Nukes are a tit for tat measure. You don't stop an incoming nuke with another nuke, and I personally don't think that just because a country like North Korea has them that others should as well.
With todays advanced warfare capabilities I don't see a justification for countries that wish set exaples of nuclear disarmament (sp) needing such weapons. I don't believe that dropping a nuke on another country is going to make that country incapable of continued fighting, and I don't believe even North Korea would be willing to drop a nuke on a country if they weren't mobilized to accually invade that country; it wouldn't be a very smart tactical decision I think.
As long as we here in the US aren't willing to set the example we expect other countries to follow then I don't see why anyone else should be disarming thier WMD's of any sort. Last I read the US was the worlds largest stockpiler of WMD's and haven't exactly been hurrying to be rid of them.
The UK should do whatever they feel is in thier best interest to build offensive capabilities that will allow them to better defend themselves should they need to take the fight to the enemy.
Edit: I just wanted to add to something Amisir (the guy above me) was saying. No other country in modern times has faught with such fearsness, and undying loyalty as the Japanese at the end of WW2. The idea that the "war was over" before the A bomb was dropped is just silly. Even after US forces landed in Japan they were meeting some of the fearsest oposition for CIVILIANS that they had ever met against SOLDIERS. Not a man, woman, or child in Japan would give up till the emperor said we surrender, and that didn't happen until AFTER the bombs were dropped. The dropping of those bombs, in my opinion, only rienforces the tit for tat nature of nuclear weapons. They launched an uprovoked attack against us at Pearl Harbor, we dropped 2 massive bombs in retaliation. Was the destruction those bombs had on the people and land for generations to come neccesary to the winning of the war? Maybe not, maybe so, but if Pearl Harbor hadn't been attacked then we may have never needed to use them. Tit for tat, you hurt me; I hurt you back.
The Russians totally won the arms race. They out gunned the U.S. immensly and still do. Their tactic was to maintain an 8-1 force ratio against NATO. More nukes more tanks more planes more ships more subs more men. More victories in proxy wars.
The Americans like to say they won the Cold War. Of course, Saddam said he won the Gulf War and Churchill said Dunkirk was a great victory. Our peoples all celebrated. People get told what they want to believe.
Everyone won the Cold War. No one lost. All of our economies were crippled by the Cold War. Europe and America both.
And you still haven't described what conceivable threat couldn't be dealt with by NATO conventional forces without any nukes at all.
How about the French. Could we win a fight with them? no.
The Germans, hmm maybe maybe not.
How about the French plus the Germans. Ahh no chance.
How about the EU. Nope no chance.
how about the Russians. Nope.
The Americans? Nope.
In fact I think it's safe to say we are surrounded by rival nations who we can't defeat/defend against without nuclear weapons.
NATO is a treaty. A piece of paper. We had one of those with Hitler too. Words that are not backed up by strength have no value.
And America has a history of NOT coming to Britains rescue.
When we need them, they don't come. They come when they need us, and not before. Never have, never will. Count on them at your folly.
Our nuclear umbrella doesn't just protect us, it protects all those who have come to our when we needed them. All those who did show up. All those who have always shown up. Canada, Australia, New Zealand. We have an honour debt. We neeed every inch of muscle to protect our wide and varied intrests worldwide.
well, if that's what you want, then I guess it's ok.
Really? How often in the past 200 years have allied nations changed into enemies in the space of less than a decade? And I don't mean alliances of convenience. I mean real alliances.
what is a true allience? Can you please give me a definition?
Nope - sorry - would take quite a bit of effort to come up with something water-tight that would endure the sort of quibbling present on this board.
However I would say that it ought to be long term and involve mutual respect, and social and trade relationships as well as a political treaty. The current relationship between the US and Britain would qualifty, the alliance of convenience with Russia during world war II or with Iraq during the 80s would not, since these were based merely on a shared enemy rather than any deeper mutual relationship.
And how exactly did we sell out Poland? We declared war with Germany precisely because Poland was invaded. We honoured our obligations and endured much hardship as a result. Meanwhile the US sat smugly on the sidelines
You started the war because you guys realized Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's tactic didnt work... not because you do not agree with Germany morally regarding taking over Czechoslovakia. I do apologize, it wasn't Poland, it was Czechoslovakia.
Yep - the czechs got the raw end of the stick. Although it did buy the UK another year to re-arm themselves and confront Nazi Germany over Poland.
But if you want to attack Britain over this then you are on very weak ground. Since the US did absolutely nothing to defend the countries of central and eastern europe against Nazi aggression.
