# Russia at it again



## coppo (May 27, 2009)

Flexing their muscles that is.


Todays report that a news item was mistakenly put out about their super nuclear missile which when launched from a submarine will cause a radioactive catastrophe.


Mistakenly put out my foot.


Don't mess with us, look what we've got.


Paul.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

IMO ANY nuclear missile will cause a radioactive catastrophe......

Ask any of the citizens from around Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Chernobyl what they think about the release of radiation......

Nuclear weapons are only of any use as a deterrent since using them effectively means the end of civilisation as we currently know it.... soo Corbyn is correct in his feelings but possessing them means that others dare not poke too hard.... "just in case", although it is very unlikely that ANY Government would launch the first one.....

They are a VERY expensive "big stick" which cannot be used and is unlikely to ever be used again.....

Dave


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Why are we renewing 'Trident' at an estimated cost of 260 billion, do the existing nuclear missiles have a 'use by' date stamped on them?


tony


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Penquin said:


> Nuclear weapons are only of any use as a deterrent since using them effectively means the end of civilisation as we currently know it.... soo Corbyn is correct in his feelings but possessing them means that others dare not poke too hard.... "just in case", although it is very unlikely that ANY Government would launch the first one.....
> 
> They are a VERY expensive "big stick" which cannot be used and is unlikely to ever be used again.....


Surely Dave history proves you wrong! The only time they were used was not as a deterrent (other than to end a war) and certainly the use of them didn't bring about the end of civilisation.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

peribro said:


> Surely Dave history proves you wrong! The only time they were used was not as a deterrent (other than to end a war) and certainly the use of them didn't bring about the end of civilisation.


It might have done if the Japanese could have retaliated with nuclear weapons themselves.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

peribro said:


> Surely Dave history proves you wrong! The only time they were used was not as a deterrent (other than to end a war) and certainly the use of them didn't bring about the end of civilisation.


The 2 dropped on Japan were tiny when compared to the modern ones.


----------

