Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    What letter?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    So how does that prove we could not justify retaliating?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    A bit torn to be honest. Sure they don't seem necessary now, but who knows in the future? If we have to develop them again in the future, it will cost more money.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    So how does that prove we could not justify retaliating?
    Skip to 6.15

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    So how does that prove we could not justify retaliating?
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    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
    Unproductive interest payments on loans? What are you talking about. That's paying off the interest on government debt...

    Do you think a government can just borrow money ceaselessly and never stop?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What's the point? If we initiate nuclear attacks then we're lunatics, disregarding innocent human lives and if it's set off in retaliation then what's the point if most of us will be dead before our nuclear weapon hits enemy ground?
    Nuclear weapons are pointless, insanely stupid and insanely dangerous.
    If other countries have them then whatever. I know a guy who's got herpes. Doesn't mean I'm going to try to out-virus him into not going near me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    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.
    That is the point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    Exactly.

    Which is why they don't nuke us.
    Who is they lol?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
    Skip to 6.15


    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    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.


    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    Who is they lol?
    Anybody with nuclear weapons...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Just the name sounds epic. Trident makes me want to go to the gym and pump iron
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    Anybody with nuclear weapons...
    ...ooooookaay...sure
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    ...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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    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.
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    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.
    It's nice to see you are so able to predict the next century. What else is in your magic eight-ball?
    The Cold War only ended some 20 years ago, and I still have another 60 years or so... I think I'll hedge my bets.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    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.
    i doubt we will reach a mutual agreement so lets just agree to disagree. I'm going to watch netflix
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    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.
    Regardless that we are going to disagree on this issue. Why bring up Germany? Germany has nuclear weapons to thank for the free society it is today. Not to mention that Germany actually had and I think still does nuclear weapons on its territory.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.