Search results

Brilliant.

The most essential point you are missing about the word 'deterrent' is that if you need to use it, then it has failed in its principle purpose. The whole point of having it has failed. There is no similarity really. We keep our armed forces for actual combat, defence and peace keeping...

You can't work out the difference between a nuclear deterrent and conventional armed forces?

If you fire the first shot, then it's no longer a deterrent is it!

Well, you are entitled to your opinion on a hypothetical conclusion. However plenty do disagree.

That really is a massive conclusion to make. Russia installed deniable ground troops stoking an imaginary rebellion before a largely slow to react world had realised what had happened. It is conjecture to say a deterrent would have prevented this. What with Russia then diplomatically wanting to...

They are not an asset for defending anything - they are a deterrent. It doesn't stop conventional conflicts like you mentioned between Ukraine and Russia.

Yeah, and having a nuclear deterrent really put off Galtieri didn't it!?

This is impeccable logic. The rationality behind it cannot be faulted. The reason France has not been invaded since WWII is because of it's Nuclear deterrent. Of course, although neither has Poland, Austria, Norway, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Holland etc. et al. however lets not dwell on context...

Doesn't really matter if it gets taken out at the end of the day or not, when you think about it. If someone was intent on a nuclear attack on the UK, they'd have more to worry about than where our subs were.

Yes, but if I am about to go into a fight with a small pistol in my hand, is my pistol the deterrent to my would be attackers, or the 100 people stood behind me with AK47s?

I'm not sure our active 150 warheads has had much of an impact as a deterrent compared to the US's active 1750 or Russia's 1790.

Are the missiles and warheads not made, designed and serviced in the US? Don't the subs spend much of their lives being serviced in the US? While we may not need their permission, it is fair to say the system itself is entirely reliant on the US. The other thing they don't tell is the renewal...

Nicky Campbell made that very same point to him.

Even the argument that the US wants us to keep Nukes doesn't stack up, some of their top officials would rather we spent the money on our regular army so that we don't have to borrow all their gear when we're in a conflict together.

Michael Fallon this morning on 5Live, said the only way to convince the world regarding nuclear disarmament and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons - is by having nuclear weapons. :shrug: Now, he tried to explain this logic to Nicky Campbell, but I think he got lost within his own...