Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who's REALLY going to nuke us? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Alluding to the predictable and slightly understandable bashing of "comrade" Corbyn for his comments on trident, I'm currently sat listening to a Guardian columnist list a bunch of nations who could nuke us and it included the atypical likes of Russia, North Korea, China and Iran.

    It's laughable, really is. I'm more than happy to stick my neck out and say we will never be nuked; certainly not in my lifetime. The point of this debate is to ensure it's always in the mainstream media or at least on the peripheral. Why? It keeps people scared - whether they admit that or not.

    Why do people believe Russia will attack us just because they immorally attacked Ukraine? Their military action was wrong, but we at least have no land or people inhabiting said land wishing to be part of Russia. Also, pro-Trident activists then retaliate and say, "I bet Ukraine had wished they'd kept their nukes now."

    What good would they have been, hmm? You think Russia would have thought, "Poroshenko will nuke us, us... Russia, a nation with 10x (approx.) the nuclear arsenal and 5x as much land (though some of it almost uninhabitable), if we intervene with on-the-ground military action over land."

    Think about what one missile fired would do. It would have this enormous, disastrous domino effect that would be a more destructive replica of the first World War - it started with Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, Germany declares with France who then go on to invade Belgium which provokes Britain and the USA to get involved until almost half the world has their noses in.

    Same goes with North Korea, it is concerning that they tested weapons underground, but as oppressive as they are, do people really think they're stupid? If DPK fired a missile, South Korea's stronger ties with the USA, the EU and Russia would see North Korea wiped from the map before you could say 'supercalifragilisticexpialidoci ous' backwards. North Korea might be a communist country but it's inadequate trade links and lack of strategic interest from Russia and China mean their ties with these countries aren't as strong as people may abruptly believe.

    The biggest threat we face concerning nuclear weapons is with ISIS. It's a complete lottery concerning who in the middle-east doesn't have weapons, though I have a tough time believing Iran did at the time we brashly invading them.

    However, if there are no nuclear weapons, full-stop, those threats are non-existent - however, such a vision is, sadly, pie in the sky.

    There is no strategical, financial or downright logical reason that a nation would fire a nuclear missile at any one unprovoked. Perhaps if we stopped digging our noses in to foreign affairs in the hope to make ourselves a quick buck or two, fewer nations would have any initial reason to attack us in the first place. We're our own worst enemy.

    There is a more real threat; right on our front door as we speak and that's the general cost of living. An increase in the cost of living, no existing cap on rent rates, the bedroom tax and cuts in welfare and long-term terms are literally killing people in this country - but, will the Tories be called 'looney'?

    Of course not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You are correct, no one is going to nuke us.

    Because they know that if they do, they will get nuked back.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NoPunInThisName)
    Alluding to the predictable and slightly understandable bashing of "comrade" Corbyn for his comments on trident, I'm currently sat listening to a Guardian columnist list a bunch of nations who could nuke us and it included the atypical likes of Russia, North Korea, China and Iran.

    It's laughable, really is. I'm more than happy to stick my neck out and say we will never be nuked; certainly not in my lifetime. The point of this debate is to ensure it's always in the mainstream media or at least on the peripheral. Why? It keeps people scared - whether they admit that or not.

    Why do people believe Russia will attack us just because they immorally attacked Ukraine? Their military action was wrong, but we at least have no land or people inhabiting said land wishing to be part of Russia. Also, pro-Trident activists then retaliate and say, "I bet Ukraine had wished they'd kept their nukes now."

    What good would they have been, hmm? You think Russia would have thought, "Poroshenko will nuke us, us... Russia, a nation with 10x (approx.) the nuclear arsenal and 5x as much land (though some of it almost uninhabitable), if we intervene with on-the-ground military action over land."

    Think about what one missile fired would do. It would have this enormous, disastrous domino effect that would be a more destructive replica of the first World War - it started with Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, Germany declares with France who then go on to invade Belgium which provokes Britain and the USA to get involved until almost half the world has their noses in.

