According to The Royal Society, the UK ( wales, ireland, scotland and england) has stockpiled enough nuclear material to replicate the nuclear bomb attacks on Japan THOUSANDS OF TIMES OVER or enough to make THOSANDS of nuclear warheads.
" It is a blantant example of Britain's HYPOCRITICAL policies....
The West cannot tell others not to develop NUCLEAR technology while its allies are eqipped with nuclear weaponry."
" Many British lawmakers support the country's nuclear program and have backed a proposal to replace old nuclear warheads with the new generation Trident missles"
( The Scotland led) UK goverment continue to ignore citizens and the keeps country a LAPDOG to ther allies agenda.
Scotland led UK governemnt thats a good one how did you come up with that because Gordon Brown is Scottish The Labour led UK government Malcolm and the Scottish government is a different party in a different country it proves you know sweet FA and just type and hope. You are so pathetic you just don't get it do you the only 2 parties that can win a UK general elction are Labour and the Tories and both are commited to the change so it would not matter if it was a Scottish PM son of a church minister of the English hopefull from the posh school both are for it it has nothing to do with nationality.
As for the plutonium it's not hypocritical it just changing the type of weapons we are not making new ones just changing them so they will fire from the new subs and will in an emergency be equipped to fire fom Eurofighter in a few years 12 I think the subs will be scrapped and the Tornado fighter will be nearing it's lifes end ( shame cos it's a damn good piece of equipment) the new subs and Eurofighter can'tt fire the current weapons so we need new ones.
Also it's worth noting that we in the UK allow IAEA inspections as and when we are asked countries like Iran do not, and unlike Iran we are not intent on destroying Isreal or anybody else for that matter.
The SCOTTISH INFLUENCED UK goverement has continued to be a LAPDOG for another country's agenda and doesn't receive antyhing in return. that better?
Here is info of the nuclear powered "new subs" ( which are not needed) you try to romanticice like its another car being made. This sounds like the begginning of a nuclear arms race.
Britain agrees to a contract for $395 million to build the 7,800 ton Hms Audacious, fourth in the Astute class of nuclear- powered ATTACK submarines, the AND MOST POWERFUL EVER BUILT IN Britain.
The 4 nuclear submarines, the 1st planned to be launched in January 2009 ( why?)
The cost(Brittish citizens will have to pay ) would total $7.5 billion.
With that money" you could train 75,000 doctors and treat 150 million patients" President Castro
Scottish influenced how do you figure that? explain further please. are you saying that the Scots in the UK government are influencing things that favour Scotland? You need a breakdown of how things work There are 6 Scots in the UK cabinet thats is 6 out of 28 positions these positions are:
Gordon Brown - Prime Minister AKA - the coward,
Alister Darling - Chancellor of the exchequer,
David Miliband - the foreign minister even though he looks about 14 years old
Des Browne - Defence and Scotland minister
Doulglas Alexander - International development, His sister is the leader of the Labour party in Scotland
Edward Miliband - Minister for cabinet office and chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster
It would be impossible for these MP's to influence the rest of the UK on Scotlands behalf because there are these guys plus the 54 other Scottish MP's in the house of commons compare that to the 500+English ministers who could block any vote.
Also you should know that the Scottish Chancellor has decided that Scotland is to get less money for the next few years under the Barnett formula.
And finally on this subject the whole point og having a British government is so that Brits from all corners of this country can take part in the democratic process.
Now in my own personal view I think Brown should call an election so he can have his own mandate, Defence and Scotland need a seperate minister and Milioband is way to young to be foreign minister.
Here is info of the nuclear powered "new subs" ( which are not needed) you try to romanticice like its another car being made. This sounds like the begginning of a nuclear arms race.
Well I don't think I was romantacisng the Trident subs, secondly they are needed are submarines are getting older and need replaced also I think you have got the nuclear thing confused the nuclear subs don't fire nuclear weapons the nuclear refers to the nuclear reactor that powers the subs. The special Trident subs have nuclear weapons hence the name trident but these subs are just regular subs.
Britain agrees to a contract for $395 million to build the 7,800 ton Hms Audacious, fourth in the Astute class of nuclear- powered ATTACK submarines, the AND MOST POWERFUL EVER BUILT IN Britain.
Yeah so what? we need new subs plain and simple every country spends money on replacing it's weaponrey and these subs sound impressive. I don't know if these subs can fire Trident or not I don't think they can. Also don't get to concerned about the attack name just because we purchase ATTACK subs doesn't mean we are going to ATTACK anyone.
The 4 nuclear submarines, the 1st planned to be launched in January 2009 ( why?)
Because our submarine fleet is getting older we need new submarines and if we are buying we are as well buying the best.
The cost(Brittish citizens will have to pay ) would total $7.5 billion.
Not much long term is it? our defence budget will cover this and more that why we have a budget.
With that money" you could train 75,000 doctors and treat 150 million patients" President Castro
Well thankfully we have a budget for doctors to. also we all know why Castro is moaning about this it's not the subs they are none of his damn business anyway but the fact we have a realtionship with America.
