What is Britains biggest waste of money ?

[Damocles]

As a member of the military in the time of the cold war and someone who with many others were at the business end of the threat I can assure you that it was taken very seriously.

But strategic command and military analysts were all wrong because someone on a message board 30 years later says it's so?

>Rubs chin>

No, they're all wrong because they were paraylsed by fear and uncertainty. Most analysts during the Cold War actually played down the idea of Russians using nukes against the UK, mainly because it served absolutely no purpose at all.

As I said earlier thankfully we never found out but it was nice to have that insurance and bargaining chip.

To be fair it's a little arrogant to suggest "They're all wrong" and have readers take you seriously on this matter.

No it's factual to state that any analyst who suggested that the Russians would launch against the UK was wrong. Because the Russians didn't launch against the UK. If they would have launched then they would have been right.

That's not arrogant, it's just how facts work.

 

[dazdon]

No, they're all wrong because they were paraylsed by fear and uncertainty. Most analysts during the Cold War actually played down the idea of Russians using nukes against the UK, mainly because it served absolutely no purpose at all.

As I said earlier thankfully we never found out but it was nice to have that insurance and bargaining chip.

To be fair it's a little arrogant to suggest "They're all wrong" and have readers take you seriously on this matter.

No it's factual to state that any analyst who suggested that the Russians would launch against the UK was wrong. Because the Russians didn't launch against the UK. If they would have launched then they would have been right.

That's not arrogant, it's just how facts work.

You don't know they didn't attack because of the deterrent .

That's how your "Fact" comes unstuck.

You can argue until the cows come home but better people than you or I made decisions based on probability and chance.................I can take some anonymous amateur strategist on the internet voicing an opinion after the fact, it doesn't alter the outcome which was good for us.

 

[Damocles]

You don't know they didn't attack because of the deterrent .

That's how your "Fact" comes unstuck.

You can argue until the cows come home but better people than you or I made decisions based on probability and chance.................I can take some anonymous amateur strategist on the internet voicing an opinion after the fact, it doesn't alter the outcome which was good for us.

They didn't attack because it gave them no advantage at all and brought the hellfire of the US stockpile on top of them.

Do you know why the Russians didn't nuke Somalia? Because it gave them absolutely no advantage at all.

And we don't need to argue until the cows come home because we can look and see that it didn't happen.

 

[Deleted member 58619]

Andy Caroll

Haha this was first thing that sprung to my mind also

 

[dazdon]

You don't know they didn't attack because of the deterrent .

That's how your "Fact" comes unstuck.

You can argue until the cows come home but better people than you or I made decisions based on probability and chance.................I can take some anonymous amateur strategist on the internet voicing an opinion after the fact, it doesn't alter the outcome which was good for us.

They didn't attack because it gave them no advantage at all and brought the hellfire of the US stockpile on top of them.

Do you know why the Russians didn't nuke Somalia? Because it gave them absolutely no advantage at all.

And we don't need to argue until the cows come home because we can look and see that it didn't happen.

So the deterrent worked then!

As I have stated more than once...better people than you or I made those military decisions and they seem to have worked.

 

[smudgedj]

You don't know they didn't attack because of the deterrent .

That's how your "Fact" comes unstuck.

You can argue until the cows come home but better people than you or I made decisions based on probability and chance.................I can take some anonymous amateur strategist on the internet voicing an opinion after the fact, it doesn't alter the outcome which was good for us.

They didn't attack because it gave them no advantage at all and brought the hellfire of the US stockpile on top of them.

Do you know why the Russians didn't nuke Somalia? Because it gave them absolutely no advantage at all.

And we don't need to argue until the cows come home because we can look and see that it didn't happen.

So the deterrent worked then!

As I have stated more than once...better people than you or I made those military decisions and they seem to have worked.

Of course the deterrent worked - imagine if the Russian had sent in troops to Germany and we retaliated by sending ours. The phone call would have gone something like this :-
'Prime Minister get your troops out of Germany or we will nuke London (just a small one mind)'
'Err well if you do that we'll get very upset' and our allies will nuke you back....maybe...hopefully...'

 

[jimbopm]

As I said earlier thankfully we never found out but it was nice to have that insurance and bargaining chip.

To be fair it's a little arrogant to suggest "They're all wrong" and have readers take you seriously on this matter.

No it's factual to state that any analyst who suggested that the Russians would launch against the UK was wrong. Because the Russians didn't launch against the UK. If they would have launched then they would have been right.

That's not arrogant, it's just how facts work.

You don't know they didn't attack because of the deterrent .

That's how your "Fact" comes unstuck.

You can argue until the cows come home but better people than you or I made decisions based on probability and chance.................I can take some anonymous amateur strategist on the internet voicing an opinion after the fact, it doesn't alter the outcome which was good for us.

I accept there was a good argument for the need for a deterrent during the cold war. In 2014 I don't think that argument stands up anymore.

We are a UN, Nato and EU member and have a close allegiance with the United States. With the exception of the Ukraine situation relationships with Russia and China are less frosty than they used to be.

Absolutley no need to spend billions of pounds on it.

 

[Damocles]

So the deterrent worked then!

As I have stated more than once...better people than you or I made those military decisions and they seem to have worked.

The fact that we were allies with the US worked, not the billion pounds worth of nukes.

We're still allies with the US.

 

[smudgedj]

No it's factual to state that any analyst who suggested that the Russians would launch against the UK was wrong. Because the Russians didn't launch against the UK. If they would have launched then they would have been right.

That's not arrogant, it's just how facts work.

You don't know they didn't attack because of the deterrent .

That's how your "Fact" comes unstuck.

You can argue until the cows come home but better people than you or I made decisions based on probability and chance.................I can take some anonymous amateur strategist on the internet voicing an opinion after the fact, it doesn't alter the outcome which was good for us.

I accept there was a good argument for the need for a deterrent during the cold war. In 2014 I don't think that argument stands up anymore.

We are a UN, Nato and EU member and have a close allegiance with the United States. With the exception of the Ukraine situation relationships with Russia and China are less frosty than they used to be.

Absolutely no need to spend billions of pounds on it.

And what happens when the Iranians and North Koreans develop their systems - why should we have to rely on other people for protection?

 

[East Level 2]

The circa £2 billion we piss away in 'International Aid'
Being the idiots we are we actually hand over the cash which then quickly dissapears.
The Germans are far more sensible. They ask the question 'exactly what do you need?'
The reply maybe we need a huge bridge building somewhere to connect remote place and improve
transportation etc. 'No worries' say the Germans. 'We will build it for you!'
They then ship over German construction crews & German materials. That way the country gets the aid
it needs and the German economy gets a boost as well as the same time.
Why don't we do this obvious and sensible thing?

Surely this dastardly way of acting prevents a certain percentage being siphoned off by politicians, middle-men, security consultants and other such worthy recipients of international aid.