yeah I just said it was a deterrent but the point is what is the likelyhood of having a nuclear attack anyway. Even if we were attacked America would probably launch a counter attack for us.
yeah I just said it was a deterrent but the point is what is the likelyhood of having a nuclear attack anyway. Even if we were attacked America would probably launch a counter attack for us.
The aim of a deterrnt is to stop a potential attack. As the UK hasn't been attacked since 45 I'm hazarding a guess that it's fair to say that it's worked.
Secondly, why should we expect another country to defend us. Who's to say that the U.S. are willing to start ww3 in order to defend a country that has chosen not to defend itself?
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union planned to liberally use tactical nuclear weapons throughout europe. Funnily enough, the U.S., France and the UK were never targeted.
Trident costs £3billilon a year.
I wish people like Russel brand would comment on the £30+billion a year wasted on unproductive interst payements on loans
The aim of a deterrnt is to stop a potential attack. As the UK hasn't been attacked since 45 I'm hazarding a guess that it's fair to say that it's worked.
The Russians often enjoy driving their maritime reconnaissance straight at non international airspace, turning at the last minute and flying long, pointless detours in international airspace.
It's a pity the russian grasp of international airspace isn't as clear cut with some of our Balkan and Scandanavian friends recently.
But hey, let's criticise the UKs minimla stance on a nuckear detereent whilst Putins been rebuilding his strategic missile force for a decade as a short term fix whilst he rebuilds his conventional military.
The Russians often enjoy driving their maritime reconnaissance straight at non international airspace, turning at the last minute and flying long, pointless detours in international airspace.
It's a pity the russian grasp of international airspace isn't as clear cut with some of our Balkan and Scandanavian friends recently.
But hey, let's criticise the UKs minimla stance on a nuckear detereent whilst Putins been rebuilding his strategic missile force for a decade as a short term fix whilst he rebuilds his conventional military.
It's mostly just for show, i doubt they're trying to find a weakness in UK's air defence, its probably cold war dick measuring contest round 2
It's mostly just for show, i doubt they're trying to find a weakness in UK's air defence, its probably cold war dick measuring contest round 2
will do
Sadly Cold War dick measuring has come back to haunt us.
The books a good read. Sort of demonstrated why nato needed nuclear weapons during the Cold War as a deterent. Shows the soviets would've quite happily used tactics nukes and worryingly described the Soviet ballistic missile subs who's job it was to launch several Months after a nuclear exchange to screw up reconstruction projects
The aim of a deterrnt is to stop a potential attack. As the UK hasn't been attacked since 45 I'm hazarding a guess that it's fair to say that it's worked.
Secondly, why should we expect another country to defend us. Who's to say that the U.S. are willing to start ww3 in order to defend a country that has chosen not to defend itself?
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union planned to liberally use tactical nuclear weapons throughout europe. Funnily enough, the U.S., France and the UK were never targeted.
Trident costs £3billilon a year.
I wish people like Russel brand would comment on the £30+billion a year wasted on unproductive interst payements on loans
erm you cannot judge the efficacy on Trident on the fact that we have not been attacked we probably would nit haven been anyway since there have been no nuclear attacks anyway