After a small absence from thread making I'm back with this little doozy... Is it ok to have a nuclear deterrent when you are aiming for peace? Currently in the UK (isn't the UK just a hotbed of mad political views at the moment eh?) there is a debate on whether the Trident nuclear weapon should be kept or removed. These weapons are hoped to never be needed as arguments should be discussed politically and preferably without war. However, are these weapons necessary in case enemies decide to attack? Do we honestly believe that Russia or North Korea are likely to attack the UK which would trigger the use of these weapons? Or are these an expense which isn't necessary? These weapons cost up to £40 billion (which is God knows how much in your native currencies now the pound has gone to poop) - is this a justifiable expense for something that is unlikely to be used? Is it ok? Forums decide Moody ️
The only way nuclear deterrents wouldnt be needed is if every country holding nukes gave them up. You really want your country to be the one without nuclear deterrents in todays world? That would be like going back to medieval times and saying guys i know the worlds going to crap and war could break out anytime but lets can our heavy calvary, their expensive to maintain.
Sure why not get rid of your nuclear deterrents, the u.s. is responsible for protecting the free world, why should we pitch in. Thats the only reason alot of countries feel they dont need defences.
Yes not having one makes you look weak even if you are aiming for peace. Just look at North Korea they are viewed as a joke bc they cant get one to go more than half a mile before plopping down in the ocean and they get laughed at. Also like your mother probably always said better safe than sorry.
100% support for nukes they effect are trade deals with both us and commonwealth and we always been a kick ass sort of country
No it wouldn't be like this at all, you can easily counter calvary with archers or pike/lancemen either through their flanks or their rear, it is a lot harder to counter a nuclear weapon that even if detonated above a major city, that city is no longer habitable nor the area around it for miles and miles due to fallout. This is possibly the worst analogy one could come up with to explain the unnecessary armament that is nuclear weapons, we already have a system in place to dissuade countries from using their arsenal; it is known as M.A.D. which stands for Mutually Assured Destruction, in the most basic sense if M.A.D. were to happen everyone loses. Doesn't matter what kind of bunker you, your dad or your grand pappy built or decided to come up with, it will be a literal Fallout like world and no you'll not have a SPECIAL stat and real life rads are disgustingly more lethal (as in a second of 500 RADs will kill you within hours) than what we seen in a game. Nuclear weapons are just the biggest stick we have in this tribalism based world we live in.
Honestly while I dislike them I think they are a necessary evil in order to maintain peace. If somebody fires a missile they are nearly impossible to counter without the radiation causing damage so you also fire and hope you cause more damage starting the sequence of M.A.D. This is why nobody will fire any nukes and we hope that people like I.S don't get a hold of them as they clearly would start a deadly chain reaction.
OP do you have kids? If you do, you would know they are needed. I just have to pretend to remove my belt and my kids fall into line. Great deterrent.
We have isis and enough of them it makes u safe again. Nobody retaliates on them! Everyone scared to be called racist. Imo They better than a nuke=)
Have you looked at the world today? 100% necessary. Its only a matter of time until WW3 starts and you better have yourself covered as nukes are concerned.
If we (the U.S.) weren't exploiting the developing world so badly, we probably wouldn't have to worry about getting nuked since we wouldn't have any enemies. So as long as our foreign policies remain constant, so will our need for a deterrent. I would prefer us to be nicer to other countries, so we could live in a nuclear-free world, but our politicians and corporations will not change their ways, so we will continue to live in a world of endless Cold War and M.A.D.
I don't think the nuclear deterrent is needed. Whether you're the UK, US, Russia, China, etc, you have many other things that deter attacks besides nukes. You only need nukes if you have little other ability to wage war (think of Iraq, if they had nukes the US wouldn't have gone there as opposed to if the US/Russia/China didn't have nukes, still no true state would attack) Even then, anybody your nukes "deter" are semi-rational actors who would be hard pressed to attack you anyway. All a nuclear capable world does is A)increase the likelihood of accidental nuclear blasts and B)increase the number of weapons a single actor or terrorist group could steal and detonate - and for these groups, no amount of nukes would act as a deterrent
Yes. I'm 100% okay with Nuclear deterrents. Next few 100 years, it would probably be useless as we make more strides in technology and create more power things that can also be used as weapons. Its more of a balance that has to be maintained. Tree hugging hippies and liberals fantasies aren't the same as reality.