I really am not sure on Trident. It needs a proper debate. Will it really stop Putin chipping away at Ukraine and the Baltic countries? Maybe we might be better off with something we could actually use. Consider Putin expands a new USSR and takes over the whole of Scandinavia and the his troops land in Scotland . Are we going to nuke Moscow and thereby inevitably destroy the human race? There was a saying back in the 1960's " better red than dead". I really am not sure.
Britain needs some sort of defence Paul. As you point out, the resurgence of the USSR, is a cause for concern. I know the Scottish government are not to happy about the siting of our nuclear subs at Faslane. Something our government should consider by building a new submarine base south of the border. (I'm sure wee Jimmy Krankie, would still want protecting though,,, and watch her squirm and plead about the loss of Scot's jobs etc , should the government decide to build a new base in England/ Wales)
Scotland is not the point John. I could and should have said Newcastle. The point is that whilst the appropriately called M A D policy (mutually assured destruction) has indeed worked during the Cold War does it still apply now? Note that I am asking a question, not making a statement because I really do not know. In a "soft" attack by Putin nuclear weapons might be of as much use as the Maginot Line was in WW2 where the Germans just either went round it or flew over it. The money spent on Trident will inevitably mean less is spent on conventional weapons which we could use without ending civilisation as we know it. Corbyn if in power (no don't laugh) has said honestly that he would not press the button. Do you really think that Cameron or his successor would actually push the button? Gawd Strewth he could not bring himself to invoke Article 50 when he promised he would do the day after the referendum if Brexit won. Putin is manic enough to call our bluff knowing full well that it would never happen. I just know that the Tories pushing it though when Labour is in disarray is not conducive to an informed debate.
Dunno Paul, would the world be a safer place without nuclear deterrents? knowing which countries have them, I think we should at least for the time being, retain them. If Putin's not mad enough to press the button, I'm sure there's a certain few in North Korea and Iran, absolutely willing to push it and sod the consequences. If that happened, how would the rest of the world respond? Would China defend North Korea, by threatening to unleash their arsenal on the world? If Iran nuked Israel, would the USA leap to Israel's defence and would Putin leap to the defence of Iran? Where would the UK stand if faced with a Russian invasion force? (where would the world stand? No good asking the EU to defend us with their pitchforks (although the French are rather good at blockading ports with their fishing fleet) I'm sure there is a point in mentioning Scotland too. As I have said, should our government move the Faslane base elsewhere, I'm sure Sturgeon (for all her posturing and anti nuclear rhetoric) would still expect the rest of the UK to defend Scotland, and I'm sure she'd be very worried about the loss of jobs to the local community. (wouldn't do the SNP much good come the next election)
All this talk of Russia, North Korea, China ETC is one thing, but seriously if anybody is a treat the the world, its American and their gung ho attitude to every thing.
If a rogue state such as North Korea used nuclear weapons the world might, just might, get away without much further escalation, providing the USA could respond quickly and decisively with conventional High Explosive cruise missiles aimed at the North Korean missile bases. It would all depend on what North Korea hit. If it was Tokyo who knows.
Are you sure President Trump might be gung ho? What do you think of the UK's renewal of Trident? A country that does not have nuclear weapons is less likely to be attacked by them but its population can be just as easily killed by the radiation. I know that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the USA for bailing us out in two world wars but following them round like a poodle in recent years hasn't done us much good.
LOL. No I actually meant, Threat. As for Trident, I'd like to think that the world has got past the need for Nuclear deterrents, but there's always some nutter or two out there that need reminding, North Korea is one at the mo.
Nine countries in the modern world are known to possess nuclear weapons. USA, UK , USSR China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Out of those countries, who do you think is most likely to use them?
Mistakes can always be made. Just imagine Andrea Leadsom as prime minister with nuclear codes. " Oh I just turned that little red knob" What! I thought it was my lipstick! Oh 5hit. Poor Brussels!
Forums
Facebook
Twitter
You Tube
Instagram
Shop