SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
KingFate said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Well, I don't know about a nuclear-free world, but I certainly don't think the UK needs them. They're exceptionally expensive during a time where the Government needs to cut spending, and, let's face it, they're never going to be used. |
The only way you ensure they aren't used is keeping many of them. The only thing that will stop people from attacking you is fear. In times of peace prepare for war.
|
Spare me your clichés.
I think the thing that's keeping the UK safe is that we're not in strikable distance of anybody who would be willing to use a nuclear warhead against us. Hell, thanks to the EU, we're pretty much a million miles away from anybody who would want to attack us in any sorts of means (outside of terrorism, etc. but possessing nuclear weapons hardly stopped the IRA, or any of the modern terrorist groups from attacking us).
Plus, a nuclear-free UK would still have support from a nuclear-possessing USA and/or France. Would it be wrong for the UK to free-load off of nuclear allies? Probably. But, frankly, I don't give a shit. The USA have unwittingly taken on the burden of being the protectors of Western Europe and her other allies, and France... well, that's just full of French people. :P
|
Kinda depends how the whole Iran situation goes. Afterall that's why Obama revamped the shield.
I wouldnt't say the USA has unwittingly taken on the burden of protecting western europe either.
I think it did it on purpose. Why I don't know... it's long past where Europe can't take care of themselves.
The Europeon Union as a combined force isn't quite USA level, but there isn't another country out their that could challenge them, well assuming that the command bottlenecks don't screw them up... but even then... who's going to take on the EU conventionally even with Nukes? Russia?
|
I would have thought that Iran would have striked against Israel and thus doomed itself to US-NATO-Israel invasion long before it had the technological capabilities to launch a strike against the UK. The USA's involvement in the protection of Europe probably stems from the same place as why it's so involved in the Middle-East: commitments made during the Cold War to prevent the Soviets increasing their power in these places, and now it's very hard to pull out of these commitments: for alienating its biggest allies in Europe, and for resources and other beneficiaries (such as possibility of open markets, democratisation, etc) in the Middle-East.
With each passing day, the likelihood of some kind of EU-Russian war decreases. The two groups need each other more and more as time goes by - the EU accounts for more than half of Russia's trade.
|
You would think, yet it seems that oddly instead of short or long range missles they are working mostly on "europe" reaching missles.
Possibly hoping it could be used to blackmail the EU out of a conflict?
Either way, I'm not even sure Nuclear weapons are needed anymore... in general. I may be naive but I look at it this way... It's not WW2 anymore.
The global economy is too big and too important to upset by a giant war between superpowers.
I mean you think the economic downturn was bad! What about the aferaffects of a giant war between superpowers?
I think the Superpowers could pretty much do whatever they want to smaller countries without it ever leading to anything.
Ironically making the smaller countries the only ones who really do need them.
Well except maybe India V Pakistan.
