XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   GB  wrote   
   > Steve Walker wrote   
      
   >> The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means that   
   >> no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory attack.   
   >   
   > The Argentinians attacked the Falklands, without us obliterating BA. What   
   > better target to attack than one that cannot retaliate?   
   >   
   > By not turning the whole of Argentine into radioactive glass, our   
   > so-called nuclear deterrent lost all credibility.   
      
   It wasn’t intended to deter that sort of action,   
   it was intended to deter a nuclear attack.   
      
   > So, we might as well scrap it. Clearly, if we won't nuke the Argies, we   
   > certainly won't nuke the Ruskies.   
      
   But might nuke the frogs if they had nuked the UK.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)