Which is the biggest 'Reckless Gamble'?

[Guy Fawkes]

But we need it silly boy. It makes total sense to spend zillions equipping our military with weapons for a war we didn't fight forty years ago as opposed to giving them the resources for current and future wars. After all France has nukes and no one EVER attacks their citizens as the nukes act as a deterrent.

France has had a nuclear deterrent since 1960.

Number of times France was invaded by a foreign country in the 56 years before having these nuclear weapons: 2 (Germans)
Number times they have been invaded in the 56 years since: 0

Looks like it works for them, how many have French nationals have died defending their country from invasion by a foreign country since 1960 = 0. How many if they only had conventional weapons and forces = ?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Trident is more of a snipers rifle, than a pistol. The idea being, no one knows where they are, so they are difficult to take out. It is a good deterrent.

Doesn't really matter if it gets taken out at the end of the day or not, when you think about it. If someone was intent on a nuclear attack on the UK, they'd have more to worry about than where our subs were.

 

[Bold Seagull]

France has had a nuclear deterrent since 1960.

Number of times France was invaded by a foreign country in the 56 years before having these nuclear weapons: 2 (Germans)
Number times they have been invaded in the 56 years since: 0

Looks like it works for them, how many have French nationals have died defending their country from invasion by a foreign country since 1960 = 0. How many if they only had conventional weapons and forces = ?

This is impeccable logic. The rationality behind it cannot be faulted. The reason France has not been invaded since WWII is because of it's Nuclear deterrent. Of course, although neither has Poland, Austria, Norway, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Holland etc. et al. however lets not dwell on context for statistics.

 

[GOM]

But we need it silly boy. It makes total sense to spend zillions equipping our military with weapons for a war we didn't fight forty years ago as opposed to giving them the resources for current and future wars. After all France has nukes and no one EVER attacks their citizens as the nukes act as a deterrent.

Silly boy, I don't think you understand this subject.

 

[Brovion]

France has had a nuclear deterrent since 1960.

Number of times France was invaded by a foreign country in the 56 years before having these nuclear weapons: 2 (Germans)
Number times they have been invaded in the 56 years since: 0

Looks like it works for them, how many have French nationals have died defending their country from invasion by a foreign country since 1960 = 0. How many if they only had conventional weapons and forces = ?

So having nuclear weapons is the reason the Germans (or us for that matter, or the Spanish, Swiss or Belgians) haven't invaded France? Seriously?

 

[Brovion]

Silly boy, I don't think you understand this subject.

In what respect don't I understand it?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Ukraine had part of it's territory annexed by Russia.

Unluckily they had already given up their nuclear arsenal in 1994, and international guarantees were not worth the paper they were written on.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Ukraine had part of it's territory annexed by Russia.

Unluckily they had already given up their nuclear arsenal in 1994, and international guarantees were not worth the paper they were written on.

Yeah, and having a nuclear deterrent really put off Galtieri didn't it!?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Yeah, and having a nuclear deterrent really put off Galtieri didn't it!?

'Yeah' and Galtieri didn't invade the UK did he ?

Seriously, UK nuclear weapons are not an asset for defending Crown Dependencies, or Overseas Territories.

 

[GOM]

In what respect don't I understand it?

Nuclear weapons are not there, or ever were there to be a deterrent for terrorists, you do not nuke a lorry on your own territory.

 

[Bold Seagull]

'Yeah' and Galtieri didn't invade the UK did he ?

Seriously, UK nuclear weapons are not an asset for defending Crown Dependencies, or Overseas Territories.

They are not an asset for defending anything - they are a deterrent. It doesn't stop conventional conflicts like you mentioned between Ukraine and Russia.

 

[happypig]

Nuclear weapons haven't been any use in Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 1956, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar,
Northern Ireland, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq or Afghanistan. They will be of no use whatsoever against ISIS.

I'd rather we spent the money on having a decent Royal Navy with proper aircraft carriers. These *have* proved their worth more than once.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

They are not an asset for defending anything - they are a deterrent.

Yes, indeed.

The reply was meant to convey that they never were a deterrent to an invasion of a CD or BOT.

And what Galtieri did is irrelevant. There was no nuclear deterent in place that covered the Falkland Islands.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

They are not an asset for defending anything - they are a deterrent. It doesn't stop conventional conflicts like you mentioned between Ukraine and Russia.

There is no chance Russia would have annexed Crimea if Ukraine hadn't signed away its nuclear weapons in 1994.

That one action has set back nuclear disarmament decades, maybe a century.

A lesson to us all.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Someone explained this to me at a party some years ago.

You live in a house and you know your neigbour might like to have your house, but he won't pay you to leave and you don't want to leave anyway.
Now, you know he has a gun, but you also know, that if he knows you have a gun, it is very unlikely he will try and take your house by force - your gun is your deterrent. You also have no intention of using your gun on him, because you know he has a gun and you might get killed in the process.

Best exponent of a weapon of peace was Mick Dundee - when that street bum threatened to mug him with a knife, the scrote ran off when he saw that Mick had a bigger knife - simples.

Yeah, I know trident is more expensive than guns and knives but peace of mind security comes at a cost - personally, I don't trust my fellow man enough to lay down my shield.

 

[BBassic]

No.. we can apply our own thought processes to that decision... it's a myth pushed out by Guardian readers who live in some skewed twilight zone of perpetual rejection of everything and anything that wasn't the brainchild of some Welsh socialist 60 odd years ago..... dinosaurs

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

From what I recall of 'Command and Control' (excellent book, highly recommended) there was a time that the US held the keys to all nuclear weapons whether they were theirs or not and thus "permission" would have been asked.

Though it wouldn't really have been permission it would have been "Excuse me, we'd like to nuke a small nation of no significance back to the stone age, can we have the keys to the shed please"

 

[Mellotron]

We slag off Americans who want guns to protect from others with guns, then vote for Trident.

Spot the massive hypocrisy.

 

[drew]

We slag off Americans who want guns to protect from others with guns, then vote for Trident.

Spot the massive hypocrisy.

Is that a serious comment?

 

[BBassic]

Someone explained this to me at a party some years ago.

You live in a house and you know your neigbour might like to have your house, but he won't pay you to leave and you don't want to leave anyway.
Now, you know he has a gun, but you also know, that if he knows you have a gun, it is very unlikely he will try and take your house by force - your gun is your deterrent. You also have no intention of using your gun on him, because you know he has a gun and you might get killed in the process.

Best exponent of a weapon of peace was Mick Dundee - when that street bum threatened to mug him with a knife, the scrote ran off when he saw that Mick had a bigger knife - simples.

Yeah, I know trident is more expensive than guns and knives but peace of mind security comes at a cost - personally, I don't trust my fellow man enough to lay down my shield.

Going to harp on again about 'Command and Control' here (it really is a brilliant book) but I personally find the mere existence of nuclear weaponry to be a terrifying thought, they certainly don't fill me with confidence.

There was an incident in the late 70's / early 80's (I think) where one of the satellite systems designed to detect the launch of a nuclear bombardment started pinging alerts. It was certain that Russia had launched its arsenal in the general direction of the US. What it had actually detected was the moon.

 

[Mellotron]

Is that a serious comment?

If you want Trident renewed, why do you want it?