eh? there was a soviet threat for decades, the whole reason the cold war didn't spill over into WW3 was because of nukes
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
eh? there was a soviet threat for decades, the whole reason the cold war didn't spill over into WW3 was because of nukes
The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that Russia even if it did decide to expand militarily into some of Europe wouldn't amass an invasion force looking at the UK - if it comes to Russia building up forces to attack us and first strike is actually on the table then the nuclear deterrent has failed.
EDIT: The fact is if Russia ever did decide to go all out against Europe there is little reason for them to actually invade us in that scenario we'd likely be on the receiving end of several dozen nukes and a barrage of long range missiles and left to mop our wounds while they got on with whatever they wanted to do - we aren't really of much consequence to them - our nuclear deterrent is potentially what might stop that from happening. (This is why our legacy means we need a much stronger defensive capability than normal for a nation like ours). It isn't by accident that they continue to probe our borders with long range bombers, etc. doesn't mean they have any intention of carrying that out but its certainly a card they are keeping in the stack.
I'm sure those exact words were said early in the last century too. (Obviously not Tom Clancy)
Very true. And while the soviet threat had been escalating recently again, not even Putin is stupid/crazy enough to invade Western Europe.
You should stop talking about stuff you don't know anything about now, you're just an embarrassment. It's fine if you don't understand basic analogies but to keep beating that horse is hilarious.
I bet it would blow your tiny mind if I told you that we may one day begin to run scarce on resources and that may trigger huge political tensions.
Are you more expert on the potential issues of global nuclear proliferation because you observed a tramp shaking a stick?
You've called me stupid what next Mutually Assured Forum Bans?
indeed he's not, there are NATO members that would perhaps be under greater threat though if nukes didn't exist (not that I think nuclear weapons are a good thing to exist in the grand scheme of things - it would probably be better in the long run if no one had them)
Wars will always happen that's part of our nature. The armed forces need to adapt regularly to face that threat. So funding for them must always be decent.
Labour have promised to spend on defence, if you remember the Tories actually scrapped a few projects such as navy carriers due to finances.
It would be unwise for a nation to launch nukes against us, if corbyn does not strike back our allies would.
Labour also promised to renew Trident.
There are other areas of defence spending too, cyber warfare, space weapons , nano technology.
We need to increase spending on these and other promising new technologies.
Labour have promised to spend which is important.
It's not all about nukes when it comes to defence.
Labour have promised to spend on defence, if you remember the Tories actually scrapped a few projects such as navy carriers due to finances.
It would be unwise for a nation to launch nukes against us, if corbyn does not strike back our allies would.
Labour also promised to renew Trident.
There are other areas of defence spending too, cyber warfare, space weapons , nano technology.
We need to increase spending on these and other promising new technologies.
Labour have promised to spend which is important.
It's not all about nukes when it comes to defence.
Russia has 15,000 main battle tanks, do you think they maintain them because they've got tonnes of money floating about?
For some comparison we have a couple of hundred, as does everyone in Europe
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Still not a valid scenario imho.
Can we really rely on our allies to have our backs in times of a serious threat though? many might be reluctant to put their country on the line for the sake of the UK.
Very true to the rest - its pretty crazy what has happened with the carriers and while we are likely to get away with it in the current climate still a silly chance to take.
The problem for Russia is that once they've extended their supply lines over 1000 miles and engaging nation's sovereign armies proper they are at a disadvantage. While they've been on a bit of a sneaky upgrade program lately with regard to tanks a large chunk of those numbers are older tanks which need those numbers to engage some of the more modern Western designs and equipment.
The reason for maintaining our nuclear deterrent is going to be as protection against some of the less likely but far from impossible scenarios like the inevitable geopolitical jostling in the event of the US having to withdraw from world affairs should they have to deal with one of the impending natural disasters (the "big one", Yellowstone, wildfire, etc.) should it happen at the upper end of the scale or the turmoil that would follow a potential catastrophic financial collapse of a mainstay European country or Europe itself or a country like Russia and so on.
Last edited:
For the foreseeable future (two terms of corbyn hypothetically) yes they should back us up.
We won't loose all our nuclear allies in the near future, if were attacked it is more or less a attack on them too.
Russia might be the only nation our allies might not strike but why would Russia strike us? What would they gain?
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,073
Nukes are a deterrent, in this case the nukes have already failed to stop a conventional war but are still deterring against Russia nuking the west....Your solution would be to nuke allied countries in western europe to wipe out the Russian occupying forces? in the process killing all the civilian populations and any remaining allied military that could form a resistance to the occupation and guarantee that Russia would respond with an all out nuclear strike against the UK?
Bearing in mind that without the USA we don't have enough warheads to finish the job.
You have more confidence in them than I do - I've found that most countries don't really like the UK much but tend to act civilly towards us because we are still one of the more powerful nations. Depending on scenario, albeit as you say its not the most likely situation we might face, I think many would be a lot less inclined to put their country on the line in defence of us.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,073
Russia is a huge country so they would need a lot of tanks to cover that and modern conventional wars are all about air power now and missile strikes not tank warfare, you couldn't for example replicate blitzkrieg now without first destroying all air defences and enemy aircraft, tanks would be too vulnerable
Depends on the enemy, if it is a rogue nation then they will help else they may be next.
You have no idea how many the UK has.
It is a defensive tool. Invade our land you get it back. You are describing it being used as an offensive tool. Conventional forces fulfill this. If we invaded Russia we would expect to be nuked. If they put boots on our land they would get it.
Modern nukes (though some countries keep the big old dirty stuff as backup - but the UK doesn't) tend to be warheads in the 100s of KT range rather than the older MT devices - the fallout tends to be much more contained and a good bit less of the killing everyone that is the popular emotional rhetoric to those weapons - not to be dismissive of the fact they are still very nasty stuff.
True enough.
- Status