    Same goes with North Korea, it is concerning that they tested weapons underground, but as oppressive as they are, do people really think they're stupid? If DPK fired a missile, South Korea's stronger ties with the USA, the EU and Russia would see North Korea wiped from the map before you could say 'supercalifragilisticexpialidoci ous' backwards. North Korea might be a communist country but it's inadequate trade links and lack of strategic interest from Russia and China mean their ties with these countries aren't as strong as people may abruptly believe.

    The biggest threat we face concerning nuclear weapons is with ISIS. It's a complete lottery concerning who in the middle-east doesn't have weapons, though I have a tough time believing Iran did at the time we brashly invading them.

    However, if there are no nuclear weapons, full-stop, those threats are non-existent - however, such a vision is, sadly, pie in the sky.

    There is no strategical, financial or downright logical reason that a nation would fire a nuclear missile at any one unprovoked. Perhaps if we stopped digging our noses in to foreign affairs in the hope to make ourselves a quick buck or two, fewer nations would have any initial reason to attack us in the first place. We're our own worst enemy.

    There is a more real threat; right on our front door as we speak and that's the general cost of living. An increase in the cost of living, no existing cap on rent rates, the bedroom tax and cuts in welfare and long-term terms are literally killing people in this country - but, will the Tories be called 'looney'?

    Of course not.
    I agree with your assessment that the biggest threat is fundamentalists getting nukes as almost every established nation would use them as a last resort because they acknowledge the risk in using them. Except North Korea. North Korea is mental and they have James Bond villain lairs built to withstand nuclear attacks in a way that no sane country would ever do. They just might not use it as a last resort, unlikely but if I were to put money on an established nation using them NK would be it.


    This sketch from yes prime minister is a pretty good summary of how russia would invade a smaller country even if it had nuclear weapons. Basically saying that they'd never put a country or leader in a situation where their only option was the nuclear option.


    That being said I do not understand Corbyns reported comments of having nuclear submarines with no warheads, although I have yet to see an article with his actual quote on the subject so I'm taking those headlines with a pinch of salt as I have yet to see a headline accurately summarise what he said (or indeed have any relation to what he said).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Whole point is you don't know what the future will bring. Things are fairly peaceful now, though Russia is massively modernizing it's nuclear arsenal, whilst also leaking new and somewhat terrifying weapons. A deterrent is an insurance policy against any existential threat to the country. Given human history i'd rather have that then not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What makes ISIS scary is the fact they don't actually fear death.


    You can engage with the Russians, Chinese and Koreans on a common level because they think like people rather than robots.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Russia would nuke if they had to as a final solution.

    Stop pissing Russia off and threatening it. Same with Iran.

    People forget Israel has the samson option and some say it has the largest stockpile of nukes after America!


    How can people see Guardian as an anti-war leftist paper, yet they promote bombing in Syria and often support NATO who expand further and further.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NoPunInThisName)
    However, if there are no nuclear weapons, full-stop, those threats are non-existent - however, such a vision is, sadly, pie in the sky.

    There is no strategical, financial or downright logical reason that a nation would fire a nuclear missile at any one unprovoked.
    Unfortunately, the world has nuclear weapons, and as of yet they are not obsolete. Which is why we need them. There is no defence against them, other than actually having them.

    The last bit in bold is both incredibly simplistic and ignorant, as well as downright silly. The whole point that there is no strategic, financial or logical reason to fire a nuke at us is because we can fire one straight back. I don't understand how such a simple concept is so widely misunderstand. It is meant to deter rational state actors, and if necessary, obliterate irrational state actors in a first strike. Nuclear missiles are only fired if they are provoked into doing so. "unprovoked" is both irrelevant and a silly point - nobody is going to fire a nuke because they are at peace. You don't make any sense.

    If ISIS got their hands on nuclear weapons, I would support a first trike against them. They aren't deterred by mutually assured destruction, - they want to die - so we may as well completely and utterly annihilate them before they had the opportunity to use that device. Killing a few million civilians in the process is acceptable loses given the alternative of the complete destruction of civilisation as we know it.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • 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

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