Does Britain need nuclear weapons ?

[TCIB]

This is going to sound pissy but we really need to define what "need" is here. Do we need a tangible chunk of steel and circuits as a promise of mutual annihilation?

I suggest the term "need" here changes along with the world political climate. To the point this debate always evolves slightly depending on many factors, Did Donald and Putin get up in a good mood for example? Sometimes it may be comforting others it seems like a huge waste and insult to humanity, again depending on whats going on at the time.

If it was up to me i'd bin them all and get every twat leader and have a UFC event battle royale thing. Let them bleed for their desires instead of every other fucker.

 

[inbetween]

By this logic we should be mass producing cannons on the off chance that the French start parking their flat bottomed boats off the coast of Boulogne

You are right that will never happen so should we get rid of the Navy as well?

The Navy has no threat and costs billions, on the same argument we should get rid.

 

[EL APACHE TEVEZ]

Up to date equipment for the army wouldn’t go a miss put the money into that.

 

[Henkeman]

A nuclear free world is more dangerous, not less. Firstly it removes the fear of an overwhelming response, and second it means a first strike from someone with a secret stockpile is advantageous.

They exist. Can't undo that.

 

[Dicko69]

Why don't we just say we have them, that would be deterrent enough. if they are to be used because someone has fired some at us, so what if we don't have any, we'd be dead anyway.

 

[Henkeman]

Why don't we just say we have them, that would be deterrent enough. if they are to be used because someone has fired some at us, so what if we don't have any, we'd be dead anyway.

The whole point is not to use them. The whole point is to stop others using theirs. That's success. It succeeds every single day and has done for 80 years.

 

[inbetween]

Up to date equipment for the army wouldn’t go a miss put the money into that.

Why?

Other than for killing terrorists in a country that has nothing to do with us, why do we even need an Army? What is the direct threat to the UK that requires us to have an Army or anything beyond a sole domestic defensive force?

Are Russia ever going to invade here, nope, are China, nope, is anyone else? Nope. Why not get rid of the lot and just push all the money into the NHS or whatever we want?

Isn't this just the exact same argument being posed against having nuclear weapons but why do people think we need one but not the other?

 

[lancs blue]

A nuclear free world is more dangerous, not less. Firstly it removes the fear of an overwhelming response, and second it means a first strike from someone with a secret stockpile is advantageous.

They exist. Can't undo that.

Don't you think that's a very depressing outlook, essentially saying that humanity will never get "civilised" enough to do without WMDs?

 

[Henkeman]

Don't you think that's a very depressing outlook, essentially saying that humanity will never get "civilised" enough to do without WMDs?

It's just a realistic one based on the whole of history.

 

[Scottyboi]

Can we not invest heavily in cyber warfare instead.