Poll: Do you believe the UK should have its own Nuclear Deterrent?
- Thread starter kitkat9933
- Start date
Is this mindset you wish to teach your children?
"You have enemies, better keep a bomb in your house to ward them away"
Paranoia, while useful in times of stupidity, perhaps that is not over, it is still damaging to society, look at Israel and Palestine, the effect is pronounced, while there are more things involved there, i wont go into such things, but whenever the term Nuclear springs up, everyone born <1980s (generally) takes a fit, starts flinging commie nostalgia out of every orifice and begins seething from the mouth like a frightened dog.
This is not enlightened at all, I suppose the good thing about the human condition is that it is very temporary.
"You have enemies, better keep a bomb in your house to ward them away"
Paranoia, while useful in times of stupidity, perhaps that is not over, it is still damaging to society, look at Israel and Palestine, the effect is pronounced, while there are more things involved there, i wont go into such things, but whenever the term Nuclear springs up, everyone born <1980s (generally) takes a fit, starts flinging commie nostalgia out of every orifice and begins seething from the mouth like a frightened dog.
This is not enlightened at all, I suppose the good thing about the human condition is that it is very temporary.
Heres where your making the mistake. There is no removing ourselves from the game, we can turn our back and pretend it doesn't exist if we want but that doesn't actually reduce the risk any more than the ostrich head in sand thing.
After WW1 many people were convinced we'd never see another war like it after the horrors of that war...
Who's paranoid?
And the world is not enlightened at all. So I don't see what that has to do with it.
And yes I would want to teach my kids similar principles. Do not be the aggressor, do what ever you can to avoid such a situation. But if it coens to it, at least have some knoledge on how to defend yourself.
I suppose you would rather they couldn't defend themselfs, in your silly scenario. And who's pre 1980.
If only the average IQ was so low, thankfully education has in fact been slightly useful during this contemporary era.
While I don't assume that anyone is less stupid than 100 years ago, I at least assume they have some extra logic built in, while all wars in the past have been based on some pointless notion of national identity, I do not think people are quite so fooled any more, though as I say, i am sure one could find a reason for people to fight, but that reason would likely have serious circumstances, certainly more than was in the past.
What utter rubbish. Have you seen NK, African warlords, Islam terrorists, ira etc.
how on earth can you type that with a straight face
Have you seen how brain washed NK people are, at least in the more affluent areas.
Every blog I've read on visitors to NK, all come to the same conclusion, most are not faking it from fear of reprisals.
how on earth can you type that with a straight face
Have you seen how brain washed NK people are, at least in the more affluent areas.
Every blog I've read on visitors to NK, all come to the same conclusion, most are not faking it from fear of reprisals.
Honestly what do you think would happen if every country except say Iran and NK disarmed themselves tomorrow? threw away all their weapons do you believe Iran and so on would also follow suit? or take advantage of the fact they can now project their will over the globe with no one in a position to stop them?
The threat from Nuclear Arms grows daily, at some point they will be used again, I am in no delusion of such things, however a deterrent only works as long as it is relevant, frankly If i do fear any weapon, it would be far less obvious than a missile would be.
I simply wish to reallocate trident resources to focusing on nuclear terrorism, if the concern is so great, just halve the submarine count to two.
Defense from who?
Fair point, you may not have said it directly, but it certainly seemed to imply it to me. I don't think the effects of nuclear weapons are that tangible, if anything they seem more of a liability with 'rogue' states seeking equal status.
I'm still not sure what we're getting from the UNSC either.
Why do we need 'protection' by way of nuclear arms? If we disarm, and stop invading countries, who is going out their way to obliterate this island off the face of the earth?
You can't halve the submarine count to two. It would make them vulnerable to attack, due to dy dock time. We already only have enough to maintain one at sea permantley.
Without nukes your fear of conventional weapons would grow massively, as there's little deterent for skirmish poping up even more than they currently do.
