Corbyn’s childlike and simplistic argument? .....

[NooBHA]

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.

You have just endorsed my point. Estonia is no longer an ally of Russia and they now live happily without having nuclear weapons - They are not essential to national security.

In my post I do not say that I agree with Corbyn. All I do say is that no current nation with them would use them anyhow, regardless and if a nation with them fell into the wrong hands then there having them would NOT be a deterrent

 

[Hamilton]

That's debatable.

Do you not have any understanding of the concept of a deterrent? Another country is less likely to fire nuclear missiles at a country that also has (and is willing to use) them. We keep nuclear missiles to deter others from using them. How effective that is is of course debatable. You don't seem to think it works, others disagree.

What should be fairly obvious though, is that to pay for them and then state to potential enemies that we won't ever use them is madness.

I understand what deterrent means. A bigger question is whether we need a deterrent. What are we actually deterring anyone from doing? Using nuclear weapons against us? Do you really think the situation would ever arise where Britain and let's say Iran were the only two countries having a spat and the Iranians were saying "right, that's it Britain, we're going to nuke you. Stand back everyone. Oh, France, er you don't mind evacuating Normandy, Calais and Picardie do you? It's just it won't be that useable for a couple of thousand years."

 

[BBassic]

Anybody who thinks nuclear weapons are in any way a good idea would do well to read Command and Control by Eric Schlosser.

It's a startling insight into the rapid development of them during and following WW2 peppered with an alarming amount of incidents in which we came to the very brink of an all out nuclear confrontation thanks to such things as faulty telephone lines, misfiring electrical switches and an early warning system mistaking the moon for a salvo of Russian nukes heading towards the American east coast.

It is utterly terrifying that these things, capable of obliterating the godamn world, even exist let alone that people think they're a force for good.

 

[5mins-from-amex]

You have just endorsed my point. Estonia is no longer an ally of Russia and they now live happily without having nuclear weapons - They are not essential to national security.

In my post I do not say that I agree with Corbyn. All I do say is that no current nation with them would use them anyhow, regardless and if a nation with them fell into the wrong hands then there having them would NOT be a deterrent

Estonia is member of NATO that is there national security.

 

[Hamilton]

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 ?

You live in cloud cuckoo land. We no longer - in fact never have - live in a world where a country can have an independent nuclear war with another country. If one missile goes up in the air tomorrow, then they'll all be set off. End of.

I do love the way you get so very cross on this forum though.

 

[NooBHA]

Estonia is member of NATO that is there national security.

Of course they are and so are many of the other nations, including the UK. If Estonia can suffice with the security of NATO, then why can't we ?

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Nuclear weapons are no deterrent to the people most likely to use them.

The most strategic Nuclear nation is Pakistan - Given it's location it is the country most likely to fall to the threat of Fundamentalist. That is why the west so vehemently supports successive Pakistani governments. Were that countries nuclear weapons to fall under the control of the wrong people or even the wrong people getting into power in that country then no deterrent would effectively stop their use.

I don't say that Corbyn is correct in what he is saying but there is no need for the UK to have them whilst it is an ally of the US.

For example. During the ''Cold War'' All of the nuclear weapons trained on London were actually based on the coast just outside Tallin in Estonia. Since they broke away from the USSR, all of the nuclear weapons were removed from Estonia back on to Russian soil.

Since then, Estonia have lived very well, thank you very much without them and the cost to maintain them. So whilst some might want to retain them to retain a status withing the Worlds Nuclear Nations, they are not essential.

In comparison to Ukraine, who gave them back to Russia in return for Ukrainian territorial integrity in Crimea. THAT WENT WELL.

If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, there is zero chance Putin would have invaded.

 

[Triggaaar]

What nuclear countries are even remotely interested in bombing us? Russia, China? Why would they do that

Russia seems keen on taking land from neighbouring countries, did they not say they'd use their weapons if anyone tried to stop them? Nato could easily be involved in trying to stop them. But that's beside the point, I'm not arguing in favour of having nuclear weapons. I'm arguing against having them while at the same time saying you won't use them.

and why would they be deterred by our tinpot but expensive deterrent, when they have vastly superior arsenals.

I imagine our tinpot deterrent could do a lot of damage.

I understand what deterrent means. A bigger question is whether we need a deterrent.

As above, and as I said earlier, that is debatable, but it's a separate debate. You appreciate that others (not necessarily me) might have valid reasons for disagreeing with you?

Can you agree that the worst thing to do would be to pay for them and tell the world that you will never use them in defence?