However are you saying that the US has no intention of fulfilling it's obligations under NATO treaties, which include mutual defence as a key part? In which case we may as well pack our bags now and leave you guys to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan by yourselves.
Wow, I didn't realize Canada was actively fighting in Iraq like U.S... I gotta read more news...
wtf does Canada have to do with this? The discussion is about Britain, and we are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting at your side.
The Russians totally won the arms race. They out gunned the U.S. immensly and still do. Their tactic was to maintain an 8-1 force ratio against NATO. More nukes more tanks more planes more ships more subs more men. More victories in proxy wars. The Americans like to say they won the Cold War. Of course, Saddam said he won the Gulf War and Churchill said Dunkirk was a great victory. Our peoples all celebrated. People get told what they want to believe. Everyone won the Cold War. No one lost. All of our economies were crippled by the Cold War. Europe and America both.
A lot can be said for advanced technology and tactics. More isn't always better, and that 8-1 ratio didn't help the Russians against a few gorilla fighters in Afganastan. The manufacturing of weapons and drafting of soldiers doesn't always equate to being ahead in the arms race. I don't believe that head to head any one country was going to take down the USSR, but neither do I believe that Russia at the time was able to simply invade a country without opposition. Hell, countries can't even have a civil war without outside infuence one way or the other.
Russia required that 8-1 ratio becuase they were at arms with much of the world, and you can see were that got them.
And Russia lost the cold war, everyone else won. You don't have to be told, it's well documented history.
well, if that's what you want, then I guess it's ok.
Really? How often in the past 200 years have allied nations changed into enemies in the space of less than a decade? And I don't mean alliances of convenience. I mean real alliances.
what is a true allience? Can you please give me a definition? Nope - sorry - would take quite a bit of effort to come up with something water-tight that would endure the sort of quibbling present on this board.
However I would say that it ought to be long term and involve mutual respect, and social and trade relationships as well as a political treaty. The current relationship between the US and Britain would qualifty, the alliance of convenience with Russia during world war II or with Iraq during the 80s would not, since these were based merely on a shared enemy rather than any deeper mutual relationship.
And how exactly did we sell out Poland? We declared war with Germany precisely because Poland was invaded. We honoured our obligations and endured much hardship as a result. Meanwhile the US sat smugly on the sidelines
You started the war because you guys realized Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's tactic didnt work... not because you do not agree with Germany morally regarding taking over Czechoslovakia. I do apologize, it wasn't Poland, it was Czechoslovakia.
Yep - the czechs got the raw end of the stick. Although it did buy the UK another year to re-arm themselves and confront Nazi Germany over Poland.
But if you want to attack Britain over this then you are on very weak ground. Since the US did absolutely nothing to defend the countries of central and eastern europe against Nazi aggression.
However are you saying that the US has no intention of fulfilling it's obligations under NATO treaties, which include mutual defence as a key part? In which case we may as well pack our bags now and leave you guys to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan by yourselves.
Wow, I didn't realize Canada was actively fighting in Iraq like U.S... I gotta read more news...
wtf does Canada have to do with this? The discussion is about Britain, and we are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting at your side.
When you said "leave you guys to fight in Iraq" my impression was that you are thinking I am American... But I am Canadian and I object the Iraq War...
Regarding your discussion about ture alliance... It's hard for me to come up with an example if you dont give an definition... As I understand, alliance are usually based on mutual interest, or mutual enemy. As for "long term and involve mutual respect, and social and trade relationships " I am not sure about that, how many alliance in history was base on that? Hey maybe Humanity is on a higher moral ground these days... u never know... besides the current British and American alliance which you claim it's based on that, can u give me another alliance please?
Look, from the first thread and on, all I wanted to express is that I think British should not scarp the thing that make them more secure, maybe just a little. Even if it only makes someone think twice about harming Britian. If you, as a Britian, consider it is ok for Britian to be like the other country, like Canada. Then it certainly is ok for Britian to abandon it's nuclear weapon. I really wish Canada can just take them over... but blah... we waste all our money on Libiral Advertising Campaign...
I think Dresden has honestly gotten more press than it deserves in the greater scope of things. People make it out to be a pointless attack with a needlessly high human cost, some saying it was ordered by Churchill out of a desire for revenge. It seems to me that Dresden was just another firebombing target, though. It wasn't the first or last European city to be attacked in that way, and the Allies destroyed cities with far less military value without controversy.
