24-01-2017, 01:06 AM
51
Re: Do we need a nuclear deterrent ?
Originally Posted by Rhian
->
No JBRNot you...
Some of your views
I was hot tempered this evening
And I'm sorry
As for differing views, I think we are all entitled to them and if we didn't have differing views it wouldn't be much of a discussion.
24-01-2017, 01:16 AM
52
Re: Do we need a nuclear deterrent ?
Originally Posted by Rehab44
->
I don't think declaring yourself a neutral country will deter any radioactive downwind hazard from nuclear weapons dropped on your neighbour invading your air space 
During the Second World War, both Switzerland and Sweden declared independence and were left alone by Nazi Germany. In fact, the presence of a neutral Switzerland seems to have been of benefit to both sides inasmuch as their provision of an independent inspectorate of the conditions applied to prisoners of war on both sides, and other such matters. A bit like a referee in a way.
Had Hitler's attempt to conquer the whole of Europe including Russia, however, I suspect that both of the above countries would have quickly either agreed to live as another Vichy France or conceded any sovereignty completely.
In that way, an independent country could not guarantee to remain independent indefinitely.
As you say, in a nuclear exchange, independence would guarantee nothing for the very reasons you state.
24-01-2017, 01:33 AM
53
Re: Do we need a nuclear deterrent ?
Originally Posted by JBR
->
No. I had a look here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nks_by_country
Interestingly, compared to our 227, some of our nearest neighbours have:
Germany = 250 (+ older models in storage)
France = 200 (including white flags)
Italy = 200 (complete with a large number of reverse gears)
Spain = 344
24-01-2017, 01:46 AM
54
Re: Do we need a nuclear deterrent ?
Originally Posted by AnnieS
->
We will see some of that changing if the EU & NATo disintegrate as predicted.
They wouldn't be much good, though. 'Lions led by donkeys' wouldn't come into it.
24-01-2017, 01:56 AM
55
Re: Do we need a nuclear deterrent ?
In answer to the original question - no we don't because how is it a deterrent plus as part of Nato we should have just shared theirs. Was it an ego trip to have our own? But then we don't have that much else in terms of our army etc being run down and no national service. Just geography. What would be useful is if someone invented an effective anti-nuclear shield and perhaps we could spend the billions on that instead? Maybe such a thing exists, I'm no expert.24-01-2017, 08:43 AM
56
Re: Do we need a nuclear deterrent ?
Originally Posted by AnnieS
->
In answer to the original question - no we don't because how is it a deterrent plus as part of Nato we should have just shared theirs. Was it an ego trip to have our own? But then we don't have that much else in terms of our army etc being run down and no national service. Just geography. What would be useful is if someone invented an effective anti-nuclear shield and perhaps we could spend the billions on that instead? Maybe such a thing exists, I'm no expert.
24-01-2017, 09:39 AM
57
Re: Do we need a nuclear deterrent ?
Originally Posted by AnnieS
->
In answer to the original question - no we don't because how is it a deterrent plus as part of Nato we should have just shared theirs. Was it an ego trip to have our own? But then we don't have that much else in terms of our army etc being run down and no national service. Just geography. What would be useful is if someone invented an effective anti-nuclear shield and perhaps we could spend the billions on that instead? Maybe such a thing exists, I'm no expert.
There is no anti radiation shield, and not likely to be in the foreseeable future.
There are anti missile systems, but even those can be overcome.
Everyone is developing hypersonic delivery vehicles at the moment to render current defence systems obsolete.
NATO has no nuclear weapons of it's own, The USA, UK and France, who are members, have their own.
The French have a range of Nuclear Weapons, we don't, we only have Trident, which is inextricably linked to the USA Ballistic system.
It is a weapon of last resort. we are a small island, Russia and China are huge, they could survive a Trident strike, at great cost, but it is survivable.
It would not take many strategic Nukes to wipe us out, simply because of the small size of the UK.
24-01-2017, 09:51 AM
59
Re: Do we need a nuclear deterrent ?
Originally Posted by JBR
->
Of course.During the Second World War, both Switzerland and Sweden declared independence and were left alone by Nazi Germany. In fact, the presence of a neutral Switzerland seems to have been of benefit to both sides inasmuch as their provision of an independent inspectorate of the conditions applied to prisoners of war on both sides, and other such matters. A bit like a referee in a way.
Had Hitler's attempt to conquer the whole of Europe including Russia, however, I suspect that both of the above countries would have quickly either agreed to live as another Vichy France or conceded any sovereignty completely.
In that way, an independent country could not guarantee to remain independent indefinitely.
As you say, in a nuclear exchange, independence would guarantee nothing for the very reasons you state.
While not for he Axis powers it took took their stolen gold and plunder and hid it in its banks.
|
|
