it's a deterrent. What happens if someone does actual launch one. They want a defence. However having nukes makes the chance of anyone launching one, so utterly small. It does not in any way shape of form negate the argument.
Replacing The Trident Defence System
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
it's a deterrent. What happens if someone does actual launch one. They want a defence. However having nukes makes the chance of anyone launching one, so utterly small. It does not in any way shape of form negate the argument.
i agree its all lovely on paper cancelling each other out -but we just decided that we are at war for the essentials of life like water, fuel and room to grow food not some crappy political reason or ideology. Its a simple war of atriction (cantspell )
anyway im starving - i have a diff opinion in their worth.
anyway im starving - i have a diff opinion in their worth.
What do you think the cold war would have been called if nuclear weapons didn't exist?
ww3
Yeah that was sort of my point...
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
No, it wont result in nuclear war. Because the cost is too high. But having them goes some way to helping avoid it resulting in conventional war.
I know, but he also wont post it as then he would have to agree nukes are a good deterrent so I helped him out.
NB. lets not forget u.s has already used nuclear weapon x2.
Furthermore nukes also not just about deterence.Deterence could be interchanged with freedom to act without consequence against states without nukes or nuke capable allies. Countries in the Nuc Prolif treaty are all against others gaining nukes. Fair enough belong to NPT is to decrease no. of nukes etc...but u.s./russia,uk etc. have so many they can say" ....ah in 10 years we will cut our number by 20%,next 20 years by 50%.."
They will still be nuclear capable. Also not forgetting Pak and India who are not in NPT.
Furthermore nukes also not just about deterence.Deterence could be interchanged with freedom to act without consequence against states without nukes or nuke capable allies. Countries in the Nuc Prolif treaty are all against others gaining nukes. Fair enough belong to NPT is to decrease no. of nukes etc...but u.s./russia,uk etc. have so many they can say" ....ah in 10 years we will cut our number by 20%,next 20 years by 50%.."
They will still be nuclear capable. Also not forgetting Pak and India who are not in NPT.
Yes we should keep it, it is an effective deterrent, it should remain on the subs, for the reason no one know where they are, can not be targeted etc.
But the other reason is our nuclear capability grants us a permanent seat on the UN Security council, if we were to sacrifice our nuclear deterrent we might as well downsize the rest of our armed forces as we would not have any clout in the world.
Kimbie
But the other reason is our nuclear capability grants us a permanent seat on the UN Security council, if we were to sacrifice our nuclear deterrent we might as well downsize the rest of our armed forces as we would not have any clout in the world.
Kimbie
Lets not forget that they used them twice because they were the only ones with them. They wouldn't of used them if Japan could have retaliated.
The point being that if Japan had nuclear capabilities at the end of WW2 and America knew about it then America wouldn't of nuked them, and vice-versa.
Supporting the conclusion that MAD works and it's a deterrent.
Which is my intent.
The point of America working on defence of a nuclear strike is to re-dress the balance in their favour, they can happily threaten a nuclear strike without reprisal,...... until someone builds the same defence and so-on and so-forth.
My biggest worry is when a country gains nuclear weapons and their leader is happy to sacrifice him/herself and country either through madness or religion. Nuclear weapons only work as a deterrent whilst the otherside don't want to be blown to smithereens, as soon as they don't care it's game over.
Not if they had of known that america would respond.
Luckily, men in power love life. Terrorist leaders and dictators don't want to die any more than the rest of us.
I digress. Japan would have used them regardless if America retailiated. Hence them crashing planes into u.s. ship, for the emperor etc. The u.s. reason for using them was attack on mainland Japan would be to costly in lives(also good chance to test out new toys). If we ever have to use trident we are pretty much screwed, as for a deterrent,why not something more afford able. I imagine their are some excellent chemical/biological weapons available. With abit of luck technolgy will make this problem reduntant.
I disagree too, if the Japs had an unknown ability to retaliate at that point they would have done anything. I dont think its a good argument to use.
just curious how many Terrorist leaders and dictators do you know to make that statement Acid?
And "any more that the rest" of us like a suicide bomber or an ordered Kamikaze pilot ?
anyway i would happily see them scrapped, deterrent my ass. Id rather see the money invested into society and enlightenment. If other civilised countries like Germany Italy Spain Belgium Holland Sweden Finland Denmark can manage, pretty sure we can too.
THE UK IS NOT A BIG FISH ANY MORE GET USED TO IT WE ARE A POOR LITTLE ISLAND WITH A BIG MOUTH
just curious how many Terrorist leaders and dictators do you know to make that statement Acid?
And "any more that the rest" of us like a suicide bomber or an ordered Kamikaze pilot ?
anyway i would happily see them scrapped, deterrent my ass. Id rather see the money invested into society and enlightenment. If other civilised countries like Germany Italy Spain Belgium Holland Sweden Finland Denmark can manage, pretty sure we can too.
THE UK IS NOT A BIG FISH ANY MORE GET USED TO IT WE ARE A POOR LITTLE ISLAND WITH A BIG MOUTH