In terms of human cost, the firebombing of Tokyo killed way more people than Dresden. In fact, more people died from the firebombing in Tokyo than the atomic bomb in Nagasaki. That itself is an interesting fact in looking at this debate. The US had already inflicted massive casualties on Japanese soil before the bombs were dropped, and they had shown no sign of surrender. It was only the threat of prolonged nuclear bombardment which convinced them that they had to surrender.
as for the weaker ground... well, the Munic Agreement was signed by British, France, German and Italy, more specificly by: Neville Champberlain, Edouard Dalaier, Adolfe "H", and Benito Mussolini. U.S isn't there, as were the rest of the world. U.S really can't be blamed in this matter. Why would U.S want to volunteer to fight for someone elses war, at least at that time?
The Russians totally won the arms race. They out gunned the U.S. immensly and still do. Their tactic was to maintain an 8-1 force ratio against NATO. More nukes more tanks more planes more ships more subs more men. More victories in proxy wars. The Americans like to say they won the Cold War. Of course, Saddam said he won the Gulf War and Churchill said Dunkirk was a great victory. Our peoples all celebrated. People get told what they want to believe. Everyone won the Cold War. No one lost. All of our economies were crippled by the Cold War. Europe and America both.
A lot can be said for advanced technology and tactics. More isn't always better, and that 8-1 ratio didn't help the Russians against a few gorilla fighters in Afganastan. The manufacturing of weapons and drafting of soldiers doesn't always equate to being ahead in the arms race. I don't believe that head to head any one country was going to take down the USSR, but neither do I believe that Russia at the time was able to simply invade a country without opposition. Hell, countries can't even have a civil war without outside infuence one way or the other.
Russia required that 8-1 ratio becuase they were at arms with much of the world, and you can see were that got them.
And Russia lost the cold war, everyone else won. You don't have to be told, it's well documented history.
NATO tech hasn't defeated the guerilla's in Afghanistan either. Another little feel good fantasy there.
Although the Russian's did manage to secure a larger area of it than we have and build a bigger Afghan army. Of course the greatest and most advanced army in the history of makind also had quite a lot of trouble in Afghanistan. The British lost a whole legion.It just disappeared. I wouldn't be patting yourself on tha back too much about Afghanistan just yet if I were you.
Russian tech is great. They won the space race. NASA buys it's gear from Russia, not Russa from NASA.
Given the choice most militaries prefer Russian tech.
It's not quite true to say that Russa maintained an 8-1 ratio to NATO (or at least tried to).
Russia didn't the Soviet Union did. Both were an alliance of many nations.
No one and I mean NO ONE can see into the future and I would rather we had them and not need them, then not have them and need em. Simple as that really.
And those who think UK disarming will have any sway on these rogue states seeking them, well Naive really dosn't cover it.
Originally posted by phatpanda The British lost a whole legion? In Afghanistan? When was that?
Sorry to Hijack...
somewhere in the late 19th century, if i remember correct.. to put things simple, i will just say countries with nukes have them for the purpose of saying "mine are bigger than yours".
In January 1842, out of 16,500 soldiers (and 12,000 dependents) only one survivor, of mixed British-Indian garrison, reaches the fort in Jalalabad, on a stumbling pony.
We have already signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, where we (the UK) have agreed to work towards nuclear disarmament.
Renewing our nuclear deterrent would be in violation of that treaty. The very same treaty that we use to justify sending weapons inspectors into other countries in order to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
It would also be vastly expensive. Countries with low defense spending such as Germany and Japan seem to do pretty well in economic terms and hence in world influence. Taking the same path does not seem such a bad idea to me.
The idea is that other people don't proliferate nuclear arms. Not us.
One of the reasons other countries let our inspectors in, is because we have nukes and they don't. Our airforces can bomb them without fear of reprisal if they don't so as we say.
If you don't like that non proliferation treaty, if it makes you feel hypocritical, we could always withdraw from it. It's no big deal. It's not exactly working for us anyway. Israel, Pakistan and Korea still went nuclear. Saddam tried it but was only stopped by a non signitory, Israel. If it upsets you, that's all the reason I need to withdraw from it.
Take away our nukes, and we have nothing to negotiate with. No weapons to mutually disarm, no threat of total distruction to make them feel they want to.
If you aren't holding any cards, you're not in the poker game.
