Making the news today....

[muttley9050]

The army have a lot duties that aren't known to the general public....

Enlighten the general public.

[matelot]

Enlighten the general public.

 

Are you stupid? Maybe you could stop criticising the Army when they will be on the streets of London at this very minute dealing with three terrorist incidents?

[muttley9050]

Are you stupid? Maybe you could stop criticising the Army when they will be on the streets of London at this very minute dealing with three terrorist incidents?

I dont think i criticised anybody did i . Just asked you to expand on your post.

I leave all the criticism and name calling in this thread to you.

[WesD]

Trident for sure. Its useless. How does a nuclear deterrent work anyway.

Tell me one situation where we would use it and it would make things better for us.

 

 

deterrent

dɪˈtɛr(ə)nt/

noun

1.

a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.

"cameras are a major deterrent to crime"

synonyms:disincentive, discouragement, dissuasion, damper, brake, curb, check, restraint; More

 

Sure worked in the Cold War!

 

Although we have the subs and missiles they are also at the use of NATO. Any nuclear missiles been fired in anger at us, hmm it must be deterring by definition.

 

Would you disband our armed forces?

[Stumpy Grinder]

Army didn't defend anybody against terrorism to my knowledge. They were a little late to the party.

Im not trying to belittle the soldiers and the duty they perform.

Judt saying tha the vast majority of our "defence" budget has absolutely nothing to do with defence.

 

I think you are being very naive.

Their presence is defence in itself. Having a viable deterrent is usually enough to prevent having to defend. Sometimes, the best form of defence is attack. Tonight is yet another example of how we have lowered our defences to allow the slaughter of our innocents. We don't yet know the details, but it is fairly certain that the perpetrators will be young 'Muslim' males. However, it is not the fault of their religion, moreover the way that some would wish to interpret it. The vast majority of Muslims are good people that are as horrified by the actions of their bretheren as we are. What we are dealing with is a relatively small number of fanatics who should not actually be classed as Muslims. We know who these people are, but we cannot act until they have done what they will. When you are dealing with such people that will blow themselves up, waiting until they act is unfortunately too late! Every time it transpires that they were a known threat. This cannot go on! Deportation or internment are the only answers to solve this.

SG

[muttley9050]

I wouldnt disband the armed forces but i may have them blowing up a few less poor people.

Like i said tell me one situation where we would use trident and it would make the situation better.

No nukes have been fired at us in anger but then neither have they at the countless countries wiith no nuclear deterrent either.

I believe only 9 countries have nukes of there own and several others share nukes with nato as the holder. Why isn't everyone else getting nuked?

[muttley9050]

I think you are being very naive.

Their presence is defence in itself. Having a viable deterrent is usually enough to prevent having to defend. Sometimes, the best form of defence is attack. Tonight is yet another example of how we have lowered our defences to allow the slaughter of our innocents. We don't yet know the details, but it is fairly certain that the perpetrators will be young 'Muslim' males. However, it is not the fault of their religion, moreover the way that some would wish to interpret it. The vast majority of Muslims are good people that are as horrified by the actions of their bretheren as we are. What we are dealing with is a relatively small number of fanatics who should not actually be classed as Muslims. We know who these people are, but we cannot act until they have done what they will. When you are dealing with such people that will blow themselves up, waiting until they act is unfortunately too late! Every time it transpires that they were a known threat. This cannot go on! Deportation or internment are the only answers to solve this.

SG

I agree with most of this. Not the part about me being naive though.

You made my point for me by saying thats its too late sending the army in afrter the event. We need to act sooner.

Sending the army out after the manchester bombings didnt really deter anything it just made people feel bettter. The army arent effective in situations like this as people will just drive around in a van and plow unto people then get out and stab the ones they missed. The army cam do little against this.

[scotspine1]

Another Islamist Terrorist attack.

 

Time for our leaders to step up to the plate and take some serious action.

 

 

.

[Stumpy Grinder]

Trident for sure. Its useless. How does a nuclear deterrent work anyway.

Tell me one situation where we would use it and it would make things better for us.

 

The idea is that by having it, it is never used!

An enemy will be deterred from using nuclear weapons as long as he can be destroyed as a consequence; when two nations both resort to nuclear deterrence the consequence could be mutual destruction. It is the ultimate defence and will never be used. It makes things better for us, as nobody will ever use it. F*** with us and we will F*** with you!

If you can't fight, I will beat you up and take what you have. If you can fight, then I might not bother. That's how it works and how it makes it better for us as a small country on a global stage.

Do you understand now?

SG

[muttley9050]

The idea is that by having it, it is never used!

An enemy will be deterred from using nuclear weapons as long as he can be destroyed as a consequence; when two nations both resort to nuclear deterrence the consequence could be mutual destruction. It is the ultimate defence and will never be used. It makes things better for us, as nobody will ever use it. F*** with us and we will F*** with you!

If you can't fight, I will beat you up and take what you have. If you can fight, then I might not bother. That's how it works and how it makes it better for us as a small country on a global stage.

Do you understand now?

SG

No. I understand what your saying but i disagree. People arent nukeing all the countries without nukes are they. Australia for example. Much smaller than us and no need for a deterrent.

Lets say for example that the powers that be in north korea decide to chuck a nuke in our direction. Do you think it would be right for us to chuck one back. Killing millions of innocent people because one nutter was power crazed?