Nuclear Deterrent

[unbeliever 10]

It's nothing to do with trust, it's all to do with cost.

 

(We spend less than required as a NATO member, as does every country except the US).

That's not true. The UK and France both meet the NATO spending target.

 

The ND has never been a deterrent to a land invasion and never will be. It's a deterrent to a preemptive nuclear strike, which is why it's sea based and not land based.

 

That's not true. Nor does it make any sense.

The west never had the conventional firepower in western europe to defend it against the soviet union. The defence plans of both the US and the UK for western europe involved the deployment of nukes even if the soviets did not (which they would have).

 

It's at sea so that it cannot be destroyed by a surprise nuking. It is second strike capable. It doesn't follow that it exists purely as a second strike weapon.

[Cyclone 10]

You're entitled to an opinion of course.

[runningman1 12]

You're entitled to an opinion of course.

 

He has used facts to prove you wrong and you flippantly reply "you're entitled to an opinion", great debating!

[foxy lady 10]

You're entitled to an opinion of course.

 

And he was correct of course.

 

---------- Post added 01-08-2016 at 13:26 ----------

 

Fitting any of those after you have been burgled is sort of serving gravy after you are done eating.

It might work next time, but you already lost your possessions.

Might seem sexist to do culinary comparison but you clearly don't understand deterrence.

 

I fully understand deterence. Do you understand irony?

[unbeliever 10]

You're entitled to an opinion of course.

 

You seem to be labouring under the impression that a nuclear exchange is all or nothing. This is hollywood's fault I suppose.

It is if course very possible that it would have escalated to that, but a limited exchange with sub-megatonne "tactical" nukes confined to Europe was also quite possible. Trident was capable of and likely would have taken part in such an exchange.

[Cyclone 10]

And he was correct of course.

 

Ironically your support is the strongest indication that he's wrong.

 

---------- Post added 01-08-2016 at 13:45 ----------

 

You seem to be labouring under the impression that a nuclear exchange is all or nothing. This is hollywood's fault I suppose.

It is if course very possible that it would have escalated to that, but a limited exchange with sub-megatonne "tactical" nukes confined to Europe was also quite possible. Trident was capable of and likely would have taken part in such an exchange.

 

I'm fully aware of the capabilities of tactical nuclear weapons thanks. It's highly unlikely that a ballistic missile would be employed to deliver such devices though.

[foxy lady 10]

Ironically your support is the strongest indication that he's wrong.

 

Actually disagreeing with you is the biggest indication that he's right. :hihi:

[Cyclone 10]

Since you commonly disagree with me, it makes sense that you'd think that. The evidence from previous threads would suggest the opposite though.

In this case though, there isn't a right or wrong, there are just opinions about whether we should renew trident or not.

[alchemist 37]

You really don't get it do you? Why do we lock folk up for murder? It isn't going to bring back the person they murdered. We lock them up so folk thinking of committing a murder are detered from doing it.

 

So if the folk who are thinking of firing missiles at us know that their future would last 4 minutes, they would think twice about launching. But of course if you had an idiot like Corbyn as PM the deterent doesn't work because everyone knows he won't push the button. Which is why sane people won't vote for him as PM. And why you will.

 

But locking up people for murder obviously DOESNT work as there are lots of people in prison for murder. There is NO proof that having nukes acts as a deterrent as there is no proof that a nation would have actually used them in the first place

[Phanerothyme 12]

We god naff all help from our NATO allies with the Falklands.

 

In spite of Polaris (it may have been trident in 82, can't remember), the Agrentines were not deterred? Why not?

 

But the successful campaign in the Falklands would have had a much more uncertain outcome, had it not been for the help the UK received from its NATO allies (and Good Old General Pinochet). So I don't think its fair to characterise the help of the French and the US as "naff all".

[unbeliever 10]

 

I'm fully aware of the capabilities of tactical nuclear weapons thanks. It's highly unlikely that a ballistic missile would be employed to deliver such devices though.

 

How on earth did you work that out.

That's exactly what you would employ to deliver such devices.

You can also launch them from planes of course, but it's rather harder to sneak up on somebody in a plane, and they can't sit under water undetected for months.

[truman 10]

How on earth did you work that out.

That's exactly what you would employ to deliver such devices.

You can also launch them from planes of course, but it's rather harder to sneak up on somebody in a plane, and they can't sit under water undetected for months.

 

Are you saying you'd use a ballistic missile for a tactical nuke?