That Corbyn fella...

This would probably have the support of the armed forces themselves, given rumblings in recent years.

I think it would make next-to-fuckall difference

So we're agreed on that; removing the UK's nuclear deterrent would not make the world safer in terms of a nuclear strike. There are many who believe it would make us more vulnerable, and the world less safe. This is why there is a consensus among mainstream MPs that Trident should be kept.

Silent, nuclear powered stealth trains, fine.

Why would it make us more vunerable? Without the capability to do any damage, we immeditately remove ourselves from the nuclear hitlist.

It's all part of the same question. I believe that nuclear weapons are wrong, and that the UK would be wrong to renew their nuclear capabilities. What MPs do should reflect what the public wants them to, so obviously I would like to see public opinion reflect my view on nuclear disarmament.

Obviously if it doesn't then fine, but I can still think that their opinion is wrong and should be protested.

^^^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2laFo1z-LJ4

It wouldn't make us more vulnerable but I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't think some imaginary nuke-wielding fundamentalist state would consider nuking the UK just because we ourselves have nukes.

Cumbrian Death Trains. I'd vote for that.

I don't think there are any circumstances where the uk would launch nukes at a populated area, and i sure as fuck hope we wouldn't. If you accept that, then merely having nukes is no deterrent at all.

Imagine, for one second, that you are standing in No 10, naked from the waist down with your engorged member nestling in the mouth of a pigs head, held nuzzling into your groin by George Osbourne.

Putin has just launched against the USA, and as we are effectively a US base that includes us.

As you thrust into the Mrs Piggy/Osbourne hybrid would you launch, or turn the other cheek?

The only people likely to use a nuclear bomb are ISIS nutters if they were to ever get their hands on one - and I'm not entirely sure how they would. But if they did, how the fuck would we launch a preemptive strike? How would we retaliate?
I think it was Iain Duncan-Cunt who posited the other day that we needed Trident because of the danger ISIS present. I mean, fuck me, are we going to launch strikes at an area full of civilians then? Jesus. I know he hates poor people, but that's going a bit far even for him.

So we should get rid of trident, basically because IDS is a cunt who bashes the poor. I'm always surprised at the left's ability to turn every debate into an excuse for Tory bashing. Trident isn't a party political issue, or a class issue.

It surely is a party political issue.

.

It's pretty easy to bash the Tories when their ministers say things like that though, isn't it? The issue is that this Tory government is severely lacking in legitimacy when it tells us that we have to observe austerity because there's no money.

There clearly is plenty of money, except it's being used on wank projects like a successor to Trident.

So we should get rid of trident, basically because IDS is a cunt who bashes the poor. I'm always surprised at the left's ability to turn every debate into an excuse for Tory bashing. Trident isn't a party political issue, or a class issue.

Can't we just pretend to renew them? Use the base up at Lossiemouth to crack Hydrogen fuel cells?

Corbyn should push for a referendum on nuclear disarmament. They can stick on the bottom of the form for Brexit.

The vast majority of secure and successful countries do not have nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no rational argument for the UK keeping them. Stick the £100 billion into developing a fusion reactor.

Nah, stick the 200 billion that HS2 will cost into achieving fusion, we can then spaff the 100 billion from Trident on jaunty hats.

Hear hear.

And Neil if that question was to me, of course i wouldn't launch a nuclear missile at russian cities. And even a piece of work like Cameron wouldn't do something that heinous.

Dov, I'd love to believe that's what we already do although I'm not that much of an optimist.

I think Cameron would do it without a trace of conscience - he's a moral vacuum.

Maybe I didn't quite make myself clear - IDS said that in this age of ISIS, we need Trident more than ever, despite it being quite obvious to even the most militant idiot that Nuclear bombs cannot possibly help in a war against terrorism.

Pointless fast train, dusty old bombs we'll never use or 5k for everyone in the UK to spank. I know what I'd choose - Paaaaaaaaaaaaarty!

Not sure if you were suggesting I was using a straw man argument, or if bashthebox was, with this:

Jesus. I know he hates poor people, but that's going a bit far even for him.