The Russians totally won the arms race. They out gunned the U.S. immensly and still do. Their tactic was to maintain an 8-1 force ratio against NATO. More nukes more tanks more planes more ships more subs more men. More victories in proxy wars. The Americans like to say they won the Cold War. Of course, Saddam said he won the Gulf War and Churchill said Dunkirk was a great victory. Our peoples all celebrated. People get told what they want to believe. Everyone won the Cold War. No one lost. All of our economies were crippled by the Cold War. Europe and America both.
A lot can be said for advanced technology and tactics. More isn't always better, and that 8-1 ratio didn't help the Russians against a few gorilla fighters in Afganastan. The manufacturing of weapons and drafting of soldiers doesn't always equate to being ahead in the arms race. I don't believe that head to head any one country was going to take down the USSR, but neither do I believe that Russia at the time was able to simply invade a country without opposition. Hell, countries can't even have a civil war without outside infuence one way or the other.
Russia required that 8-1 ratio becuase they were at arms with much of the world, and you can see were that got them.
And Russia lost the cold war, everyone else won. You don't have to be told, it's well documented history.
NATO tech hasn't defeated the guerilla's in Afghanistan either. Another little feel good fantasy there.
Although the Russian's did manage to secure a larger area of it than we have and build a bigger Afghan army. Of course the greatest and most advanced army in the history of makind also had quite a lot of trouble in Afghanistan. The British lost a whole legion.It just disappeared. I wouldn't be patting yourself on tha back too much about Afghanistan just yet if I were you.
Russian tech is great. They won the space race. NASA buys it's gear from Russia, not Russa from NASA.
Given the choice most militaries prefer Russian tech.
It's not quite true to say that Russa maintained an 8-1 ratio to NATO (or at least tried to).
Russia didn't the Soviet Union did. Both were an alliance of many nations.
You are correct. I mean to say cold war USSR, or the Soviet Union of that time.
You are right, Nato tech isn't defeating the Afgahn gorillas. US tech is, and doing so without Nuclear weapons. And my point was that those gorilla fighters were able to hold of the Soviet fighters without being apart of any arms race.
Russian arms being sold to Nato is in no way a sign of superior tech. How about a reduced Russian army and an excess of stockpiled weapons combined with a dwindeling economy creating a need for quick incoming resulting in CHEAP arms supplied to by Russia? Don't know what the deal was during the cold war, but that wasn't fantasy post cold war. Russia was sellign everying and anything they could to anyone willing to buy shorty after the collapse of the Soviet union. BTW, those weapons and body armor the Lebonese were using sure looked American made to me. Didn't dupont create kevlar?
Unified Soviet Socialist Republic doesn't exactly scream alliance to me. I'm almost certian those countries handed to the Soviet union at the end of WW2 weren't so thankfull to become a part of the alliance. Seemed like there were a lot of countries quick to disolve that alliance at the end of the cold war. (Edit: had WW2, meant cold war) Typically isn't an alliance something that 2 or more groups agree to? Not really sure I could count occupied countries as willing allies.
Nonsense those guerilla fighters got their heads kicked in by the Russians just as they are getting their heads kicked in by Brits Canadians and Yanks.
The wore the Russians down by a 20 year campaign of snipers, landmines, roadside bombs and suicide attacks. The same things they are still doing to us today, that we can't defend against either.
They didn't defeat them on the open battlefield.
BTW, it's not just the Russian army that has reduced in size. We all have.
Russia has always been selling everything to anyone. Everything that is except it's latest generation tech; and to anyone that is who isn't allied to NATO.
There are two factions fighting in Lebanon. One faction is supplied with American arms, the other with Russian arms. The Russian armed side is winning and just fought off the entire American armed Israeli army, navy and airforce to boot.
Many of those countries liberated by the Russians were very pleased to be freed from Nazi rule. To have the death camps closed. The Gestapo shot in the street.
Those countries captured by the Russians who started those death camps and killed all those millions of innocent Russians, probably didn't like it so much.
You might notice that there have been a few countries quick to dissolve their alliances with the U.S. too. Vietnam, China and Iran for example.
A few like India and Egypt, quite pleased to get away from Britain too.
Where are you going with this?
Russians are poor, weak, stupid and evil, but Americans are rich, strong, clever and righteous?
Proponents argue that a personal deterrent against attacks from rogue states should always be kept. After all, you can't 100% rely on support from other nations, should you be the target of a WMD.
Opponents say it's simply not necessary or particularly effective as a defense measure. Also, with the US being a close ally and possessing global nuclear capability, it's unlikely that a nation could get away with an already unlikely WMD attack on the UK.
