Caporegime
He didn't comment on that. He said he wouldn't launch first. Although, tbh, he likely wouldn't retaliate but he won't be first UK Prime Minister to write such letters for Trident.
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
He didn't comment on that. He said he wouldn't launch first. Although, tbh, he likely wouldn't retaliate but he won't be first UK Prime Minister to write such letters for Trident.
Its the bluff (whether we mean it or not and whether the letters state as much or not) that we would fire first that protects UK citizens - if the bluff fails (thanks Corbyn) or the doctrine fails due to the advances of technology or whatever then the nuclear deterrent ceases to be effective. What Corbyn did only makes the world a less safe place despite his intentions.
Soldato
Don't even know what you're attempting to do here Stewski. You're taking the opinions of a man who helped invent them, before the concept of MAD, when the US was wanting to use them as a first strike weapon.
It is not at all comparable to the modern situation, as MAD is more of a cold war era thing, and is entirely defensive. Get your head out of the sand.
It is not at all comparable to the modern situation, as MAD is more of a cold war era thing, and is entirely defensive. Get your head out of the sand.
Soldato
The problem is if I recall they were really trying to get him to say he would use them in retaliation and he just wouldn't, which looks really weak. I don't like May but at least she instantly said 'yes' when presented with that question.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
I'll be voting labour for the first time this election but it's been a long time since I've been called a youth!
What he always does - snipe at people while hiding behind a popular/generally accepted viewpoint.
So unless we fire on a non-nuclear power, in which case we've completely and utterly failed, were likely to get fired back at. He'd be condemning millions of UK citizens to a horrible, fiery death and several millions more to a slow, agonising death too. There is no right answer to this question. Ever.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,603
This calls for a trite meme.
I think we should send people like that off to Afghan to see what wars are really like.
Probably kind of person who says "MATE IF THERE WAS WAR I'D BE FIRST TO RUN TO FRONT LINE MATE AND GET STUCK IN!1!!1"
Soldato
The answer is fairly simple. Respond to conventional attacks from non-nuclear states with conventional wars that we can easily win (this will never happen now as no non-nuclear armed country will attempt a serious invasion of a nuclear-armed state, just in case there IS a response with nukes [but it wouldn't be us]). If nuclear armed state sends the country up into a giant fireball, we respond in kind with the same - MAD.
You wouldn't use nukes as a first strike, that's not MAD.
Try telling @Roar87 that. He seems to think we should be striking first.
Ultimately it depends on us as a civilisation to be sensible enough to stop things creeping to nuclear war (with the nuclear threat there as an incentive to be sensible) and if we fail at that then its going to eventually come to conventional war with likely millions dying anyhow.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
I can't think of a single scenario that justifies firing nuclear weapons first.
It is kind of the whole point of nuclear weapons that it doesn't come to either using conventional military or firing first.
Are you suggesting Oppenheimer was likely to support a trite stick analogy in later life?
Frankly as the inevitable proliferation occurs any cold war MAD scenario becomes less viable, people states and humans need to start thinking shared defence, increasing numbers of nuclear capable groups is more probable a problem than fewer.
By the way, why would anyone think people always need an analogy about sticks when defence comes up I don't know. People get that we have fought for resources and threatened each other for a long time, times need to change!
I'm not being funny but you actually don't know what you're talking about, it's just not worth debating this
I think you are missing the position MissChief is debating from - its a valid perspective though not one IMO encompasses/acknowledges all aspects of what the doctrine is there for.
Russia storms France and Germany with thousands of tanks, occupies Western Europe, USA is in Political turmoil and has abandoned NATO allies, Russia starts amassing an invasion force in France, we have the option of using tactical nuclear weapons to strike the amassing force before they attack us. I mean that's off the top of my head.
indeed and that that is part of the reason why Western Europe was able to be defended for so many decades
Fanciful and straight from the pages of the latest Tom Clancy book. Not even based in reality.
I cannot envisage a 'normal' conventional, full blown war ever happening unless something very drastic happens, like a new ice age or continued famine in a developed country for years upon years. Even then, were more likely to try and help them instead of telling them 'ah that's a shame. Sending thoughts and prayers!' While they get increasingly desperate.
Now proliferate down and down around the world. India has a boarder dispute with Pakistan, an uprising in Spain's Basque region, you don't like your neighbours dog poo on your lawn.
Sorry the last one is stick analogy territory, but increased numbers of nuclear capable groups soon becomes untenable and proliferation has and is occurring.
- Status