The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Probably do the same as all the other countries that don't have nuclear weapons.
South Africa used to have nuclear weapons, probably worth asking them how they manage to not get invaded every day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you actually sat down and thought through the long term outcome of that?
Was gonna say what happens when everyone relies on every one else for the deterrent... and 1 rogue nuclear armed state could hold the world hostage.
EDIT: I was more interested in what his alternative was though because - in considering defence you can't just account for the here and now but also have to look at the bigger picture of possibilities - now we can't cover every single possibility i.e. some random alien civilisation from outer space deciding to invade
but a shifting geopolitical landscape resulting in nation on nation violence is something that is very much within the realms of possible with the deterrent of the MAD doctrine off the table ostensibly that leads to conventional warfare meaning potentially the deaths of 100s of thousands of our countrymen in a ground war............. that could have otherwise been prevented. (This doesn't mean that with a MAD doctrine no skirmishes would ever happen but tends to significantly reduce the prospects of a serious escalation).
Last edited:
Daisy chains.
how do you reckon Iraq would have faired if their nuclear program had been a success?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
He hasn't said that 9/11 was a conspiracy or that it wasn't a "terrorist attack".
He has suggested that the evidence linking Osama to the attacks may have been manipulated to show Osama (and his organisation) as the sole responsible party, and thus justify regime change in Afghanistan.
Not an entirely unjustified statement imho.
This.
You cannot just ignore they exist, and as with most left wing/liberal ideas the only work if the whole world agrees and plays ball.
It all sounds very nice but ultimately it is just idealism and nothing more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Even if you accept that nuclear weapons are necessary, i think it's very hard to defend the idea that, in the modern world, it is necessary for the UK to have them.
Problem is defence isn't just about being able to defend against the threat (or lack of) right now but also looking at the range of potential threats in the bigger picture. The last 30 years or so of relative peace and prosperity is not a guarantee of another 30 years of peace and prosperity. While not the most likely that we might end up bumping heads (whether we like it or not) against another nation is completely within the realm of feasible and foreseeable and something any defence doctrine should take into account... so I ask again what his alternative is - betting the lives of our servicemen against the gamble that we won't need a deterrent to make a relatively small in the grand scheme of things financial saving or some irrational fear of weapons of mass destruction?
And as Ukraine have found out... your friends today might not be your friends or atleast not ones you can rely on tomorrow.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, would that have stopped Russia?
Stopped Russia doing what? there is a difference from them supporting a rebellion in one part of the country and launching a full on assault of the country.
But its become quite apparent that any agreements of support, etc. for Ukraine from the west have suffered due to political circumstances and they are getting lip service at best and largely on their own.
But its become quite apparent that any agreements of support, etc. for Ukraine from the west have suffered due to political circumstances and they are getting lip service at best and largely on their own.
Considering the hijackers were Saudi nationals.
The Ukraine had nuclear weapons- when it was part of the USSR.
Nobody invaded them then.
Stopped being part of USSR, has no nuclear weapons, gets invaded.
Existence of illuminiti/ Elvis works in a corner shop in chipping norton confirmed.
Eventually it will become obsolete in terms of being able to do its job against advances in technology (counter-measures, etc.), even with extensive maintenance the hardware will eventually suffer overall fatigue in the long term that would impact on safety and reliability especially when dealing with the hazards presented by the ordinance (nuclear and non-nuclear) and you can't just replace a system like that overnight - you need a fair amount of overlap to develop and bring the replacement system online and test it while progressively decommissioning the older one while not leaving a window of vulnerability in the hand over.
Its eventual replacement is a long time in the future but its something we have to start planning and financing for now not when trident has run its course.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,210
- Location
- Billericay, UK
It doesn't seem tht long ago when I watched the episode of Yes Prime Minister when Sir Humphrey was try to convince the Prime Minister of the benefits of Trident 'It's the nucler missile system that Harrods wouls sell!'
Well it looks like Corbyn is going to have his blushes saved as scrapping Trident isn't on the cards for this years conference. It will be a struggle to make this policy the Unions have a lot of members how work in industries supporting Trident, kind of awkward if your a Labour leader.