Jump to content

Our Nuclear Deterrent?

Recommended Posts

And yet you joined the discussion and did exactly that. :thumbsup:

 

Perhaps you shouldn't have been so keen to jump in with post #22 to score some points in support of Revel, get it all wrong and then spend 4 pages trying to claim that you were right.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2017 at 08:57 ----------

 

 

Can you prove that your stick isn't working?

 

I have a door lock that keeps out burglars. I haven't been burgled. According to the same logic, I should dispose of my door locks.

 

So the argument works both ways for nuclear. As no one since WW2 has been attacked by a nuclear strike whether they did or didn't have nukes we can conclude that nukes offer no more protection for nuclear attacks than not having them. We've got nearly 70 years of data to show that.

 

And to add, you probably could get rid of your door locks and not be burgled. You aren't being not burgled because of door locks. I routinely forget to lock my doors (small child and sleep deprivation are to blame here) and I've not been burgled. Yet when I did lock my doors in a different house I was burgled. Proves nothing either way. Exactly the same as nuclear. If we don't have proof to continue something that costs around 10% of our GDP to refresh and maintain (without taking into account usage costs either!) then if the same figures were applied to a standard house we'd be looking at door locks costing £2400 (based on average UK salary). Would you pay £2400 for door locks with no proof they reduced the risk of burglary?

Edited by sgtkate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, it's extremely simple logic that ignores the multiple alliances and points of conflicts between the many nations involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the UK has to keep its independent nuclear deterrent, as does France, Israel etc. They are deterrents designed to keep other nations from being reckless. NK comes to mind, although Russia is not forgotten.

 

As NATO members equipped with Ballistic missiles, the US and the UK should be consulting before firing. I have no problem with this arrangement. The "One for all and all for one" element is the basis of NATO and the main reason why Putin & Co want to eliminate it.

 

"You attack one of us and you attack all of us" is what keeps the dictators at bay. Of course the smaller "Non strategic" NATO nations benefit strongly from this philosophy, but for the others it was designed to keep democracies from falling and being absorbed by dictatorships

 

As of now, I see the only use of these weapons by NATO, would be as a retaliatory strike for the use of nuclear weapons against one or more NATO members. But never the less these weapons have always been intended as a weapon of last resort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the UK has to keep its independent nuclear deterrent, as does France, Israel etc. They are deterrents designed to keep other nations from being reckless. NK comes to mind, although Russia is not forgotten.

 

We could just bluff it which is what I suspect Israel are already doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I would hate to test the theory and be proved wrong. I was always under the impression that Iran wanted a nuclear weapon because the Israelis have one !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I would hate to test the theory and be proved wrong. I was always under the impression that Iran wanted a nuclear weapon because the Israelis have one !

 

But that is what a bluff is until the time is up. There was never any evidence provided that Iran actually wanted one in the first place, and according to them they were only pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. According to some, Israel possesses hundreds so what would a few by Iran accomplish anyway to make Israel so spooked at the idea. Its a bit like N.Korea, they may have a few dodgy ones but must realise that they face total annihilation if they ever used one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so who owns "our" trident missiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As they are leased from the USA they do but the UK retain full independence in operating and using them.

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

 

just remember the nukes on our aircraft were guarded by the US, Always wondered then how indepent they were. Although the up side then was that they had the best bar on camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all need to support non proliferation of nuclear weapons, and yes support a reduction in the weapons that the 8 or 9 countries who now possess them.

 

Remember, they may be "Dodgy" now, but with continuous testing and new techniques/materials, they may eventually get the ability to put one in the middle of Potters Bar !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.