Search results

Like Ukraine? What about the Baltic states who live in fear of invasion? Syria, Iraq? Egypt? Nigeria? Sudan? Congo? You can't just take a snapshot and let that decide the next 100 years of foreign military policy. It is extremely alarming how many people are willing to throw this away to save...

But this isn't logical. You're saying "If there's a nuclear war" and analysis that situation. What the analysis misses is that this chance is much lower when we have the deterrent.

A pre-emptive strike only makes sense if it has any chance of disabling our ability to retaliate. If we have trident then that chance is extremely low.

That is such a bad logical argument.

Turkey are in NATO. Would we fire nuclear bombs at a country that invaded Turkey? A country will only use the deterrent if it itself is under direct threat. Even if you disagree with me, are you certain enough to gamble our existence on it?

I think that's wrong. The defence spending review (from the government) recommended in 2010 reducing it to 40 warheads per sub, see page 8 of: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62482/strategic-defence-security-review.pdf Maybe they mean 3 nuclear...

That's like saying we don't need a goalkeeper because there's one in Lewis. America will not use their nuclear deterrent if the UK is invaded, so our effective deterrent is nonexistent. The argument is invalid.

That doesn't sound right. You usually have more warheads than missiles since each missile is capable of delivering more than one warhead. It is not public what each sub carries, but I think those numbers are wrong.

National defence is one of the undisputable objectives of a sovereign government. Almost everything else is a luxury compared to it, whether we like it or not. I feel like my tax money is wasted on a lot of things, but national security is not one of those things. Recent geopolitical events...