Bladders
Twats everywhere
The fact that no one has launched their nukes at us would suggest it's working as a deterrent
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Corbyn about to be sectioned methinks?
- Thread starter Tony Towner's Fridge
- Start date
BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 12,399
Every time the discussion crops up around nuclear weapons I urge every one to go out and read http://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Control-Eric-Schlosser/dp/0141037911
It is the most singularly terrifying and astounding book I've read in recent memory.
If you can read that, really taking on board just how close the world has come to annihilation on more than one occasion thanks to things such as signal failures and the moon, and still think that nuclear weapons are anything but insanity then I applaud you for being able to access some mental faculty unavailable to me.
It is the most singularly terrifying and astounding book I've read in recent memory.
If you can read that, really taking on board just how close the world has come to annihilation on more than one occasion thanks to things such as signal failures and the moon, and still think that nuclear weapons are anything but insanity then I applaud you for being able to access some mental faculty unavailable to me.
Nobody has nuked Spain, either.
drew
Drew
Well it's not just the results of our nuclear deterrent is it. As for what the country would look like, perhaps it would also look different if everyone paid tax at the same rate.
drew
Drew
Whilst we are on the subject of defence, can someone explain to me the benefits of having aircraft carriers with no aircraft?
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,718
We have enough nuclear options, I believe we should keep them. But I am totally with those who are against their expansion. Waste of money which is better served elsewhere. We should always defend ourselves, but this muscle flexing pretense and empirical ideology makes me nauseous.
drew
Drew
No, because they are a member of Nato and protected by those of us that do have the deterrent. Out of interest, if everyone gave up their weapons voluntarily, except for Russia, would you trust Putin?
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,411
On planet [MENTION=24838]Bladders[/MENTION] maybe
BeardyChops
Active member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 461
It's an interesting theory, but since the Americans supply, service and maintain the missiles, and the government themselves said:
“We do not see a good case for making what would be a substantial additional investment in our nuclear deterrent purely to insure against a, highly unlikely, deep and enduring breakdown in relations with the US. We therefore believe that it makes sense to continue to procure elements of the system from the US.”
I cant imagine the US would let us threaten them with their own missiles. Am I being too cynical to imagine they might have some degree of control over their deployment.
France: hmm.. yes I spose they could nuke us, but a bit close for comfort isnt it?
Bladders
Twats everywhere
And Earth, where thankfully the wishy-washies aren't making the tough decisions
I don't need nuclear weapons to not trust Putin, why would you suggest that, it doesn't make sense.
I'm/we're talking about this countries comparatively negligible nuclear arsenal, that has cost billions of pounds.
Here's a couple more pointless questions:-
If Russia had given up their weapons x years ago, would Putin be in power?
How does a world containing nuclear weapons appeal with Putin & Trump in 'command'?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
It is a mistake to equate homelessness with poverty. There are many reasons for homelessness, such as youngsters running away from abuse, or marital breakdowns, but not necessarily poverty.
Really good post. I see none of the Trident keepers have answered it. Who are we deterring, and how does Germany manage?
If Russia is the main deterent, if they wanted to invade why would they fire a nuclear bomb? Their conventional forces are better than ours. It would be us that would have to suggest we would have fire a nuke first. Which leads onto.
How independent is it. Could we really fire, without usa approval.
I think having Trident is all about supposed power and a saet on security council. We would be better off spending that money on ships that can protect the new aircraft carriers, plus reversing the other cuts to conventional forced. It is they that are used in defence.
If Russia is the main deterent, if they wanted to invade why would they fire a nuclear bomb? Their conventional forces are better than ours. It would be us that would have to suggest we would have fire a nuke first. Which leads onto.
How independent is it. Could we really fire, without usa approval.
I think having Trident is all about supposed power and a saet on security council. We would be better off spending that money on ships that can protect the new aircraft carriers, plus reversing the other cuts to conventional forced. It is they that are used in defence.
cjd
Well-known member
Gosh......are you suggesting that nuclear weapons could be dangerous ? Who would have thunk it ?
Next you will be telling us that smoking is harmful.
The Birdman
New member
drew
Drew
You chose to deliberately miss the point.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Continuing the pointless questions theme .. If Nuclear deterrence doesn't work can anyone explain the following.
Would any aggressor nation thinking about invading another be more or less likely to attack if their intended target had nukes and the ability to launch them from a place that was undetectable?
Why is the despotic North Korean regime untouchable?
Why do/did countries like Iraq and Iran want to join the nuclear club? Clue: Would we have invaded Iraq or attacked Iraqi forces removing them from Kuwait if Saddam had a nuke ?
Why have India and Pakistan not had a full scale war despite numerous flash points?
Doesn't it boil down to ... Would you be happy living in a neighbourhood where many of your more dubious neighbours were armed with a rocket launcher but you preferred to rely on the weaponry found in the cutlery draw to provide some security. Or rely on a few friendly neighbours with rocket launchers to bail you out if you are threatened or attacked. (while claiming deterrence doesn't work and that they are wrong for keeping them)
That wasn't my intention, you're going to have to elaborate.
It just seemed a little odd to create a world where everbody has given up nuclear weapons except the one country (leader) you wouldn't want to have them, in the first place.
Were you asking 'would you be happy if only Russia (one country) developed NW', probably not.
Beyond that I don't see your point.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
What do you think. They don't even want a conventional army really. They would rather roll over for a belly rub