


No if's no but's.

That is why we need one.

Sad but so true.

cpwigan wrote:

150,000' register to vote in Labour leadership

More loony leftys or genuine? Tad worrying. I hope the Labour Party has not been hijacked. Why will they not FO and form Momrntum with Jeremy!

Gut instinct it'll be hijacked much as it was last year.