Search results

frightened you as a boy ?? myself and most kids i knew were immortal as boys , you must have been a bit of a jessie.......

Probably because thats not the case.

:lolol::lolol::lolol::lolol::lolol:course they didnt!!

So you obviously support the loyalist cause and the british army in northern ireland then, after all, theyve been there a lot longer than the russians in the baltics ?

I'm afraid you have very little grasp of what youre attempting to convey, its literally pointless trying to explain the concept of deterrence to you, as an aside , what do you think would happen if India and Pakistan had a nuclear exchange , how would the other nuclear powers be dragged in ...

I really havent endorsed your point at all, Estonia never was an ''ally'' of Russia , it was under occupation,,it could not wait to join NATO and that goes for the rest of the baltic states , they are still free at the moment because of their NATO membership and all that it entails.

we have about 200 warheads , enough to send both Russia and China back to the stone age.

And you can guarantee we will remain an ally of the US can you ? Also do you not understand that whilst Estonia was part of the USSR , the USSR was very much the Russian empire and its Nukes were considered Russian,the Estonians had no say whatsoever in whether they kept them.

:facepalm: WTF is it with you ?? Can you really not grasp that we have Trident as a deterrent to hostile nuclear powers using their nuclear weapons against us rather than leverage in international affairs ?

Thats probably been the key to your great success at it.

To compare the Falklands , which was to all intents and purposes a small local conflict where nuclear weapons were NEVER going to be an option ( no disrespect to the blokes who fought in it smudge !) to the global geopolitical machinations of various alliances and countries and their perceived...

proof indeed that youve lost the argument.

it isnt, but if it ever comes to the crunch in this increasingly complex and dangerous world then its a very handy defence against others who have the same.

shortsighted beyond belief.

I think youre spectacularly missing the point , Trident isnt designed to have an ''impact on the international stage'' its designed to be a dterrent to the international stage visiting us in an unpleasant fashion.

you have very little interest in american foreign policy , but we could cope without trident because we'd be members of NATO, righto, blinkered doesnt even begin to cover it :lolol:

Yes, I can , they've left us to fend for ourselves in ww2 until their hand was forced by the germans declaring war on them , they also got threatened us with economic ruin if we didnt abandon our little adventiure in suez, if anyone thinks american policy isnt first and foremost for the benefit...

They survived because barring the swedes they were members of NATO which did have a nuclear deterrent, as ive asked in other posts , would you , given the tendencies of the US to become very isolationist when it suits , trust them to use their nuclear deterrent to protect europe if it didnt suit...

Read my post properly, and THEN answer eh ?

Is that a serious post ?? Really ?? If so then its pointless debating with you.