Search results

British weapons had nothing to do with the Cuban missile crisis did they though? America had (and still has) more than enough to deal with that crisis on it's own. You're right about repeating past historical mistakes, but that's not quite the same thing as planning for the future. Hopefully...

HOW has it been successful as a deterrent? Who was going to attack us until they realised we had four submarines with nuclear missiles? And you are making exactly the mistake I warned about - looking back instead of looking forward.

Precisely! Nuclear weapons are far too big and clumsy to be used in this war, and they have not stopped France from being attacked and have not stopped French citizens from being killed on their own soil. Ergo in the 21st century nuclear weapons are NOT a deterrent, they have not helped the...

In what respect don't I understand it?

So having nuclear weapons is the reason the Germans (or us for that matter, or the Spanish, Swiss or Belgians) haven't invaded France? Seriously?

But we need it silly boy. It makes total sense to spend zillions equipping our military with weapons for a war we didn't fight forty years ago as opposed to giving them the resources for current and future wars. After all France has nukes and no one EVER attacks their citizens as the nukes act...

Which is better? Chalk or cheese?