Nuclear missiles ( trigger warning) excuse the pun

I dont think a British PM has control over them ,the American President has the final say.
I've marched with CND for decades ,these things are an abomination and should be dismantled by all the nations that have them.Its a constant worry having them a few miles from my door,or closer when the convoy passes my bedroom window .Accidents or rather incidents at the base are a regular occurence and memories of Chernobyl cause nightmares.
Thats before we even think about the pollutants in the water where the bases are situated .

I've read it will only take something like 15 minutes for a missile to travel from Russia to the UK - even less if launched from a submarine!

I wouldn't take any comfort from our PM having psychological preparation.

In the Eighties Reagan was pushing his Star Wars initiative to create a system for shooting down ICBMs before they got to their locations. Remember that?

Oh, how we laughed.

Yes, it was just a device for the US taxpayers to pour even more billions into the arms industry.

I agree. Hard to believe we are still living with the dread of these terrible things. Even the old adage of them being a deterrent is bull ? as if the enemy country is headed up by a maniac with nothing to lose, it’s not even a deterrent.

Glasgow is about 25 miles from a primary nuclear target so if Putin decides to press the button we will go quickly.
Probably better than a long slow death for those farther away.

We can't put the genie back in the bottle.

No country wants to give up its nuclear capability.

More worrying are the megalomaniacs who are too close to the button (so to speak). A megalomaniac is a pathological egotist who should be nowhere near the reins of power - rather in a psychiatric hospital. And they're usually men.

What can a few grans on GN do about them? Just hope that there are enough sane individuals surrounding them to guide them safely back to their seats. Where they should be strapped, permanently.

What is the point in worrying about this? Nothing we can do about it.

Dickens

We can't put the genie back in the bottle.

No country wants to give up its nuclear capability.

You are right- not now that they have seen what happened to Ukraine after they disarmed.
Horrible

This topic will frighten and depress many people. Maybe we could lighten up?

Kim19

This topic will frighten and depress many people. Maybe we could lighten up?

... or avoid the topic? There is a warning. No-one is compelled to read it.

And how do you lighten-up the subject of nuclear missiles anyway?

A lot of things frighten and depress people - you appear to be suggesting we shouldn't discuss them.

I never really understand the rationale of having nuclear missiles, a deterrent they may be, but if God forbid, one is ever used than we are all f****d,, the world as we know it would be gone. Whatever would be left would not sustain us that's if we weren't dying a slow painful death from the fallout anyway. It would be the end of the planet as we know it and all the forms of life upon it. I agree that the world would be a much better place without them, but how does the world persuade aggressive nations, North Korea, Russia for example to relinquish theirs , when in their warped ideology they have no intention of acting for the greater good,. Whilst enemies keep them so will we and our allies...........it's the" just in case factor" which brings us full circle to the no one would survive if even one was unleashed, and then the retaliation of one or more, all for the "we got you back!" At that stage no would would be left to care. No benefit to mankind whatsoever ........and there is nothing we can do about it, so I'm with Pepper on that!

TerriBull

I never really understand the rationale of having nuclear missiles, a deterrent they may be, but if God forbid, one is ever used than we are all f****d,, the world as we know it would be gone. Whatever would be left would not sustain us that's if we weren't dying a slow painful death from the fallout anyway. It would be the end of the planet as we know it and all the forms of life upon it. I agree that the world would be a much better place without them, but how does the world persuade aggressive nations, North Korea, Russia for example to relinquish theirs , when in their warped ideology they have no intention of acting for the greater good,. Whilst enemies keep them so will we and our allies...........it's the" just in case factor" which brings us full circle to the no one would survive if even one was unleashed, and then the retaliation of one or more, all for the "we got you back!" At that stage no would would be left to care. No benefit to mankind whatsoever ........and there is nothing we can do about it, so I'm with Pepper on that!

Yup - depressing isn't it? I mean the fact we can do nothing about it.

The only thing we can do collectively, in the West, is to make sure we elect leaders who are intellectually capable and intelligent enough to know when to jaw-jaw instead of the alternative and are prepared to suppress their own egos for the sake of, well, civilisation and the world as we know it (as you say). We do not need sabre-rattling, we need those who understand that we are dealing with psychopathic tendencies and that 'normal' rules will not always apply - that bellicose, quarrelsome, militaristic jingoism is not going to stop a megalomaniac in his tracks.

Bit of a tall order though.

Bit of a tall order though.

It is indeed. The last Prime Minister of the UK who I think who possibly fits the description could have been Tony Blair, but then oh no, he took us into an illegal war. And like the rest of them, he’s in love with money.

I'd say Gordon Brown and Teresa May would both fit that bill maddyone