Russell Brand

What letter?

So how does that prove we could not justify retaliating?

So how does that prove we could not justify retaliating?

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vD5buSnKIo watch from 6:40
Should we? whats the point? If someone nukes us then our retaliation will be an act of vengeance, killing millions of more innocent civilians.

Exactly.

Which is why they don't nuke us.

Skip to 6.15

[video="youtube;9vD5buSnKIo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vD5buSnKIo&t=6m15s[/video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vD5buSnKIo watch from 6:40
Should we? whats the point? If someone nukes us then our retaliation will be an act of vengeance, killing millions of more innocent civilians.

Who is they lol?

Anybody with nuclear weapons...

Two arguments to that. Firstly a nuclear strike does not have to be aimed at cities ect. There is such a thing as counter force. Hitting your opponents nuclear and military facilities whilst sparing cities. Still I'll admit given the nature of the British deterrent that is not really an option for us.


Secondly and more importantly. Saying how could we kill all those civilians, it'd be pointless is irrelevant and misses the point of having a nuclear deterrent. As long as the enemy thinks the only thing he can gain from a nuclear strike is the devastation of his own country then he will not launch a strike in the first place. The value of a deterrent is in the perceived threat. Provided the enemy is convinced you will use it if you have to that will deter him. No sane actor is going to launch a nuclear strike if there is even the smallest chances of a retaliation, it simply is not worth it.

It's called a deterrent for a reason, you aren't ever supposed to use it.

...ooooookaay...sure

You seem to have a difficult time comprehending military strategy. Perhaps you should read up on the link I gave you.
Nobody is going to nuke us for the exact reason that we would immediately nuke them in return.

No one is going to nuke us
not the Russians.
not the N.koreans (they don't have the capability, besides the leaders enjoy their current position of power why would they want to risk it).
not the French.
We honestly do not need nukes, it would be great if no one had them but we got to start disarming somewhere, might as well be the UK.

sure because as soon as we lose the nukes, bombs will start dropping on our heads within minutes. You buy into the bull**** they tell you way too easily. Just look at all the countries that don't have nukes, Germany for example.

Great I'll have next weeks lottery numbers too. Since that crystal ball is coming through so clear.

I'm all for a deescalation in hair trigger weapons and moving to a less nuclear world. But to do that unilaterally is laughable and won't have any effect international. All you will achieve is stripping the United Kingdom of it's ultimate defence.

sure because as soon as we lose the nukes, bombs will start dropping on our heads within minutes. You buy into the bull**** they tell you way too easily. Just look at all the countries that don't have nukes, Germany for example.