The trident doesn't need reallocating for other stuff, we need to get our finances under control, NHS and benefits are the two massive culprits. Then I would say waste, part instutional, 1mangaer for 1 employee. What my mate just got in MOD. How the hell do you manage one person It's insane. Must be a cushy job though, then partly over complicated systems and crap contracts with lack of penalties. Goverment IT systems are a good example.
Whilst sorting out those issues, we need to insure our future income, the uk has always been cutting edge technology, we are not set up to fund this properly and then reap the benefits.
Without nukes your fear of conventional weapons would grow massively, as there's little deterent for skirmish poping up even more than they currently do.
The trident doesn't need reallocating for other stuff, we need to get our finances under control, NHS and benefits are the two massive culprits. Then I would say waste, part instutional, 1mangaer for 1 employee. What my mate just got in MOD. How the hell do you manage one person It's insane. Must be a cushy job though, then partly over complicated systems and crap contracts with lack of penalties. Goverment IT systems are a good example.
Whilst sorting out those issues, we need to insure our future income, the uk has always been cutting edge technology, we are not set up to fund this properly and then reap the benefits.
Put it this way, if we're out of the nuclear arms race are we still going to be a target in some future hypothetical nuclear exchange?
I thought the whole principle behind targeting was to eliminate risk, if we don't have them and refuse the Americans to station them here, then there is little tactical risk to third parties. If we are going to come a cropper anyway, can't we just save that money and have a better time in approaching our impending doom and rest easy that some other people will have ensured a grizzly end to humanity all the same..
This comes back to, you being able to see the future, which no one else is capable off. Who, take your pick over the next 30years. Have you seen how fast the world can and does change?
history is littered with people as short sighted as you, going it can never happen, ww2 being the biggest albe not the only example.
How many skirmish and conventional wars do you think nukes have stopped? Impossible to put a number on it, but IMO loads.
People will resist you to war with a nuclear opponent, or insure it stays at a small skirmish level.
Again you do not need to launch nukes or have MAD for them to do their job.
Off course we are. What a stupid opinion. How does removing nukes in a way lower the risk? It doesn't at all, it increases the risks.
Lack of nukes means people can be braviour and sabre rattle more and take risks.
How in your mind does removing nukes reduce risk?
I don't think you understand what I mean, and by disarming we aren't turning our back on the problem we would actually be setting a moral example.
If others wish to continue their expensive stalemate, then let them I say..
I don't see how that justifies anything here.
We still have world peojection, we still have armed forces. We are still a risk to other countries, we still have resources, ideologies etc.
Worked really well for neutral countries in ww2 didnt it? Oh wait not really. They were also far more than no nukes, they were neutral. So you planning on scrapping military as a whole or at least announcing we wo t use it.
We don't have world projection, not in a conventional sense anyway. Most nations have military forces and politics.
It doesn't make them a primary target in a nuclear exchange.
I'm not sure why the proponents of nuclear weapons are so keen to invoke memories of the (conventional) great wars and conflate them into strange analogies to further their points, and I'm still struggling to see any valid comparisons.
How can you destroy sea faring nukes?
Not a very good theory at all.
You continue to ignore I power of projection, which is well knowen and proven throughout history,. The threat even before nukes is often enough. With nukes makes that threat even larger and means you don't have to maintain a massive military to project taht power.
How many wars/skirmish do you think nukes have prevented? I think they have stopped a lot of escalation. Why would a two nuclear or one none nuclear party, go tow to toe with each other? They won't, at most you'll have a very small exchange, like a shelling attack that kills 4 people. Without nukes there is no reason, not to try your luck a bit more.
Not a very good theory at all.
You continue to ignore I power of projection, which is well knowen and proven throughout history,. The threat even before nukes is often enough. With nukes makes that threat even larger and means you don't have to maintain a massive military to project taht power.
How many wars/skirmish do you think nukes have prevented? I think they have stopped a lot of escalation. Why would a two nuclear or one none nuclear party, go tow to toe with each other? They won't, at most you'll have a very small exchange, like a shelling attack that kills 4 people. Without nukes there is no reason, not to try your luck a bit more.