GLASGOWOODS Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Let's get rid. Given the position in the world with so many active nuclear states that can't happen overnight though - politically we're not ready. Maybe time to look at the LibDem's previous proposals for a cheaper non-trident alternative and the eventual removal of these appalling weapons from our islands. Can't happen soon enough for me. What proposals would they be? Waving celery sticks at aggressors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 In a perfect world we wouldn't need it. Look what happened to Ukraine after they disposed of all their nuclear weapons. What should we use against a country like Russia in the event of a war, harsh words? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that IF Russia suddenly decided to attack the UK we would actually use nukes against them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that IF Russia suddenly decided to attack the UK we would actually use nukes against them? What would you do if you was in charge of a sub carrying nukes and you learned that your family, friends and country had been destroyed by Russia? Would you surrender or fire the nukes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 What proposals would they be? Waving celery sticks at aggressors? Just as effective. When we get to the point where we have to overtly threaten Russia with nukes (who else are we trying to deter) then our world is days or weeks away from not being worth living in. At least you could eat the celery, if you like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm not talking about the Falklands...that was merely an example.....I don't want us to have to 'borrow' stuff...Do you? Well actually the Falklands ARE a perfect example. The main argument for having nukes is that it prevents us being attacked. Yet despite us having nukes the argies still attacked us and we didnt use nukes against them. So what IS the point of them, REALLY?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWOODS Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that IF Russia suddenly decided to attack the UK we would actually use nukes against them? If they nuke us, then our Nige would certainly order retaliation. ---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 20:51 ---------- Well actually the Falklands ARE a perfect example. The main argument for having nukes is that it prevents us being attacked. Yet despite us having nukes the argies still attacked us and we didnt use nukes against them. So what IS the point of them, REALLY?? Ridiculous analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Well actually the Falklands ARE a perfect example. The main argument for having nukes is that it prevents us being attacked. Yet despite us having nukes the argies still attacked us and we didnt use nukes against them. So what IS the point of them, REALLY?? Actually the Falklands is an interesting example. Argentina attacked the Falklands because they didn't believe that we'd have the will power to fight for them, they believed that 1981 the defence cuts were a signal of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Ridiculous analogy. Is it? Why? ---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 21:21 ---------- Actually the Falklands is an interesting example. Argentina attacked the Falklands because they didn't believe that we'd have the will power to fight for them, they believed that 1981 the defence cuts were a signal of this. And we showed them that when push came to shove our "deterrent" was no deterrent. So again the question has to be asked, what use is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 And we showed them that when push came to shove our "deterrent" was no deterrent. So again the question has to be asked, what use is it? You are quite right, the deterrent of defence cuts and withdrawing forces from the South Atlantic proved a very poor deterrence against Argentina in reference to the Falklands. We do seem to have learned our lesson though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWOODS Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Is it? Why? ---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 21:21 ---------- And we showed them that when push came to shove our "deterrent" was no deterrent. So again the question has to be asked, what use is it? Ok maybe I was a bit harsh there.(apology) In the eyes of the world nuking the Argies would look pretty bad, (conventional force not so bad). However, nuking in retaliation to countries such as Russia, China, USA:hihi: North Korea, Iran would be acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now