Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News1 min ago
Row About Neaclear Weapons
corbyn is getting flak over saying we dont need nuclear weapons and would not push "the button" well done him no other European country has the except France so what would they do if threatened ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ivor4781. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I have never accepted the "deterrence" argument about Britain having nuclear weapons.
The vast amount of countries in the world don't have nuclear weapons either, and yet Russia has yet to attack any of them with nuclear bombs. Australia or Canada would be a much better target to attack and conquer, than Britain, as they both have vast a mineral wealth. Yet Oz and Canada see no need to have a nuclear arsenal.
Nor have understood why Russia would want to attack Britain in the first place !
The only reason that Russia might have been tempted to attack us in the past is perhaps because America used Britain as a giant aircraft carrier, moored just off the coast of mainland Europe.
Its quite clear who Britain's enemies are these days, and its plainly not Russia.
If we were to bite the bullet and cancel the program to replace Trident, we would have all the money we would need to transform our ailing Health Service, and build all the homes that we so desperately need.
The vast amount of countries in the world don't have nuclear weapons either, and yet Russia has yet to attack any of them with nuclear bombs. Australia or Canada would be a much better target to attack and conquer, than Britain, as they both have vast a mineral wealth. Yet Oz and Canada see no need to have a nuclear arsenal.
Nor have understood why Russia would want to attack Britain in the first place !
The only reason that Russia might have been tempted to attack us in the past is perhaps because America used Britain as a giant aircraft carrier, moored just off the coast of mainland Europe.
Its quite clear who Britain's enemies are these days, and its plainly not Russia.
If we were to bite the bullet and cancel the program to replace Trident, we would have all the money we would need to transform our ailing Health Service, and build all the homes that we so desperately need.
-- answer removed --
It isn't really about Russia and what it might be up to now. As the link provided by divebuddy points out, the nuclear deterrent applies to the idea of being "safe" in an uncertain future.
Nuclear disarmament in the long term should be the goal, but unilateral disarmament is foolhardy and would send a very poor signal to potential enemies.
The questioner asks what would European countries other than France would do if they came under nuclear threat. Perhaps he has not heard of the NATO alliance. In other words, the threat of nuclear attack is counterbalanced by the threat of nuclear response, at least for those countries within that alliance. This is regarded as safer than nuclear proliferation among individual countries.
Russia would not have invaded Georgia or Ukraine almost certainly, had those countries been part of the NATO alliance, with the consequent threat of nuclear war.
None of this is ideal, but nuclear technology is out of the bag: it's one of the fundamental properties of physics being put to deadly use, and it can never be "undone". Only limited.
Nuclear disarmament in the long term should be the goal, but unilateral disarmament is foolhardy and would send a very poor signal to potential enemies.
The questioner asks what would European countries other than France would do if they came under nuclear threat. Perhaps he has not heard of the NATO alliance. In other words, the threat of nuclear attack is counterbalanced by the threat of nuclear response, at least for those countries within that alliance. This is regarded as safer than nuclear proliferation among individual countries.
Russia would not have invaded Georgia or Ukraine almost certainly, had those countries been part of the NATO alliance, with the consequent threat of nuclear war.
None of this is ideal, but nuclear technology is out of the bag: it's one of the fundamental properties of physics being put to deadly use, and it can never be "undone". Only limited.
ichkeria
yes ive heard of NATO,and been there (headquarters in Brussels) if were all going to be together if were attacked maybe this trident should be equally funded by all in NATO if its the answer of all deterrents,
i agree russia is not our threat now. a more formidable WELL equipped army /airforce would be more suitable to todays threat,
yes ive heard of NATO,and been there (headquarters in Brussels) if were all going to be together if were attacked maybe this trident should be equally funded by all in NATO if its the answer of all deterrents,
i agree russia is not our threat now. a more formidable WELL equipped army /airforce would be more suitable to todays threat,
It's a deterrent! That means it is there to deter people from attacking us. We have, unfortunately, to be prepared to use it in the last resort in order to deter certain threats properly.
Reasonable, rational regimes are, therefore, kept at bay. Please tell me what else would stop people like Kim il Jong (or whatever his name is) in Korea from trying to add us to his adulating crowds? Madmen do happen - and sometimes they become dictatorial heads of state.
Other European countries probably rely on the fact that they have nearby friends and allies who do have the nuclear deterrent. Heaven knows that I am no warmonger, but if unfriendly powers are developing nuclear power which could be used against us then I think that we have no choice but to be able to threaten equal retribution.