]
lodgebo01 said this in post #5 : [QUOTE]malcolm xx said this in post #3 :
Here is info of the nuclear powered "new subs" ( which are not needed) you try to romanticice like its another car being made. This sounds like the begginning of a nuclear arms race.
Well I don't think I was romantacisng the Trident subs, secondly they are needed are submarines are getting older and need replaced also I think you have got the nuclear thing confused the nuclear subs don't fire nuclear weapons the nuclear refers to the nuclear reactor that powers the subs. The special Trident subs have nuclear weapons hence the name trident but these subs are just regular subs.
repacing older nuclear submarines doesn't explain why Britain ( or any country) are needed. Why were the old ones built? What country is going to attack Britain?
Britain agrees to a contract for $395 million to build the 7,800 ton Hms Audacious, fourth in the Astute class of nuclear- powered ATTACK submarines, the AND MOST POWERFUL EVER BUILT IN Britain.
Yeah so what? we need new subs plain and simple every country spends money on replacing it's weaponrey and these subs sound impressive. I don't know if these subs can fire Trident or not I don't think they can. Also don't get to concerned about the attack name just because we purchase ATTACK subs doesn't mean we are going to ATTACK anyone.
The 4 nuclear submarines, the 1st planned to be launched in January 2009 ( why?)
Because our submarine fleet is getting older we need new submarines and if we are buying we are as well buying the best.
The cost(Brittish citizens will have to pay ) would total $7.5 billion.
Not much long term is it? our defence budget will cover this and more that why we have a budget.
With that money" you could train 75,000 doctors and treat 150 million patients" President Castro
Well thankfully we have a budget for doctors to. also we all know why Castro is moaning about this it's not the subs they are none of his damn business anyway but the fact we have a realtionship with America.
]
repacing older nuclear submarines doesn't explain why Britain ( or any country) are needed.
Like I said I think you are getting the term nuclear confused with nuclear weapons. So once again Malcolm these submarines do not carry nuclear weapons and could not fire nuclear weapons. The subs are nuclear powered the same way houses and businesses are nuclear powered. Also most countries have subs that are nuclear powered and as of yet no accidents have occured.
Why were the old ones built? What country is going to attack Britain?
The old ones were built for the same reasons the new ones are built, in case they were needed. You also say what country is going to attack Britain well look at it in this sense Argentina still claim rights to the Falklands, Gibralter is still a hot issue with Spain. Also you can never tell what tomorrow will bring, plus the UK has historically and in some cases has a legal right to protecty our allies if they were to be attacked. Subs are also good for recon work and dropping of troops if an quiet amphibious assualt was needed.
lodgebo01 said this in post #7 : repacing older nuclear submarines doesn't explain why Britain ( or any country) are needed.
Like I said I think you are getting the term nuclear confused with nuclear weapons. So once again Malcolm these submarines do not carry nuclear weapons and could not fire nuclear weapons. The subs are nuclear powered the same way houses and businesses are nuclear powered. Also most countries have subs that are nuclear powered and as of yet no accidents have occured.
Why were the old ones built? What country is going to attack Britain?
The old ones were built for the same reasons the new ones are built, in case they were needed. You also say what country is going to attack Britain well look at it in this sense Argentina still claim rights to the Falklands, Gibralter is still a hot issue with Spain. Also you can never tell what tomorrow will bring, plus the UK has historically and in some cases has a legal right to protecty our allies if they were to be attacked. Subs are also good for recon work and dropping of troops if an quiet amphibious assualt was needed.
You gave us a comment to everything except the subject of the post. Why does Britain need to stocpiled 100 tons of plutonium?
This stuff is neded to create a plutonium bomb, which is more powerful than a nuclear weapon.
I didn't comment on the subject of the post because you didn't take in what it's about and because the issue is being delat with.
Firstly the plutonium is a legitimate byproduct os spent fuel every country that has nuclear power staions has this problem, the probelm we have is what to do with it so we can do the irresponsabile / illegal thing and chuck it in the sea or send it off to a poor country and hope nobody asks the difficult questions ( especially if they ask Brown) or we can do the responsabile thing and stockpile them until we can figure out waht to do with them and toi my knowledge the MOX idea is popular with the governemnt at this point in time.
See that's waht's happening but you wanted to make this a nuke weapon story when it's not.
Sad really because if you wanted a good nuclear weaon releated story you had your chance and missed it big time not your fault really it only went on for 12 months.
lodgebo01 said this in post #9 : I didn't comment on the subject of the post because you didn't take in what it's about and because the issue is being delat with.
Firstly the plutonium is a legitimate byproduct os spent fuel every country that has nuclear power staions has this problem, the probelm we have is what to do with it so we can do the irresponsabile / illegal thing and chuck it in the sea or send it off to a poor country and hope nobody asks the difficult questions ( especially if they ask Brown) or we can do the responsabile thing and stockpile them until we can figure out waht to do with them and toi my knowledge the MOX idea is popular with the governemnt at this point in time.
See that's waht's happening but you wanted to make this a nuke weapon story when it's not.
Sad really because if you wanted a good nuclear weaon releated story you had your chance and missed it big time not your fault really it only went on for 12 months.
10-05-2007 11:05 PM