I'm almost certain that the British arsenal will be maintained at the end of the day, but I'm wondering how you Brits feel about this? I'm guessing that the RN is still a matter of national pride for the UK, and a big part of the RN's teeth is its Trident submarines, where the British nuclear capability lies.
Edit: I totally meant to put this in the off-topic forum. Can a mod move it, please?
I did a little research and couldnt believe how many are opposed to this. Why? Sounds like it's all money related. Here is what I found:
Quote:
Many Labour MPs think they are being rushed into a decision before Blair goes later this year, that there is no longer any justification for nuclear defences in a post-Cold War world and that the huge amount of money could be better spent elsewhere.
Almost two-thirds of Labour MPs who took part in a poll released on Sunday opposed the plan.
The 51-year-old Griffiths, a member of parliament for Edinburgh for 20 years, said he would make a statement to parliament later setting out the reasons for his resignation.
Blair’s office said only that it had received his resignation letter and would "acknowledge it in due course".
Defence Secretary Des Browne said on Sunday he was confident the government would win over rebellious legislators.
The new submarines would enable Britain to keep a nuclear deterrent into the 2050s, replacing existing nuclear submarines due to go out of service in around 2024. LINK
Nonsense those guerilla fighters got their heads kicked by the russians just as they are getting their heads kicked in by Brits canadians and yanks.
The wore the Russians down by a 20 year campaign of snipers, landmines, roadside bombs and suicide attacks. The same things they are still doing to us today, that we can't defend against either. They didn't defeat them on the open battlefield.
BTW, it's not just the Russian army that has reduced. We all have. Russia has always been selling everything to anyone. Anything that is except it's latest generation tech, which it keeps for itself; and to anyone who isn't allied to NATO.
There are two factions fighting in Lebanon. One faction is supplied with American arms, the other with Russian arms. The Russian armed side is winning and just fought off the entire American armed Israeli army, navy and airforce to boot.
Many of those countries liberated by the Russians were very pleased to be freed from Nazi rule. To have the death camps closed. The gestapo shot. Those countries captured by the Russians who started those death camps and killed all those millions of innocent Russians, probably didn't like it so much.
You might notice that there have been a few countries quick to dissolve their alliances with the U.S. too. Vietnam and Iran for example. A few like India and Egypt, quite pleased to get away from Britain too. Where are you going with this?
We are way off the topic here, but.
The soldiers that were fighting the Isralis recently, can't remember the name, were wearing US made kevlar body armor and M16's, along with AK47 assualt rifles. It wasn't as cut and dry as one side used russian and one side used US weapons. They were using both.
You're debating a FACT. The gorillas with US aid, in the form of training and supplies, were able to hold off the Soviet army in Afganastan. Whether a portion of that country fell to the Russians I can not comment on as I do not know, but the fact remains that Russia was unable to take all of the country as they intended to do. I would call that a victory on the gorillas part. Who do you think was running the country after the Russiand pulled out, were do you think Bin Laden came from, or why those guys are so pissed at the US. Because we left after the Russians did. Also the coalition of forces in Afganistan have been able to wrest control of the morgity of that country away from the Taliban, something the USSR was unable to do.
You got way off of the point that was being made about the USSR and the alliance of nations that made up that country. I wasn't refering to an alliance of independent countries, but the "alliance" of countries unified under the rule of communist dictators. You're altering words to make your own point.
Those countries handed over to the USSR were independent countries with thier own government prior to the Nazi invasion. I'm sure they were happy as a pig in crap to fall under the rule of a communist dictator named Stalin who starved his peoples to the point they had to resort to canabalism to survive. You're really up on your history there guy. Not to mention those countries didn't have a say in the matter, and it was decided upon by 3 leaders that had nothing to do with the countries other then trying to gain a larger control in western Europe at the expence of the east.
And what's up with the edit at the end of your post? When did I even remotely imply any of that?
Edit: One other thing. During the space race, The US's magor concern wasn't the USSR it was Cuba and it's nuclear capabilities. The cold war existed, but did so in a much dif. state at the time. We weren't concerned with bombs coming from russia, it was nukes coming from Cuba. For some reason people seemed to think that the magority of the things we dealt with in the early 60's to 80's was more to do with Russia who was thousands of miles away and unable to deliver a rocket to US soil. Cuba is just a few miles off the coast and was quite capable of deploying rockets at the US east coast, and while we had an eye on the USSR we had a much more aware of Castro and that tiny little tropical country to the south with big nuclear weapons POINTED at us.