 

[alfredmizen]

You have just endorsed my point. Estonia is no longer an ally of Russia and they now live happily without having nuclear weapons - They are not essential to national security.

In my post I do not say that I agree with Corbyn. All I do say is that no current nation with them would use them anyhow, regardless and if a nation with them fell into the wrong hands then there having them would NOT be a deterrent

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.

 

[Albumen]

Why don’t people get it? – Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. Their very existence means they will never be used and countries that possess them will never be occupied.

In America, guns are the ultimate deterrent.
Luckily nobody uses them .....

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

You live in cloud cuckoo land. We no longer - in fact never have - live in a world where a country can have an independent nuclear war with another country. If one missile goes up in the air tomorrow, then they'll all be set off. End of.

I do love the way you get so very cross on this forum though.

That's not actually true - some nuclear weapons can be 'precise' and are legal under International Law.

 

[NooBHA]

In comparison to Ukraine, who gave them back to Russia in return for Ukrainian territorial integrity in Crimea. THAT WENT WELL.

If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, there is zero chance Putin would have invaded.

The Ukranian situation is a lot more complex than that. The same would be the case with places like Latvia or Lithuania etc.

The Russians were there for 2 generations. In Latvia for example, the population actually consist of 60% Russian Descendancy to a mere 40% of Latvian Decendency. There is actually a larger population of Russians in there than Latvians. The same applies in a lot of the other former Soviet States. Consequently when you see Russian intervention, it is there to support their own Russian Descendants, so this makes the issue harder for outsiders to understand who is actually fighting who and why.

 

[alfredmizen]

You live in cloud cuckoo land. We no longer - in fact never have - live in a world where a country can have an independent nuclear war with another country. If one missile goes up in the air tomorrow, then they'll all be set off. End of.

I do love the way you get so very cross on this forum though.

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 ? youve stated it would be impossible for a country to have an independent war with another country , explain how other nuclear powers would be dragged in ? By the way , i'm not angry , just frustrated at your inability to grasp simple concepts.

 

[alfredmizen]

The Ukranian situation is a lot more complex than that. The same would be the case with places like Latvia or Lithuania etc.

The Russians were there for 2 generations. In Latvia for example, the population actually consist of 60% Russian Descendancy to a mere 40% of Latvian Decendency. There is actually a larger population of Russians in there than Latvians. The same applies in a lot of the other former Soviet States. Consequently when you see Russian intervention, it is there to support their own Russian Descendants, so this makes the issue harder for outsiders to understand who is actually fighting who and why.

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 ?

 

[BrickTamland]

Interesting there is a tread on this hypothetical non-matter* than on the UK swapping votes with Saudi Arabia to get them on the UN Human rights council. It's almost as if people on here aren't even trying to hide the fact the Daily Mail owns their mind.

*By that I mean our alleged 200 war heads mean very little in comparison with other powers, although some people don't like to admit it we're no longer one of the big players on that front. Us having them or not having them would factor very little in say, Russia deciding to invade (as some of you on here seem to have been worrying about). Waste of money in the hope it provides us some international status.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

This is the point out of all the nutters in recent history and I think Russia and China have had their fair share, no one seems to have come close to pressing it.

Can you imagine one nutter wanting to impose himself on quite a reasonable neighbour and the nutter is the only one with the trump card.

We were incredibly close to nuclear war during the cold war on at least a couple of ccasions

1) During the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet subs were trying to sneak their way to Cuba but the US blockaded the island and searched for these vessels and once they found the subs, they tried to get them to surface

The Americans decided to ratchet up the pressure, and dropped warning grenades into the sea. Inside the sub, the Soviet submariners thought they were under attack.

Valentin Savitsky, the captain of B59, was convinced the nuclear war had already started. He demanded that the submariners launch their (nuclear) torpedo to save some of Russia's pride.

The programme on Channel 5 revealed how in any normal circumstances Savitsky's orders would have been followed, and World War Three would have been unleashed. Savitsky hadn't counted on Arkhipov. As commander of the fleet, Arkhipov had the last veto. And although his men were against him, he insisted that they must not fire - and instead surrender.

It was a humiliating move - but one that saved the world. The Soviet submariners were forced to return to their native Russia, where they were given the opposite of a hero's welcome.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...verted-WWIII-height-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html
(there is a channel 5 documentary but it's blocked on Youtube so i can't link it here)
2) Russian early warning systems detected an American launch of ICBMs and luckily the commanding officer decided to ignore these warnings and didn't launch and they turned out to be the sun glinting off clouds which the computers interpreted as a launch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
(there is a channel 4 documentary but it's also blocked so i can't link it here either)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the nukes didn't exist, would they have thought twice about starting a war?

