do we need them.
Do you really want America and the bad guys to be the only ones to have them?
They are undeniably bad things but you can't un-invent them. Your choices are 1) don't have them in a world where other countries do 2)
have them as a credible counter threat.
They exist as a weapon of last resort. You don't win by using them unless the other side don't have any. You assure the other side that
they will loose too in a "mutually assured destruction" type scenario. Otherwise known as "You nuke us and we take you down with
us". Sadly, that's the only way to deal with the unhinged dictator. If they had them and we didn't they could extort anything they
wanted.
The best response was given in an episode of "Yes Prime Minister", in an episode called "The Grand Design" - where Hacker is asked
exactly when he'd launch the missiles if the Russians attacked.
Well worth a read...
As a deterrent they are vital.
I just hope to god no one ever calls our bluff and that they stay unused!
It's shocking how close America and Russia have come to using them, only pure chance and luck has prevented it
How can you resist a big red button that says "Do Not Press". It's just asking for trouble
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
How can you resist a big red button that says "Do Not Press". It's just asking for trouble
how cool is this - Pakistan is not our friend.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Need I go on ?
iceland isnt friends with many countries either, but they don't even have an army. And nobody attacks them.
need I to go on?
quote:
Originally posted by Macbeast
Pakistan is not our friend.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Need I go on ?
quote:
Originally posted by AlphaX
iceland isnt friends with many countries either, but they don't even have an army. And nobody attacks them.
need I to go on?
You don't think we actually HAVE atom bombs do you? Dear me no, they're far too expensive and are made of quite unpleasant chemicals.
Please don't let on to the enemies of democracy though........
I was reading a book recently by CP Snow called The Scientists and in the sixties a scientific advisor was asked how many bombs would it take to
destroy GB to which his response was 5 but to be on the safe side say 7 but all of the bombs that the USSR had would take out approx 50% of the
USA.
I don't think we would have much say in any war.
quote:
Originally posted by Bob C
You don't think we actually HAVE atom bombs do you? Dear me no, they're far too expensive and are made of quite unpleasant chemicals.
Please don't let on to the enemies of democracy though........
quote:
Originally posted by Macbeast
Pakistan is not our friend.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Need I go on ?
quote:
Originally posted by AlphaX
iceland isnt friends with many countries either, but they don't even have an army. And nobody attacks them.
need I to go on?
I was at a defence conference where an American General was asked about the US position on the Iranian nuclear program. He categorically stated that
should they identify clear "evidence" that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons capability then the US would react - irrespective of the
Iranian capability to deploy the weapon. The US position was stated as being the belief that Iran would us the weapons as a means to dominate the
Middle East using conventional weapons, under the protection of a nuclear deterant.
Add the capability to deploy devices over a short range (in a truck driven into a neighboring country) then the threat becomes very real.
Then add the possibility of Iran arming anybody that had the same mutual enemies (most of the western world) and the threat reaches further
afield...
The matter of fact way he delivered his answer to a question from the audience (not a prepared speech) was cold, and very calculated. A very
interesting, if somewhat scarey chap.
It is only a matter of time...
quote:
Originally posted by JUD
I was at a defence conference where an American General was asked about the US position on the Iranian nuclear program. He categorically stated that should they identify clear "evidence" that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons capability then the US would react - irrespective of the Iranian capability to deploy the weapon. The US position was stated as being the belief that Iran would us the weapons as a means to dominate the Middle East using conventional weapons, under the protection of a nuclear deterant.
Add the capability to deploy devices over a short range (in a truck driven into a neighboring country) then the threat becomes very real.
Then add the possibility of Iran arming anybody that had the same mutual enemies (most of the western world) and the threat reaches further afield...
The matter of fact way he delivered his answer to a question from the audience (not a prepared speech) was cold, and very calculated. A very interesting, if somewhat scarey chap.
It is only a matter of time...
Any small nation that actually used a bomb on another would suddenly find itself getting a right proper kicking by America while all the others quite happily turn a blind eye. No one would object.
I listened to a very scary talk many years ago, mostly to do with civil defence. A large part of it was about how to protect yourself in the event of
a nuclear explosion - gave me the willies, and a few nightmares in the weeks following. It was mostly to do with surviving the fallout.
Allegedly the big worry now is not something being delivered on a missile - the main risk is something packed into a container and stuck on the back
of a lorry. And I live just over 10 miles from the 2nd biggest container port in the UK...