Could Corbyn sue Cameron for slander after todays speech

[JFKvsNixon]

By that logic, Iraq should have had nuclear weapons. Then the illegal invasion would never have happened and 144,000 Iraqi civilians would still be alive.

 

Oh wait, wasn't the whole point of the invasion ostensibly based on the idea that Iraq already had Weapons of Mass Destruction in its possession?

 

Not much of a deterrent was it? Almost as if the Americans knew that the WMDs were fictitious all along.

 

Do you believe that if Iraq had nuclear weapons that could be reliably delivered to the USA, the USA would have invaded Iraq?

[Berberis]

Oh wait, wasn't the whole point of the invasion ostensibly based on the idea that Iraq already had Weapons of Mass Destruction in its possession?

 

weapon of mass destruction

a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon able to cause widespread devastation and loss of life.

 

There is no mention of delivery.

 

To compare, our WMD's have a range of 7,500 miles and are at sea, in subs. None of our enemies know where they are, so could never neutralise them.

[unbeliever]

The deterrence is not to prevent conventional war. It's to prevent nuclear war.

 

I'm curious to know which aggressors would be looking to fight conventional war in the British Isles. Can you honestly envisage this? Seriously? Who?

 

During the cold war, the deterrence was to prevent conventional war.

The conventional capability of the USSR always exceeded that of western forces in Europe by a large margin.

That's not to say that we would immediately have nuked Moscow. There's a reason we've always bought tactical nuclear weapons.

The USSR had tactical nukes as well. There was a legitimate possibility of a limited nuclear war breaking out involving exclusively or primarily tactical nukes.

 

What you do is nuke your enemy's ability to fight back before rolling in the tanks.

[Berberis]

On the subject of Nuclear weapons. It's better to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.

[Vague_Boy]

What you do is nuke your enemy's ability to fight back before rolling in the tanks.

 

And of course, the same bright idea doesn't occur to them. Nor do they respond in kind.

 

And if they have the temerity to do so, you (of course) don't respond. Escalation, what's that?

 

Once communications break down (Google EMP) who knows for sure what's going on? The temptation in such a chaotic situation might be to fire first in case of a preemptive attack by the other side.

 

In the early 80s the USSR thought such a preemptive strike by the Americans was a possibility even in peace time, hence Operation RYAN.

 

And even if there were a limited nuclear war, have you considered the likely effects?

 

India-Pakistan nuclear war could 'end human civilisation'

 

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would set off a global famine that could kill two billion people and effectively end human civilization, a study said Tuesday.

 

Even if limited in scope, a conflict with nuclear weapons would wreak havoc in the atmosphere and devastate crop yields, with the effects multiplied as global food markets went into turmoil, the report said.

 

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility released an initial peer-reviewed study in April 2012 that predicted a nuclear famine could kill more than a billion people.

 

In a second edition, the groups said they widely underestimated the impact in China and calculated that the world's most populous country would face severe food insecurity.

 

LINK

 

As the opening narration in Threads says: "the connections that make society strong also make it vulnerable". We might not be directly affected by blast and fallout in such a conflict but if the global food chain started to break down, we'd all be affected.

[Anna B]

During the cold war, the deterrence was to prevent conventional war.

The conventional capability of the USSR always exceeded that of western forces in Europe by a large margin.

That's not to say that we would immediately have nuked Moscow. There's a reason we've always bought tactical nuclear weapons.

The USSR had tactical nukes as well. There was a legitimate possibility of a limited nuclear war breaking out involving exclusively or primarily tactical nukes.

 

What you do is nuke your enemy's ability to fight back before rolling in the tanks.

 

There is no such thing as a 'limited nuclear war.'

 

For a start you haven't taken into account the various treaties and alliances that have been set up, nor could the rest of the world avoid the nuclear fallout which would travel round the world, or the nuclear winter which may well follow, causing famine and hunger to the survivors.

 

In the nineteenth century, the eruption of 1 volcano, Krakatoa, blocked the sun's rays sufficiently to lead to poor harvests, hunger and famine in many places round the world; and, big as it was, it was nothing compared to a nuclear blast.

 

Thinking the world could survive a nuclear war is the start of a very dangerous slippery slope. A few unfortunates might survive in the short term, but they will have been blasted back to the stoneage.

[mossdog]

There is no such thing as a 'limited nuclear war.'

 

For a start you haven't taken into account the various treaties and alliances that have been set up, nor could the rest of the world avoid the nuclear fallout which would travel round the world, or the nuclear winter which may well follow, causing famine and hunger to the survivors.

 

In the nineteenth century, the eruption of 1 volcano, Krakatoa, blocked the sun's rays sufficiently to lead to poor harvests, hunger and famine in many places round the world; and, big as it was, it was nothing compared to a nuclear blast.

 

Thinking the world could survive a nuclear war is the start of a very dangerous slippery slope. A few unfortunates might survive in the short term, but they will have been blasted back to the stoneage.

..........don't think North Korea will be taking too much notice of that!

[unbeliever]

There is no such thing as a 'limited nuclear war.'

 

For a start you haven't taken into account the various treaties and alliances that have been set up, nor could the rest of the world avoid the nuclear fallout which would travel round the world, or the nuclear winter which may well follow, causing famine and hunger to the survivors.

 

In the nineteenth century, the eruption of 1 volcano, Krakatoa, blocked the sun's rays sufficiently to lead to poor harvests, hunger and famine in many places round the world; and, big as it was, it was nothing compared to a nuclear blast.

 

Thinking the world could survive a nuclear war is the start of a very dangerous slippery slope. A few unfortunates might survive in the short term, but they will have been blasted back to the stoneage.

 

 

Whether it's good to think it or not, it's probably true.

 

Technically, we already had a limited nuclear war between the US and Japan.

 

The detonation of thousands of multi-megatonne nuclear weapons might have the effect you're talking about, but obviously 2 multi-kilotonne nuclear weapons don't.

 

A modern limited nuclear war might be somewhere in between.

Not the end of the world, but the worst war mankind has ever seen.

 

Much would depend on escalation. Not all European wars escalate to targeting civilian population centres. Even WWII took a while to escalate to that point.

Edited October 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[999tigger]

You could have a limited nuclear war , but it depends on who it involves and the reaction of the other party. Its limited in terms of the weapons used.

 

It might affect everyone to some degree, but its going to affect those directly involved far more. Nobody thinks you can survive a full nuclear war.

[Vague_Boy]

You could have a limited nuclear war....

 

Science says not:

 

India-Pakistan nuclear war could 'end human civilisation'

 

Even limited nuclear exchange would devastate food production around the world, accordingt to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War .

 

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would set off a global famine that could kill two billion people and effectively end human civilization, a study said Tuesday.

 

Even if limited in scope, a conflict with nuclear weapons would wreak havoc in the atmosphere and devastate crop yields, with the effects multiplied as global food markets went into turmoil, the report said.

 

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility released an initial peer-reviewed study in April 2012 that predicted a nuclear famine could kill more than a billion people.

 

In a second edition, the groups said they widely underestimated the impact in China and calculated that the world's most populous country would face severe food insecurity.

 

LINK

 

 

...but it depends on who it involves and the reaction of the other party.

 

The reaction of the other party? To being nuked?

 

Perhaps you're too young to remember the OTT blind patriotism this country went through during the Falklands War?

 

If Argentina had nuked a few British cities, can you guess what the reaction would have been.

 

HINT: It wouldn't have been to devise a solutions package over tea and cucumber sandwiches.