Proponents argue that a personal deterrent against attacks from rogue states should always be kept. After all, you can't 100% rely on support from other nations, should you be the target of a WMD.
Opponents say it's simply not necessary or particularly effective as a defense measure. Also, with the US being a close ally and possessing global nuclear capability, it's unlikely that a nation could get away with an already unlikely WMD attack on the UK.
I'm almost certain that the British arsenal will be maintained at the end of the day, but I'm wondering how you Brits feel about this? I'm guessing that the RN is still a matter of national pride for the UK, and a big part of the RN's teeth is its Trident submarines, where the British nuclear capability lies.
Edit: I totally meant to put this in the off-topic forum. Can a mod move it, please?
I did a little research and couldnt believe how many are opposed to this. Why? Sounds like it's all money related. Here is what I found:
Quote:
Many Labour MPs think they are being rushed into a decision before Blair goes later this year, that there is no longer any justification for nuclear defences in a post-Cold War world and that the huge amount of money could be better spent elsewhere.
Almost two-thirds of Labour MPs who took part in a poll released on Sunday opposed the plan.
The 51-year-old Griffiths, a member of parliament for Edinburgh for 20 years, said he would make a statement to parliament later setting out the reasons for his resignation.
Blair’s office said only that it had received his resignation letter and would "acknowledge it in due course".
Defence Secretary Des Browne said on Sunday he was confident the government would win over rebellious legislators.
The new submarines would enable Britain to keep a nuclear deterrent into the 2050s, replacing existing nuclear submarines due to go out of service in around 2024. LINK
Blair is going to be relying on tory votes to push this through lol. Labour rebels seem to jump on any band wagon to hit at blair. Before this there was the detention of terror suspect holding period.
Trouble is they are making labour apear even more split then ever.
Unless we have nukes, we can't stand up to the U.S. We can't stand up to France. We can't stand up to Russia. We can't stand up to India. We can't stand up to Pakistan. We can't stand up to Korea. We can't even stand up to Israel.
Anyone of them could attack us without fear of retaliation. They wouldn't even have to attack us, they could just steal our foreign assets and laugh at us if we complained. They wouldn't do that? History shows that even while at war, allied against common enemies, they have all done exactly that. That's what our friends would do. The world isn't just full of reasonable and peacable people, it is also full of unreasonable and dangerous people. Take a note out of Saddam's book. If you have something other people want, and you don't have any nukes, they will roll you over and take it. Even if 10 years ago you were their allies shaking their hands on the world stage. Weakness invites attack even where no attack had previously been contemplated. Two closely matched armies are unlikely to want to fight each other, a strong one is all too willing for victory against a weak one.
Oh yes, I'm sure they would all attack you, especially Israel and the US. Definitely.
How delusional are you? What incentive would the US/Israel ever have to attack your country (or seize any of it's assets)? You're not that economically significant, nor could you ever pose a threat as your country's motives/ideals are absolutely entwined with the US'.
The US seizing anything from Britain is like a mother taking candy from her own baby.
That kind of nonsense is no different from uneducated Americans spouting jingoistic garbage in the south....
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Oh yes, I'm sure they would all attack you, especially Israel and the US. Definitely. How delusional are you? What incentive would the US/Israel ever have to attack your country (or seize any of it's assets)? You're not that economically significant, nor could you ever pose a threat as your country's motives/ideals are absolutely entwined with the US'. The US seizing anything from Britain is like a mother taking candy from her own baby. That kind of nonsense is no different from uneducated Americans spouting jingoistic garbage in the south....
I think his agument wasn't about the likelyhood of the attacks tomorrow, but what would occur if the instance does occur...
And also, Relations between country does change, maybe what's impossible today isn't that far out of reach 20 yrs down the road.
Yeah I agree here, the United States only has a few true allies, and i would put the Brits at the top of that list. The two countries have been through to much together to ever let anything happen to the other. To me, its like to old friends, yeah they've had their spats here and there but they would never turn on each other. I sometimes wonder why we (U.S.) are hated so much in Europe but I guess people have their reasons.
And you still haven't described what conceivable threat couldn't be dealt with by NATO conventional forces without any nukes at all.
How about the French. Could we win a fight with them? no.
The Germans, hmm maybe maybe not.
How about the French plus the Germans. Ahh no chance.
How about the EU. Nope no chance.
how about the Russians. Nope.
The Americans? Nope.
