Some of it is just unimaginable:
So glad we've moved on from those days and hope we never fall back to them (not to ignore that even today atrocities of that scale still happen).
Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
Some of it is just unimaginable:
So glad we've moved on from those days and hope we never fall back to them (not to ignore that even today atrocities of that scale still happen).
how does it work then?
hasnt stopped proxy and limited ground wars, there is no way of knowing that having nukes stops world wars.
I dispute that. Increased economic integration and lack of fighting over undeveloped territories (what is referred to as "The Scramble for Africa" in colonial history) have done more to dissuade large scale war in Europe than nuclear weapons. The prospect of another Great War or Second World War with the economic and humanitarian ruin is sufficiently horrifying by itself.
Think through what you're saying: President Hollande of France would not say to himself "well we'll face millions of our people being killed and economic collapse from another war with Germany, but **** it, there's no nuclear weapons so lets have a go". No, they say "that would be a terrible idea and the days of clashing over who rules Tunisia are done with".
The West's most terrifying bogeyman - China - isn't curtailed by the fact that we have nuclear weapons. They're curtailed by the fact that they did hundreds of billions of dollars of trade with the US and probably close to that with the EU. Oh, and that they own trillions of US debt. They're inextricably interlinked with the West. And in so far as China still engages in military brinksmanship, making advances in the South China Sea, nuclear weapons don't seem to do anything to stop that because they know we wouldn't use them.
Even Russia's games with the Crimean Peninsula or micro-states like South Ossetta, nuclear weapons haven't done one damn thing to stop Russia engaging in such games. Nor is it nuclear weapons that makes Russia decide that starting a large scale war with the entirety of NATO isn't a desirable aim.
Nuclear weapons have not provided us with peace, international trade has. The wars we can look forward to are not wars between equal powers - because the rich in both countries are happy not to ruin their own countries. The wars we can look forward to are ones of rich nations on poorer or vulnerable ones, such as Iraq or Syria.
The ONLY credible instance one can argue of nuclear weapons dissuading war, is the case of North Korea getting hold of them. The fact that North Korea has a probably viable nuke, prevents action against them. You can make that case if you wish. You could also argue that if Iran got hold of nuclear weapons, then Israel would not have risked bombing them some four/five years ago. But that's it and I really, really doubt the protection of N.Korea and Iran was what you had in mind when you claimed that nuclear weapons preserve peace.
We have enjoyed the largest period of international trade in this history of the species over the last fifty years. If you want to look to factors that help stop wars, look there.
I'm not sure that putting the missiles on a submarine is now a reliable way to ensure our deterrent, and likely to be less effective over time as detection is only going to become easier. We're likely to spend a lot of money to have a deterrent which can be sunk in international waters with us none-the-wiser for some time.
See this article http://www.blunt4reigate.com/news/full-statement-renewal-trident by Crispin Blunt.
See this article http://www.blunt4reigate.com/news/full-statement-renewal-trident by Crispin Blunt.
There is mate, it's called mutually assured destruction.
You can't know for certain of that you are correct but you can look at the disparity between Nato forces and Warsaw Pact forces in the conventional fields between 1960 and 1980 and see how easily the Warsaw Pact would have rolled across Europe. The fact that they didn't indicates something else was stopping them - well by your own post you accept it wasn't pacifism so what other options are left? It is not unreasonable to conclude that the threat of theatre deployed strikes to prevent any attacks would have had a very steadying effect on their decisions. And as I highlighted earlier both sides showed an unwillingness to seek conflict with each other directly when they did so willingly in all other areas of the globe. During the Cuban missile crisis the Pact removed the missiles from Cuba and the US then removed their missiles from Turkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36832631
I wonder what the local appetite in Faslane for job losses is like?
Maybe relocate to somewhere like Clacton to provide jobs and some regeneration.
I wonder what the local appetite in Faslane for job losses is like?
Maybe relocate to somewhere like Clacton to provide jobs and some regeneration.
