Search results

Classic case of confusing everyone with the question and then claiming the answer is what you wanted to see. Surely you HAVE a deterrent, as opposed to using it. Had the question asked whether one should have a deterrent, then the answer might have been different. As it is, it implied approval...

Of course that is always a possibility, albeit a very remote one. But do you seriously think this will happen? I am sorry, but I don't see what this means -may be me, I realise.

Ironically, you bemoan the alleged simplicity of it all, then go on to be equally simplistic yourself to make a point. No one wants to push the proverbial button, and everyone is opposed to killing millions etc, it is just that the defenders of Trident see that as the best way of achieving...

Really? Did it really frighten you as a boy? how many boys walked around frightened at the thought of nuclear weapons? Despite the proliferation of these weapons, it was hardly a day to day worry, as most folk realised the advantage of the deterrence.

Yes, the stockpiling over the years was undoubtedly not necessary, as only a few are needed for the deterrent. As to how many, who knows? I certainly don't know the figures. Are we announcing how many we have? And would that be a good idea? I suppose it all boils down to trust - if Putin said...

Yes, put like that, it is weird. Presumably you need to flatten loads of Moscows in any one country! Perhaps someone can enlighten us?

I do remember -I worked with the Army for 25 years in Germany! It is a very difficult question to answer and there is indeed no easy answer. You could clearly argue for both! I have to say, I don't understand the logic of what you write - if 50% is diverted, then what happens to Trident? Do we...

That is true but I am not sure how relevant that is to the deterrent factor, which is the point here. Again, all very dramatic, but extremely unlikely, given that it IS a deterrent. Yes, 100 billion (albeit spread over many years) will buy welfare etc, but then so would cutting out unnecessary...

Very dramatic, but you are missing the point. The fact that you have it and a potential adversary knows it, means that you will not be pushing the red button. Over 40 years of the Cold War this worked well. Of course a world without weapons is desirable, but they have been invented and cannot be...