Food & Drink1 min ago
The Reported Recent Icbm Test By North Korea Resulted In North Korea Threatening S. Korea, Japan, Philippines, Etc Militarily
9 Answers
The argument that only USA's & Russia's nuclear deterrent matters to countries in the world is false and wrong. Why do states like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? It is because nuclear armed states cannot be defeated or invaded in any military conflict, hence other countries would not dare to confront them head-on with all out military conflict.
The modus operandi of megalomaniac power crazy dictators is not negotiations (as Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly keep repeating parrot-fashion) but military force.
Asking tin-pot dictators and bullies to become pacifists is rubbing against the grain, like persuading lions to become vegetarians. In fact, being pacifist will encourage (rather than deter) others to launch military attack on oneself or other 3rd countries. Being well-armed militarily is a good deterrent from being attacked by another country – analogous to a well-armed effective police force can deter criminals.
If Europe & USA do not have credible military force, for example, it will be more likely that they will experience more threats (& even invaded) by other countries, causing chaos & disruption.
Savings from not building new ICBMs is a false argument, as the funds for building the planned 4 ICBMs carrying Successor class submarines comes from the ring-fenced defence budget of 2% of GDP pa. UK's 4 ICBMs carrying submarines are UK's safeguard/insurance policy against being bullied and oppressed militarily. UK uses her nuclear deterrent/insurance everyday 27 hours 365 days a year.
The modus operandi of megalomaniac power crazy dictators is not negotiations (as Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly keep repeating parrot-fashion) but military force.
Asking tin-pot dictators and bullies to become pacifists is rubbing against the grain, like persuading lions to become vegetarians. In fact, being pacifist will encourage (rather than deter) others to launch military attack on oneself or other 3rd countries. Being well-armed militarily is a good deterrent from being attacked by another country – analogous to a well-armed effective police force can deter criminals.
If Europe & USA do not have credible military force, for example, it will be more likely that they will experience more threats (& even invaded) by other countries, causing chaos & disruption.
Savings from not building new ICBMs is a false argument, as the funds for building the planned 4 ICBMs carrying Successor class submarines comes from the ring-fenced defence budget of 2% of GDP pa. UK's 4 ICBMs carrying submarines are UK's safeguard/insurance policy against being bullied and oppressed militarily. UK uses her nuclear deterrent/insurance everyday 27 hours 365 days a year.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by willbewhatiwill. 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.
Will....Britain, in common with every other nuclear nation doesn't use its deterrent every day, and that is the point.
Recently, you made a case that we should spend £billions on our independent nuclear deterrent, to protect ourselves from North Korea, but never provided any evidence that NK is a danger to us.
Recently, you made a case that we should spend £billions on our independent nuclear deterrent, to protect ourselves from North Korea, but never provided any evidence that NK is a danger to us.
Mikey4444,
North Korea is a military threat to world peace, period. However, North Korea is less a military threat to countries that have nuclear weapons – i.e. China, USA (whom N. Korea mentioned by name), Russia, UK, France and other countries that have acquired nuclear weapons, by hook or by crook (like Israel, India, Pakistan).
Like an insurance policy, UK’s nuclear deterrence is an insurance cover should another country with nuclear weapons (like North Korea, Iran) threaten UK – and who knows what would happen in decades to come?
Like an insurance policy, UK deterrence insurance policy are effective throughout the period of the insurance cover. Should Jeremy Corbyn , as PM, say that he will never fire in conflict UK’s ICBMs in any circumstances, Jeremy Corbyn would have rendered UK deterrence ineffective and non-credible.
North Korea is a military threat to world peace, period. However, North Korea is less a military threat to countries that have nuclear weapons – i.e. China, USA (whom N. Korea mentioned by name), Russia, UK, France and other countries that have acquired nuclear weapons, by hook or by crook (like Israel, India, Pakistan).
Like an insurance policy, UK’s nuclear deterrence is an insurance cover should another country with nuclear weapons (like North Korea, Iran) threaten UK – and who knows what would happen in decades to come?
Like an insurance policy, UK deterrence insurance policy are effective throughout the period of the insurance cover. Should Jeremy Corbyn , as PM, say that he will never fire in conflict UK’s ICBMs in any circumstances, Jeremy Corbyn would have rendered UK deterrence ineffective and non-credible.
North Korea is less a military threat to countries that have a strong modern military force. Or make up for it with overwhelming military numbers. Whether that includes nuclear weaponry isn't really relevant. That said, NK seem to be screaming out, begging for a covert operation against them, in order to neutralise the verbal and possible actual threats. But I'm sure our intelligence departments are keeping tabs on them.
1 to 9 of 9
Latest Posts
Home & Garden3 mins ago
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Spectator Crossword N0. 2681 By La...
Crosswords10 mins ago
News11 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.