I would contest that post ww2 increased economic integration was by a significant factor made more possible and/or increased in how quickly it developed because weapons of mass destruction tended to encourage differing parties to come to the negotiating table than escalate to war. These days that factor is probably just as important if not more so than nukes, etc. in ensuring stability and peace but not so much that those kind of weapons are redundant.
If people were upset about migrants coming over here and taking unskilled jobs, imagine if you had to compete with enforced labour compelled by the state! Why hire someone to pick up litter or surface a road when there's a legally compelled body of national youth standing by to do such things?
Or are you suggesting the state should be recompensed for such things in which case what you have is state allocated employment - congratulations, you just invented communism.
yes good points, as pointed out a few post back globalisation and trade has probably trumped MAD, im just not sure it relevant anymore, the people we should really worry about getting nukes want MAD anyway or dont care.
Im not a pacifist and would prefer a defense force, but the UK is in the business or war and weapons so its in our national interest to keep going down this path.
You don't think millions dead and the nations involved being up to their eyes in debt from years of warfare and destruction of their infrastructure was sufficient motivation to have peace agreements, then? It was the US having nuclear weapons that made everyone decide to create trade agreements? I don't agree.
I agree that interlinked economies has a powerful effect these day but it's hardly stopped nations from going to war before but that may down to their ability to still use the others economy afterwards to some limited extent.
Whilst other nations have them it makes sense to stay at their level but the ideal situation would be if such things were stopped worldwide.
Problem is - sure right now the case for nukes looks at its weakest it has ever been in the last 50 years - but it isn't outside the realm of possible that geopolitical developments over the next decade or decades could result in it being a much more essential thing to have - I mean no one really thought leave would win the EU referendum, we didn't see 9/11 coming or the formation of IS, etc. so who knows what we will have to face down the line? sure we can't prepare for every eventuality but that is one big area that we can atleast somewhat keep our bases covered.
If you look at history no - didn't take long from ww1 until another major war and the century before that was marked by similar situations that quickly turned to large scale wars infact historically the destruction of infrastructure, massive amounts of debt and turmoil, etc. has tended to breed war not economic development.
Last edited:
Conventional bombs can be used in moderation or tactically. A nuclear exchange... less so.
(1,000,000 * Y) > (2 * X ) does not make Y greater than X. Your post seems unaware of the different numbers of bombs dropped of each type.
This seems pertinent: The Great Illusion. Published in 1909, it argued that war wouldn't happen in Europe because everyone was so tied together economically...
The two things can be tied together though. The only reason that the economic theory would work would be if you thought your economy would fail and/or you wouldn't be able to use your adversaries. With MAD both of those conditions becomes true.
Well by alleged definition for many years a tactical nuke was defined as one that landed on Germany.
And it was envisaged that could possibly be the case without escalation. They are more controllable than say biological agents. I am rather glad we never got to find out.
It's a shame we as humans have to devote so much time, money and talent into destruction when we could be using such resources to do important stuff like explore space.
Well by alleged definition for many years a tactical nuke was defined as one that landed on Germany.
And it was envisaged that could possibly be the case without escalation. They are more controllable than say biological agents. I am rather glad we never got to find out.
It's a shame we as humans have to devote so much time, money and talent into destruction when we could be using such resources to do important stuff like explore space.
Ironic really, if it had not been for the cold war and the need for more resilient ways of delivering nuclear warheads, would we have gone to the moon as early as we did? Afterall the investment made in nasa's primary aim was missile development. It wasn't untill later on that the compatition between the US and USSR turned into the space race.
Unfortunately if the cold war (or any major war really) hadn't happend we wouldn't be as technologically advanced as we are today.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,779
- Location
- Leicestershire
The idea of a deterrent is you would use it but you'd hope not to.
That is Theresa May's attitude and I fully respected her answer on whether she would use it or not. She went up in my estimation.
Unfortunately war drives on technology and pushes boundaries like no other peace time.
That is Theresa May's attitude and I fully respected her answer on whether she would use it or not. She went up in my estimation.
Unfortunately war drives on technology and pushes boundaries like no other peace time.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,598
Anything will need a large amount of cash to set up. If it is not a military setting then what is to stop people from just not bothering?