XPost: uk.d-i-y
From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
Pancho wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 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.
> I think you'll find the UK nuclear capability was intended to deter a
> Soviet conventional invasion of Europe.
Nope, NATO would have done that fine.
> That is why we retained a first strike option.
That wouldn’t have deterred a Soviet conventional invasion of Europe.
> Militarily nukes are now virtually useless to the UK.
That’s not true or Trident with nuking by the frogs.
> As GB illustrates we can't use them in normal conflicts.
Trident was never intended for use in normal conflicts,
they were always about deterring nuke strikes on the UK.
> Nuclear weapons are mainly useful for small, militarily weak, nations
> deterring conventional attacks/intimidation by much more powerful nations.
That was never what Trident was about.
> North Korea and Iran being obvious examples where they have/would have
> utility.
And Israel.
> Obviously giving nutters nukes is not a good idea. I'm just pointing out
> the way things are, like it or not.
But don’t have a clue what Trident was about.
> There is some benefit to a US deterrent against intimidation by other
> nuclear powers and maybe we should contribute to that. However the current
> US arsenal is ludicrously oversized.
But Trident isn't, just irrelevant now and a waste of money.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