In fact I think it's safe to say we are surrounded by rival nations who we can't defeat/defend against without nuclear weapons.
NATO is a treaty. A piece of paper. We had one of those with Hitler too. Words that are not backed up by strength have no value.
And America has a history of NOT coming to Britains rescue.
When we need them, they don't come. They come when they need us, and not before. Never have, never will. Count on them at your folly.
Our nuclear umbrella doesn't just protect us, it protects all those who have come to our when we needed them. All those who did show up. All those who have always shown up. Canada, Australia, New Zealand. We have an honour debt. We neeed every inch of muscle to protect our wide and varied intrests worldwide.
I read the whole debate, but I couldn't decipher whether this was sarcasm or not.
Rival nations?
The last time I checked France, Germany and the UK were in the European Union. The European Union is nothing like the flimsy League Of Nations, because the EU has strict humanitarian and democratic requirements.
The EU is a voluntary union of democratic countries. To have joined this voluntary union you need to have accepted it's laws(the first supernational legal system). And to break it's laws is to leave the union.
The league of nations was a forced union of countries with leading countries that wanted to restrict anything and everything that could threaten them... and failed bysmally.
If Britain were the lone wolf you describe, it would have never joined the EU. It would have done like Norway or Switzerland.
In the age of information people are beginning to feel more unified not by nationality, but by state of mind and universal ethics(although nationalism is a state of mind that can unify people ). Nationalism and xenophobia are currently looked down upon in most EU countries. I'm not sure if Britain is one of them, as nationalism coupled with racism does seem to be, at least, a very visible problem.
For the actual topic. France has nukes. Germany has nukes. Why does Britain need nukes? Also. If the EU crumbles, Britain will have enough time and resources to rearm themselves. The coming of a new European dictatorship/fascists state will be a gradual and easily percieveable thing... Unless the UK decide to skip out of the EU and unite with the rest of the english speaking world in an usvsthem xenophobe fest. Then Britain does need new nukes.
The only thing that's assured if Britain's nuclear arsenal is renewed is more mistrust and xenophobia among nations.
You're debating a FACT. The gorillas with US aid, in the form of training and supplies, were able to hold off the Soviet army in Afganastan. Whether a portion of that country fell to the Russians I can not comment on as I do not know, but the fact remains that Russia was unable to take all of the country as they intended to do. I would call that a victory on the gorillas part. Who do you think was running the country after the Russiand pulled out, were do you think Bin Laden came from, or why those guys are so pissed at the US. Because we left after the Russians did. Also the coalition of forces in Afganistan have been able to wrest control of the morgity of that country away from the Taliban, something the USSR was unable to do.
Nonsense. They never held off the Russians at all. The Russians captured and held far more of Afghanistan than Nato has managed. Not suprising really since they had an army 10 times the size and a short land linked logistical train enabling them to bring in their heavy equipment en masse.
It's no more factually correct to say the Taleban held the Russians off than it is to say they held NATO off. Far less in fact.
Bin Laden came from Saudi. He operated on the borders of Afghanistan during the Russian occupation where he was a fund raiser. I have no idea why they were so pissed with the U.S. I suspect it has more to do with the U.S. military presence in Saudi and it's support of the Saudi king than it does with the mutual funding of common allies.
After Russia pulled out, Afghanistan continued to be run by a local tribal warlords. Just as it had been all the way through. Only the capital cities were run by Russia and it's puppet government; just as only (some of) the local capital's are run by NATO and it's puppet government. It's a feudal society. There is no effective central government. No "one" runs it.
And the Coaliton has by no means captured the majority of Afghanistan. Just a few key towns. There is only 40,000 troops there. They don't have the manpower to capture the place. Just little bits.
Last year was the first time Coalition forces had even entered the provinces. Up until last year the Coalition's tactics have not been to capture anything at all. They predominately used special forces to reinforce local warlords. Pitting indigineous troops against other indigineous troops. They didn't capture anything. They manipulated tribal rivalries to overthrow the Taleban alliance. And mounted search and destroy missions against suspected Al Quaida bases.
The Lebanese held off the Israeli's with anti-tank and artillery missiles, not M16's. Soviet tech that rendered Abrams based designs dead and the Isreali populous in range of retaliation.
For what it's worth, Germany, Austria, Japan were all independant nations before before we captured them too.
In Cuba, the Russians simply countereds your deployment of medium ranged missiles in Turkey. The called your bluff. You backed down and removed the missiles in Turkey were removed. You threatended them and they were prepared to go all the way.
