Of course they make lots of money. No-one is saying any different. You haven't cracked the fifth secret of Fatima here - we all know that vested interests make a lot of money out of weaponry. The discussion is about whether or not the UK having nuclear weapons is a deterrent against nuclear attack.

I think that's a fairly naive view of politics, to be honest.

Of course you can

The story behind the name is purely this. When I signed up for the DS forum and was asked to chose a username I had no idea what to chose.

I looked up on the shelf and saw the DVD Bluestreak and thought......ah that will do. I've never watched the film and have absolutely no idea what it is about.

Maybe someone can enlighten me

It's not as easy as that Michael, and it's incredibly naive to think like that.

Take the Second World War for example. That was necessary to save the lives of the Jewish people of Europe who were being murdered in their millions by a malevolent dictatorship.

Take somewhere like Lebanon, where I lived for a time after the civil war. How is that a money making racket when is essentially a country fighting itself?

We may have had war in the past fifty years, but nuclear weapons (evil as they are) are responsible for stopping us nuking each other to buggery. Political grandstanding or not, they've served a purpose.

No idea about the DVD but Blue Streak was the UK's medium range ballistic missile.

Well it would have been, had it not been cancelled.

Oh LOL!

Well, I have been known to blow my top from time to time (my husband would confirm this) so really it is quite apt

Not to mention the fact that Pakistan and India have threatened each other, Israel has them and Iran wants them. Nuclear Weapons are about power nothing else...It have solved nothing, it did not prevent 9/11.

Accept dictatorship then.

Funny enough I think the UK is well on the way to that! the people here give up their rights and civil liberties almost daily all in the forced hope that it "saves the children"

Pot calling kettle!!!! Naive indeed.

Hitler was praised by the media and Hollywood at one point. He was Time magazines 'man of the year'. Wall Street bankers (amongst others) financed Hitler's rise to power whilst making large profits at the same time. Prescott Bush (George W. Bush's grandfather) and other directors of the Union Banking Company (UBC) were Nazi collaborators.

Because 9/11 was committed by a group and not a state.

Indeed.

No thanks - I'll take democracy every time. However, I'm realistic about its limitations and (particularly) economic uncertainties. I prefer to engage with public representatives rather than rant about their sympathies and 'masters'. This kind of rhetoric just deters able, genuine people from getting involved in politics in the first place.

And delightful Viscount Rothermere, esteemed founder of the Associated Newspapers publishers of the Daily Mail was very much enamoured with Herr Hitler too.

Does it really put people off? I actually find it useful to debate these things. If anything, the current order is what has caused mass apathy. Regardless of naivety or simplicity, it's people like Russell Brand etc.. that are making people sit up again (especially the youth, I know this because I polled my two teenagers about it) and any dialogue is good dialogue regardless of how silly it may sound to you.

Carry on MichaelKegnan, I may not agree with all that you're saying but at least you're saying something that's not the 'accepted line'.

I think if it is widely accepted by (youth) society that all politicans are money-grubbing sycophants in the pockets of industrialists it absolutely puts people off becoming involved in mainstream politics. It's fine and dandy to jump up and down with banners on the fringes, but if you want to effect any real change, you have to work within the system.

I didn't say anything about working outside the system. I actually work quite adequately within it, and I'm aware enough to know that it isn't beyond challenging and change can be effected from outside. Anyone that's tried to get a surgery appointment with an MP and then got something done will tell you how soul destroying and futile that can be, and it doesn't need to be grand gestures or banner waving either.

I presume the bit in bold refers to constituency work - which is different to effecting change on a national or international or policy issue. In relation to the bit in bold, I don't quite understand - are you saying they did or didn't get the surgery done with the assistance of the MP? And why was it soul destroying?

Quite right. Every country in the world should have so many nukes they'll be coming out of their arse. War and conflict would vanish overnight.

I'm not surprised with Jim's views. He is rather right wing but having said that, whether you are left or right wing, the Nuclear deterrent has worked. However, like most sane people I don't think they are in any way 'desirable' weapons. They are more a necessity given the nutters there are knocking about around the world. The question is are they only relevant for stopping very powerful nations from warring with each other or do they have a wider influence?

His further point about nuclear energy is another difficult issue given the terrible accidents that have happened and continue. Energy security will be a big factor in keeping world peace over the next hundreds of years and Nuclear power has to be in the mix.

We may never achieve the goal of Nuclear Fusion power stations and have free clean cheap energy but until then Nuclear Fission is the next best option. Yes there are serious risks to the local environment with Fission Reactors but so long as they are not the only option and are designed well I don't see how they can be excluded. I do believe strongly that they should be 51% State owned and run as businesses but definitely not foreign owned & run companies, whether French, American or Chinese.

Okay then. Yes I was talking about constituency level, that's most people's access to their democratic representative in the UK. Unless one has David Cameron on speed dial and can natter with him about global matters and nuclear weaponry, then that's how common or garden citizens go about their political lives...as well as signing petitions, going on marches and all the other 'futile' stuff (that you infer is bluster and naivety).

Bit in bold, yes I was saying that it is mostly a waste of time. But then all my years as a Parliamentary Private Secretary informed me of that from inside the system