Please note ivor we are not the only country (besides France) with nuclear weapons.
Trident is a deterrent, how is it that Putin can send his planes and subs around our island? North Korea is unstableWe are sitting ducks for anyone to nuke us should they take the huff. Corbyn is an idiot, we'll be in collective farms before we know it if he got anywhere near the top job.
Trident is a deterrent, how is it that Putin can send his planes and subs around our island? North Korea is unstableWe are sitting ducks for anyone to nuke us should they take the huff. Corbyn is an idiot, we'll be in collective farms before we know it if he got anywhere near the top job.
jourdain....are you seriously saying that we need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves from North Korea !
North Korea can't even feed its own people, let alone wage war on a small country off the north coast of Europe. Why on earth would North Korea want to wage war with us ? I agree that South Korea sleeps uneasy in its bed, but Britain ?
Completely bonkers !
askyourgran.....why would Putin want to nuke Britain ? He has bitten off as much as he can chew when he invaded the Ukraine and its still unfinished business.
Jack...don't put words in my mouth...I am quite capable of doing that myself and with more wit than you can muster. Where have I said that Putin in our friend ? All I have said is that Russia has no interest in attacking us, which is a long way from friendship.
North Korea can't even feed its own people, let alone wage war on a small country off the north coast of Europe. Why on earth would North Korea want to wage war with us ? I agree that South Korea sleeps uneasy in its bed, but Britain ?
Completely bonkers !
askyourgran.....why would Putin want to nuke Britain ? He has bitten off as much as he can chew when he invaded the Ukraine and its still unfinished business.
Jack...don't put words in my mouth...I am quite capable of doing that myself and with more wit than you can muster. Where have I said that Putin in our friend ? All I have said is that Russia has no interest in attacking us, which is a long way from friendship.
The UK having nuclear weapons is not a deterrent.
AMERICA has them and if anyone attacked us with nuclear weapons then THEY would defend us, so why do we need them.
I am no fan of Labour or Corbyn but he is right to say he would not press the button because once one country did then others would follow and it would be the end of the world.
Utter madness.
AMERICA has them and if anyone attacked us with nuclear weapons then THEY would defend us, so why do we need them.
I am no fan of Labour or Corbyn but he is right to say he would not press the button because once one country did then others would follow and it would be the end of the world.
Utter madness.
TTT...you are straying from the logical and rational ! You say that Putin would not invade us, but then go on to say that he could if we had no means to defend ourselves. Make you mind up !
So why hasn't he invaded any of the other 100's of countries that don't have nuclear weapons, like Canada, Oz, etc.
He could easily invade Sweden, which has lots o valuable mineral wealth, and it wouldn't take long ! But he has shown no need or inclination to do so.
So, again, why would he invade Britain ?
So why hasn't he invaded any of the other 100's of countries that don't have nuclear weapons, like Canada, Oz, etc.
He could easily invade Sweden, which has lots o valuable mineral wealth, and it wouldn't take long ! But he has shown no need or inclination to do so.
So, again, why would he invade Britain ?
Mikey, where did I say he would not invade? I said he would not nuke.
"So why hasn't he invaded any of the other 100's of countries that don't have nuclear weapons, like Canada, Oz, etc.
He could easily invade Sweden, which has lots o valuable mineral wealth, and it wouldn't take long ! But he has shown no need or inclination to do so.
So, again, why would he invade Britain ? " - well Canada is in NATO not saying that alone would stop it but it's a factor, don't know about the others but can you guarantee that he or another would never do it? usual "they wouldn't, would they?..." from the hit and hopers - I don't know, keep some nukes to make sure, that's my view.
"AMERICA has them and if anyone attacked us with nuclear weapons then THEY would defend us, so why do we need them." would they risk retaliation? I don't think so, UK is expendable compared to their own.
"So why hasn't he invaded any of the other 100's of countries that don't have nuclear weapons, like Canada, Oz, etc.
He could easily invade Sweden, which has lots o valuable mineral wealth, and it wouldn't take long ! But he has shown no need or inclination to do so.
So, again, why would he invade Britain ? " - well Canada is in NATO not saying that alone would stop it but it's a factor, don't know about the others but can you guarantee that he or another would never do it? usual "they wouldn't, would they?..." from the hit and hopers - I don't know, keep some nukes to make sure, that's my view.
"AMERICA has them and if anyone attacked us with nuclear weapons then THEY would defend us, so why do we need them." would they risk retaliation? I don't think so, UK is expendable compared to their own.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Technology3 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.