The cruise missiles would have to be sea based as you can't use them on land (legal reasons)
That's a major issue.
What are the legal reasons please, I haven't come across this in my studies.
The cruise missiles would have to be sea based as you can't use them on land (legal reasons)
That's a major issue.
Our country simply does not have the ability to go toe to toe with a country like China, should they turn nasty, in a conventional military theatre.
You seem to be totally ignoring there defence and that people aren't going to attack us in the first place if we have them.
You seem to be imagining that Al Qaeda will care whether we have nuclear weapons if they obtain one and detonate it in London, they won't give a damn because know we're likely not insane enough to nuke another country in retaliation and if we are it'll just score them a biggest PR victory ever as we kill tens of thousands of muslims...
Now maybe a rogue state makes it a little more plausible (though I have to question which rogue state we're imagining obtaining nuclear weapons then choose to attack us rather than Russia or the US? Surely not having a totally stupid foreign policy guards against that?) but you still have to question whether we'd really nuke north korea or burma (as random examples) in retaliation.
.
You seem to be imagining that Al Qaeda will care whether we have nuclear weapons if they obtain one and detonate it in London, they won't give a damn because know we're likely not insane enough to nuke another country in retaliation and if we are it'll just score them a biggest PR victory ever as we kill tens of thousands of muslims...
..
Where did I say al qaeda, Again you are thinking of present day, you have no idea how the world will look in 10-20 years when these things will roll of the production line. or 50 years out which will be in their service life.z
A decent foreign policy does not save us from anything.
Again the fact we have nukes, means people wont attack us in the first place. it's a bit of a catch22, but it is something you should be able to understand.
Its more than just about nuclear weapons...
Our country simply does not have the ability to go toe to toe with a country like China, should they turn nasty, in a conventional military theatre. If you look back at history or at human nature itself you would never say that could never happen. Infact we are blessed in that we live in a period of relative stability and calm, as resources become diminished this world is likely to come a much less stable place.
China (or whoever) is much less likely to mess with us if they know we have the capability to hurt them significantly back even tho its unlikely we would use them they aren't going to chance it.
The day we no longer need a police force then maybe we can start thinking of nuclear disarmament.
What are the legal reasons please, I haven't come across this in my studies.
NATO Double-Track Decision?hmm might just be the US/old soviet states, not sure if we're bound by it.
NATO Double-Track Decision?
Either way, land based = inflexible. Especially in a tiny country like ours.
Indeed, I said this earlier.obviously you couldn't use land based cruise missiles from Britain they don't have the range (nor the survivability)...
But I don't think you could hit every where on earth in a reasonable time frame with only sea based cruise missiles.
Plus they are relatively easy to shoot down compared to the practically impossible MIRVs.
Not something you can afford with your nuclear deterrent.