The cold war didn't start just because of the existance of nukes, but it could be argued that they prevented it from spiraling into full blown conflict - is that worth the cost of the weapons systems (collateral damage prevented, lives saved, etc...)

World politics change (see the collapse of the USSR, but you don't know whats around the corner and it could easily revert to a similar stand off again between 2 major countries and a new cold war start)

 

[NooBHA]

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 ?

Actually I don't. I don't think there should even be a ''cause'' to support.. Land borders naturally change all of the time during the course of history. Some of it happens through the course of a war. A perfect Example of this being the Saarland between Germany and France.

Other times it changes through natural migration of people. A perfect example of this being the Migration of Ethnic Albanians into what was previously part of Serbia until it was was recognised by the world in the 90s as a separate state of its own and which we now know as Kosovo

 

[Hamilton]

Russia seems keen on taking land from neighbouring countries, did they not say they'd use their weapons if anyone tried to stop them? Nato could easily be involved in trying to stop them. But that's beside the point, I'm not arguing in favour of having nuclear weapons. I'm arguing against having them while at the same time saying you won't use them.

I imagine our tinpot deterrent could do a lot of damage.

As above, and as I said earlier, that is debatable, but it's a separate debate. You appreciate that others (not necessarily me) might have valid reasons for disagreeing with you?

Can you agree that the worst thing to do would be to pay for them and tell the world that you will never use them in defence?

I absolutely think that would be a waste of money. I also fully understand why some people feel that we do need a deterrent (a debate that has been raised on this thread as it naturally would given the subject being discussed.) I believed that myself a few years ago. Now, I feel the world has changed. In fact it probably changed quite some time ago. Defence now is more about our capability to participate in actions that will help prevent wars as much as in actions that do not involve weapons of mass destruction.

Anyway, a nice little distraction the media have jumped on rather than allow us to talk about other domestic issues that matter.

 

[Hamilton]

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 ? youve stated it would be impossible for a country to have an independent war with another country , explain how other nuclear powers would be dragged in ? By the way , i'm not angry , just frustrated at your inability to grasp simple concepts.

Don't be frustrated. I'm not frustrated with your inability to grasp the argument that Britain may no longer be in a position whereby we need a deterrent. I grasp your argument as to why you think we do, but I just think you are wrong. We are never going to face the scenarios in Europe that you can paint.

As for Pakistan and India having a nuclear exchange, that won't happen. for all the sabre rattling, both governments know which side their bread is buttered. Pakistan going rogue? That could happen. Would India be the natural target if it did? Hard to say. I wouldn't be surprised if they aimed west as much as east - it would depend who the rogues were. Either way, we live in a world that is like a house of cards. The political, economic and social upheaval that would be caused by the use of such weapons would have a huge knock on impact. The idea that they could just be left to get on with their own little local nuclear dust up is ludicrous.

 

[BigGully]

We were incredibly close to nuclear war during the cold war on at least a couple of ccasions

1) During the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet subs were trying to sneak their way to Cuba but the US blockaded the island and searched for these vessels and once they found the subs, they tried to get them to surface

The Americans decided to ratchet up the pressure, and dropped warning grenades into the sea. Inside the sub, the Soviet submariners thought they were under attack.

Valentin Savitsky, the captain of B59, was convinced the nuclear war had already started. He demanded that the submariners launch their (nuclear) torpedo to save some of Russia's pride.

The programme on Channel 5 revealed how in any normal circumstances Savitsky's orders would have been followed, and World War Three would have been unleashed. Savitsky hadn't counted on Arkhipov. As commander of the fleet, Arkhipov had the last veto. And although his men were against him, he insisted that they must not fire - and instead surrender.

It was a humiliating move - but one that saved the world. The Soviet submariners were forced to return to their native Russia, where they were given the opposite of a hero's welcome.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...verted-WWIII-height-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html
(there is a channel 5 documentary but it's blocked on Youtube so i can't link it here)
2) Russian early warning systems detected an American launch of ICBMs and luckily the commanding officer decided to ignore these warnings and didn't launch and they turned out to be the sun glinting off clouds which the computers interpreted as a launch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
(there is a channel 4 documentary but it's also blocked so i can't link it here either)

It seems to offer how such a consequence of nuclear attack focuses the mind.

Ultimately neither side risked it, even when circumstances might have usually been a trigger to engage in attack.

Perhaps its worth trying to analyse those scenarios if one of the sides didnt have a nuclear capability.