Search results

This is why governments draw back from the abyss. The Putins of this world might not want to bomb us, but they may well use the threat of their advantage to get what they want.

Thank you. This is now a great deal clearer, and if you had been that specific originally, that would have helped rather than the simplistic version, so it was not a question of failing to grasp etc. I agree that the term "full stop" can be misleading, though one might argue that in practice...

Have you been drinking? You refer to my post being a muddle and then post this! You asked where you said that nuclear weapons do not deter and so I have quoted your post: "it doesn't deter against aggression full stop, just as being a big lump doesn't stop someone telling you to F off." What...

It would deter if the big lump had got hold of you and if the circumstances were likely to turn violent, as you well know. You are conveniently talking about localised conflicts, rather than the likelihood of European war, which the balance of power did much to deter. I don't know how you can...

Yes, fair point about 1982, but then Galtieri calculated that we would hardly nuke Argentina, as GB wasn't being threatened. But I don't see the logic of your final assertion - if it "works" against those similarly armed, why is the case to get rid compelling?

I am sure that you are right in your statistical assertion but this is precisely because we do have the capability to strike back. It just makes potential aggressors think twice, and with an increasing amount of uncertainty as unstable regimes gather the technology to produce nuclear weapons...