Originally posted by aging blitzerIf England doesn't want them, that's fine.
What makes you think "England" wants them. It's only them there politicians that get a say.
And regarding breach of the NNPT (apart from the continuing breach of the disarmament obligations), are we (the UK) getting new warheads also, or is it just the submarines that are being upgraded.
If it's just the submarines...
But their representatives voted for them.
If the people of England have a problem with that, they should do something about it.
In terms of the Non Proliferation Treaties, these put a responsibility on nuclear states to seek to disarm. By upgrading this system, we're breaching that part of the treaty, if nothing else.
Originally posted by aging blitzerYes, there's 59 constituencies in Scotland:
Are there 59 constituencies in Scotland?
Where can we see a list of who voted which way?
So far I've only found a list of labour rebels
39 Labour, 12 LibDems; 6 SNP, 1 Tory and the Speaker.
15 Labour, 12 libdems and 6 SNP voted against (I think) giving 33.
24 Labour and 1 Tory voted for (I think) giving 25.
I haven't seen a full list of who voted which way either.
There may be some abstentions in my calculation, but you get the idea - 15 labour rebels in Scotland + libdems + snp is a majority against.
Originally posted by shavixmirA nuke could easily be used tactically to stop an armored division for example. With sufficient radiation, it doesn't even have to be much of a boom. (In nuclear terms)
How, exactly, do you use a nuke tactically?
Is Hiroshima an example of this?
There are still places to drop a nuke that isn't in population centers. Heck, we set 'em of right here at home without wiping out cities.
As any woman will tell you, size matters.
Originally posted by MerkAnd the missiles in these subs aren't wee girly tactical, battlefield nukes.
A nuke could easily be used tactically to stop an armored division for example. With sufficient radiation, it doesn't even have to be much of a boom. (In nuclear terms)
There are still places to drop a nuke that isn't in population centers. Heck, we set 'em of right here at home without wiping out cities.
As any woman will tell you, size matters.
These are proper, man-sized blast-a-city-off-the-planet-in-a-big-splat nukes.
Originally posted by shavixmirWhile I agree with the moral point but not sure about the term 'genocide'. It was war remember and before we were born so it's not easy to sit in judgement more than a half century later, we don't know what was going on on either side, and the Japanese certainly did their best to do a bit of genocide to us americans too. That said, I still think it was mainly a message to Moscow. The same message could have been said on the top of Mount Fuji I suspect, the vision of the top of a mountain going up in smoke would have shaken even the determined Japanese but that didn't happen so its a bit late to be back seat drivers, eh.
Yes.
Killing 150.000 innocent people at the same time. That, my friend, is not strategy, that is genocide.
Originally posted by RedmikeI know. Aren't they cool? Just kidding, just kidding.
And the missiles in these subs aren't wee girly tactical, battlefield nukes.
These are proper, man-sized blast-a-city-off-the-planet-in-a-big-splat nukes.
I am going to assume that you don't feel England needs MAD. That's fair.
If these subs were equipted with tacticals, would it be more acceptable?
