Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

Just seen on TV how much Britain spends every year on the development of nuclear warheads. Not the missiles just the warheads.

Answer [size=14]£2 billion[/size]

What is wrong with the ones we have got that we are never going to use?!

Apparently Britain is hard up  Obviously not 

Totally obscene.


Edit link added. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11529367

[tunnie]

if its true that is ridiculous! We have enough surplus to destroy world several times over

[mantahatch]

Rightly or wrongly, many many people are emplyed either directly or indirectly in weapons creation/manufacture.

I believe the cost to stop this production would be far higher than keeping it going.    :-/

[Pitchfork]

Rightly or wrongly, many many people are emplyed either directly or indirectly in weapons creation/manufacture.

I believe the cost to stop this production would be far higher than keeping it going.    :-/

Aldermaston & Burghfield

[aaronjb]

Rightly or wrongly, many many people are emplyed either directly or indirectly in weapons creation/manufacture.

I believe the cost to stop this production would be far higher than keeping it going.    :-/

And if it was all closed down, people would be complaining that government cutbacks were making people redundant ...

[2woody]

warheads have a shelf-life, after which you must recondition them. £2Bn sounds a bit much, although I can see maybe half that being reasonable.

and there is no doubt that if we hadn't done that over the last sixty years, we wouldn't now have a country to spend money on it.

[Dishevelled Den]

warheads have a shelf-life, after which you must recondition them. £2Bn sounds a bit much, although I can see maybe half that being reasonable.

and there is no doubt that if we hadn't done that over the last sixty years, we wouldn't now have a country to spend money on it.

and there is no doubt that if we hadn't done that over the last sixty years, we wouldn't now have a country to spend money on it

I would certainly agree with the essence of that statement.

[pscocoa]

In terms of weapons of mass destruction and evil devices with a limited shelf life am I right in thinking this thread is linked with Tunnie's cooking?

[Marks DTM Calib]

Stranegly, I dont mind that so much as its cash spent in the UK.

Its spending large amounts of public money outside of the UK I dont like

[cem_devecioglu]

what makes me sad that all these nuclear weapons are made from the taxes paid by the working class and they believe that its necessary :-?

imo which they should have spend thir money in their childrens education and for their homes and for a better future..


keep in mind that a country bombed by nuclear weapons will be close to human entry for long years..

and weapon industries are still getting richer and richer from the weapons they sell and many people die from those..

who started that and open the doors of hell is very obvious so no need to talk about it.. but I can say easly that even in II world war despite the sayings and media bombardment , japan was at the  end of its power and using nuclear was not necessary..

continue to believe it..

[albitz]

The point is Cem - if we were all to unilaterally disarm the nuclear weapons then we would have nothing to deter the bad guys (Iran being one example which springs to mind) from using them against us.
Can you imagine what would happen to Isreal for example if it or its allies didnt have nuclear weapons.Its enemies in the middle east would be arguing about who was first in the queue to fire a nuclear weapon at it.

[aaronjb]

Security through mutually assured destruction, as they used to say..

[albitz]

Yup. .......if  bloke comes at you with a baseball bat and then realises that you have an even bigger baseball bat, he might just stop and think.

[aaronjb]

Yep, unfortunately then he goes off and buys a bat bigger than yours, so you have to go and get a bigger bat, and so on, until you both have bats big enough to end all (human) life on the planet.

At which point it's all getting a bit silly, but what can you do? The other bloke won't give up his bat while you have yours, and while neither of you were looking the bloke around the corner jury rigged some power stations into bats of his own..

[Banjax]

actually, if you study game-theory, MAD is inevitable as eventually an event will be triggered that causes a state to initiate nuclear warfare - it is absolutely certain, tho it may be weeks, months, decades or centuries - either man's arrogance, stupidity, vanity, religious fundamentalism or greed makes this scenario utterly unavoidable.

the only escape is actually for us to scrap all nuclear deterrents leaving others to realise the futility of this zero-sum game, but I suspect we are completely incapable of summoning the necessary courage and will instead continue to plough billions into a pointless weapon- what do you think would happen if Iran were left as the only state with nuclear weapons? or france? or india? or the UK? or the US? nothing would happen. and nothing would continue to happen.

if you're playing poker and everyone else takes their chips and leaves......theres no game to play-hence no game to win. 

true story.  8-)