It's just a realistic one based on the whole of history.
We could blow the shit out of France and then ,threaten the rest unless we get a good Brexit deal though, nuke the cheese eating surrendered monkeys I say ;-)About as much as I need a bazooka to deter burglars.
Countries that don't have it include Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Greece. Don't recall any of them being invaded since 1945. We spend vast sums on this thing we can never use, and which is in effect under Yank control anyway, and at the same time run down our conventional forces to the point where they can no longer do their job. Madness.
Its not realistic is it though. There is significant debate among politicians, insurance companies, scientists and all sorts of other people and there is no conclusive evidence on either side that one way is more dangerous than the other. What you mean is "in your opinion".
But even so, they are reliant on the umbrella provided by the US, UK and France. So ok, that's great, and we could get rid of ours too, right? Well maybe, but then there's the question - if they're invaded, who's prepared to threaten nuclear war on their behalf? What if we decide they're not worth the risk? Oh yes, they're stuffed. Totally stuffed. Maybe we'd back them up. But that's up to us, not them. They're reliant on our goodwill.
Now who wants to be totally reliant on France and the US for our security? Anyone?
I don't think Russia has the need, the will, the money or the resource to launch an invasion of Europe. Russia was invaded itself by western european countries four times between 1800 and 1941, hence their own perception that it's actually us that pose the threat. So long as NATO and the EU resists the urge form any closer ties with the countries directly on Russia's doorstep then, regardless of Nuclear weapons, it's in everyone's best interest to maintain an awkward but peaceful relationship. It was the EU seeking the Association Agreement with Ukraine that ramped up tensions and led to the annexation of Crimea, and even if you don't approve of what they did, it's completely understandable why the Russians felt they had no choice but to do that. I think NATO and the EU also understand that Russia's hand was forced in that respect, hence the subsequent sanctions being relatively tame and more for show than anything.
Ultimately, we're all reliant on each other in one way or another these days.
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.
Our nuclear response is capable of making Russia or China think twice before having a pop at us
You can bet it is, barring a surprise attack 2 Vanguards will be at sea 96 warheads 96 targets each warhead 8 times the Hiroshima bomb, would certain blip somebodies radar.No it isn't. It's not even a blip on their radar.