Defence chief criticises Corbyn

[PeteMorris 10]

Instead of any tom dick and harry getting elected and eventually ending up in government, there would instead be people that are selected on the basis of their technological knowledge.

 

Sounds a far better system...On the face of it. But I'm sure there would be some problems with that too.

[ez8004 10]

Instead of any tom dick and harry getting elected and eventually ending up in government, there would instead be people that are selected on the basis of their technological knowledge.

 

The Chinese use such a system you describe and they are fast becoming the world's next superpower and largest economy. Just food for thought.

[glennpickard 10]

Bureaucrats or technocrats makes no difference. What the leadership needs is someone that can get things done, proven by experience. Who is not afraid to try different approaches, can balance a budget, & preferably someone without "Baggage" ie. favours to third parties all over the places.

[poppet2 13]

Flawed logic.

 

How do you know we wouldn't have been attacked had we not had them? And that in having them as we haven't been attacked, they were/are a deterrent, and therefore have served their purpose as expected?

 

IT didn't stop Argentina from attacking our Falkland Islands did it? Despite the fact the UK has nuclear weapons.

 

So I still say, re. Nuclear deterant if we use it first we're attacking,

If we use it last, its failed as NOT a deterrent.

Edited November 23, 2015 by poppet2

[999tigger 10]

IT didn't stop Argentina from attacking our Falkland Islands did it? Despite the fact the UK has nuclear weapons.

 

So I still say, re. Nuclear deterant if we use it first we're attacking,

If we use it last, its failed as NOT a deterrent.

 

Except you missed the middle but where having it and deterring people from attacking us, is the purpose.

[poppet2 13]

Except you missed the middle but where having it and deterring people from attacking us, is the purpose.

 

But it didn't stop Argentina attacking our colonies?

[Obelix 11]

IT didn't stop Argentina from attacking our Falkland Islands did it? Despite the fact the UK has nuclear weapons.

 

So I still say, re. Nuclear deterant if we use it first we're attacking,

If we use it last, its failed as NOT a deterrent.

 

Quite apart from the treaty of Tlatelolco, there was no way we would ever use a nuclear device against Argentina.

 

The nuclear deterrent is for use against OTHER nuclear states. Not against some tinpot dictator. Trying to say there is no deterrent because Argentina invaded some place 8000 miles off, is laughable.

 

We had a deterrent that was incredibly effective in the Falklands. It was called HMS Conqueror - it sank the Belgrano and the Argentine navy hid with pride in port for the rest of the war. Who needs a nuclear bomb when you have a 1927 vintage Mk8 torpedo...

Edited November 24, 2015 by Obelix

[999tigger 10]

But it didn't stop Argentina attacking our colonies?

 

Its principally a deterrent against other nuclear powers as its unlikely wed ever go nuclear against a non nuclear power. Nobody would have every expected the UK to use nuclear weapons for a simple military invasion of the Falklands.

[poppet2 13]

Quite apart from the treaty of Tlatelolco, there was no way we would ever use a nuclear device against Argentina.

 

The nuclear deterrent is for use against OTHER nuclear states. Not against some tinpot dictator.

 

Would you describe Sadam Hussain as being a tinpot dictator and wasn't he suppose to have nuclear weapons that could attack us in 45 minutes?

[Obelix 11]

Would you describe Sadam Hussain as being a tinpot dictator and wasn't he suppose to have nuclear weapons that could attack us in 45 minutes?

 

Can you recall him attacking us? I certainly cannot.

[runningman1 12]

Would you describe Sadam Hussain as being a tinpot dictator and wasn't he suppose to have nuclear weapons that could attack us in 45 minutes?

 

We knew he had no weapons, we probably wouldn't have attacked if he did.

 

With regards to your previous posts about the argies, they really didn't think we would defend the Falklands at all. Nuclear weapon or not, they didn't for one minute think they would a actually win a war with us.

 

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Afghanistan and Iraq would have millions more people living inside them had they been nuclear armed. Do you think Israel would still have its illegal blockade in place if Palestine had nuclear weapons?

[exxon 10]

We knew he had no weapons, we probably wouldn't have attacked if he did.

 

With regards to your previous posts about the argies, they really didn't think we would defend the Falklands at all. Nuclear weapon or not, they didn't for one minute think they would a actually win a war with us.

 

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Afghanistan and Iraq would have millions more people living inside them had they been nuclear armed. Do you think Israel would still have its illegal blockade in place if Palestine had nuclear weapons?

 

Do you even think Israel would exist if Palestine had nuclear weapons?