Guest Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Remind me again, why do we need a nuclear deterrent? Because we keep pretending we are still a Superpower, meddling in everyone's affairs, and getting their backs up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Quote Tony: "Meanwhile, more people are joining the call against like-for-like replacement of Trident. On Wednesday, General Sir Hugh Beach, General Lord Ramsbotham and Field Marshal Lord Bramall called the nuclear deterrent ‘anachronistic’ in a letter to the Times." They would say that - it's their job to safeguard the budgets of the conventional forces and spending on Nuclear deterrents, means scaling their budgets back. Quote Tony: "On Monday, Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent quoted the Royal United Services Institute which questions the need for a Continuous At Sea Deterrent in a world where the threats increasingly come from individuals and groups, not states". Doesn't matter where the threat comes from - if they catch us with all our deterrents in dock, we'll no longer have a deterrent and we're done for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Why is it, then, that almost every other country in Europe does not need a nuclear deterrent? Why are we more likely to be "taken a crack at" than anyone else in Europe, and what can we do to reduce the likelihood so that we don't need the deterrent either? They don't keep meddling in other countries affairs and trying to install democracy (which we don't have ourselves) where it suits at the time. Stop this & get out of Afghanistan - that would be a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Quote Tony: "On Monday, Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent quoted the Royal United Services Institute which questions the need for a Continuous At Sea Deterrent in a world where the threats increasingly come from individuals and groups, not states". Doesn't matter where the threat comes from - if they catch us with all our deterrents in dock, we'll no longer have a deterrent and we're done for. But you can't use a nuclear warhead against an individual, nor against a group. It can only be used to wipe out large areas. Ergo, against an individual or group, it is not a deterrent at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 Doesn't matter where the threat comes from - if they catch us with all our deterrents in dock, we'll no longer have a deterrent and we're done for. Who are "they"? Nuclear weapons did not deter the 7/7 bombers. They didn't even deter Argentina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 We need a Nuclear program so when Armageddon is knocking on the door the US don't have to go it alone. The UK is the front man for US aggression, they won't feel as bad about when we drop one to every 200 of theirs. We need them to be the respectable face while wiping out half the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 We need a Nuclear program so when Armageddon is knocking on the door the US don't have to go it alone. The UK is the front man for US aggression, they won't feel as bad about when we drop one to every 200 of theirs. We need them to be the respectable face while wiping out half the planet. Britain the front man for US aggression as you call it? What's the British casualty rate in Afganistan compared to the US? How many British casualties in Iraq compared to American? And you call Britain a "front man" The British army left Iraq long ago and they are now pulling out of Helmand province where the heaviest fighting is in Afghanistan and letting the US take over Front Man! that's a new one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Britain the front man for US aggression as you call it? What's the British casualty rate in Afganistan compared to the US? How many British casualties in Iraq compared to American? And you call Britain a "front man" The British army left Iraq long ago and they are now pulling out of Helmand province where the heaviest fighting is in Afghanistan and letting the US take over Front Man! that's a new one You confuse me with meaning leading from the front, when I in fact mean using us to deflect the finger pointing at The US for their agressive nature. After all the war must be legit or why else would the Brits be on board ? It was the US that was bombed for US policies but hey its an attack on the western way of life over night, only we were the only ones daft enough to get into bed with them because of our trade links to the US (wonder what arm twisting went on behind closed doors ?). Its strange how the rest of the west did not entertain the idea of lock n load, may be its because they are not in your pocket as much as us ? France stuck the rods up to Bush and boy did the anti French sentiments start to roll out of the US for having the De Gaul not to get involved. You can mock and belittle us as not doing anything but 1 British life was too much for YOUR wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 You confuse me with meaning leading from the front, when I in fact mean using us to deflect the finger pointing at The US for their agressive nature. After all the war must be legit or why else would the Brits be on board ? It was the US that was bombed for US policies but hey its an attack on the western way of life over night, only we were the only ones daft enough to get into bed with them because of our trade links to the US (wonder what arm twisting went on behind closed doors ?). Its strange how the rest of the west did not entertain the idea of lock n load, may be its because they are not in your pocket as much as us ? France stuck the rods up to Bush and boy did the anti French sentiments start to roll out of the US for having the De Gaul not to get involved. You can mock and belittle us as not doing anything but 1 British life was too much for YOUR wars. So 7/7 never happened eh? There were no US troops occupying Muslim countries prior to 9/11. The bombing was an act against US policy of supporting Israel. I'm not mocking or belittling Britain. I lived there before you were even born I just find it ridiculous that you think because Britain was involved the war must have been "legit" Is Britain now the supreme nation on deciding what war is legit and not legit As for French support that's irrelevent. They probably didnt support you in the Falklands war either As a US taxpayer I would like nothing better than to see the US pull out of Iraq and Afganistan as soon as possiblle and at the same time disband NATO since there is no sense or justification in it being in existence anymore and when little Euro mini wars break out such as in Kosovo and Bosnia no call or justification for American troops and money to be spent helping sort out the little problems your side of the globe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 But you can't use a nuclear warhead against an individual, nor against a group. It can only be used to wipe out large areas. Ergo, against an individual or group, it is not a deterrent at all. Quite correct, but you're assuming that we may only be attacked by a small group or an individual and you could be wrong. We still need a nuclear deterrent in case of attack by another nuclear power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.