Lol "Kruschev blinked!" LMAO. Kennedy didn;t like a taste of his own medicine. He didn't like where what he had started was going to end.
Another defeat sold to the masses as victory.
Originally posted by Fariic
And what's up with the edit at the end of your post? When did I even remotely imply any of that?
With every sentence. All I'm getting from you is how inferior and evil Russia is in everyway and how Superior America is. All the "facts" of their failures in the face of America. A long detailed list of examples of this with no point or relavence to any subject other than this end.
Comments
Nukes are a tit for tat measure. You don't stop an incoming nuke with another nuke, and I personally don't think that just because a country like North Korea has them that others should as well.
With todays advanced warfare capabilities I don't see a justification for countries that wish set exaples of nuclear disarmament (sp) needing such weapons. I don't believe that dropping a nuke on another country is going to make that country incapable of continued fighting, and I don't believe even North Korea would be willing to drop a nuke on a country if they weren't mobilized to accually invade that country; it wouldn't be a very smart tactical decision I think.
As long as we here in the US aren't willing to set the example we expect other countries to follow then I don't see why anyone else should be disarming thier WMD's of any sort. Last I read the US was the worlds largest stockpiler of WMD's and haven't exactly been hurrying to be rid of them.
The UK should do whatever they feel is in thier best interest to build offensive capabilities that will allow them to better defend themselves should they need to take the fight to the enemy.
Edit: I just wanted to add to something Amisir (the guy above me) was saying. No other country in modern times has faught with such fearsness, and undying loyalty as the Japanese at the end of WW2. The idea that the "war was over" before the A bomb was dropped is just silly. Even after US forces landed in Japan they were meeting some of the fearsest oposition for CIVILIANS that they had ever met against SOLDIERS. Not a man, woman, or child in Japan would give up till the emperor said we surrender, and that didn't happen until AFTER the bombs were dropped. The dropping of those bombs, in my opinion, only rienforces the tit for tat nature of nuclear weapons. They launched an uprovoked attack against us at Pearl Harbor, we dropped 2 massive bombs in retaliation. Was the destruction those bombs had on the people and land for generations to come neccesary to the winning of the war? Maybe not, maybe so, but if Pearl Harbor hadn't been attacked then we may have never needed to use them. Tit for tat, you hurt me; I hurt you back.
The Russians totally won the arms race. They out gunned the U.S. immensly and still do. Their tactic was to maintain an 8-1 force ratio against NATO. More nukes more tanks more planes more ships more subs more men. More victories in proxy wars.
The Americans like to say they won the Cold War. Of course, Saddam said he won the Gulf War and Churchill said Dunkirk was a great victory. Our peoples all celebrated. People get told what they want to believe.
Everyone won the Cold War. No one lost. All of our economies were crippled by the Cold War. Europe and America both.
How about the French. Could we win a fight with them? no.
The Germans, hmm maybe maybe not.
How about the French plus the Germans. Ahh no chance.
How about the EU. Nope no chance.
how about the Russians. Nope.
The Americans? Nope.
In fact I think it's safe to say we are surrounded by rival nations who we can't defeat/defend against without nuclear weapons.
NATO is a treaty. A piece of paper. We had one of those with Hitler too. Words that are not backed up by strength have no value.
And America has a history of NOT coming to Britains rescue.
When we need them, they don't come. They come when they need us, and not before. Never have, never will. Count on them at your folly.
Our nuclear umbrella doesn't just protect us, it protects all those who have come to our when we needed them. All those who did show up. All those who have always shown up. Canada, Australia, New Zealand. We have an honour debt. We neeed every inch of muscle to protect our wide and varied intrests worldwide.
However I would say that it ought to be long term and involve mutual respect, and social and trade relationships as well as a political treaty. The current relationship between the US and Britain would qualifty, the alliance of convenience with Russia during world war II or with Iraq during the 80s would not, since these were based merely on a shared enemy rather than any deeper mutual relationship.
Yep - the czechs got the raw end of the stick. Although it did buy the UK another year to re-arm themselves and confront Nazi Germany over Poland.
But if you want to attack Britain over this then you are on very weak ground. Since the US did absolutely nothing to defend the countries of central and eastern europe against Nazi aggression.
wtf does Canada have to do with this? The discussion is about Britain, and we are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting at your side.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
A lot can be said for advanced technology and tactics. More isn't always better, and that 8-1 ratio didn't help the Russians against a few gorilla fighters in Afganastan. The manufacturing of weapons and drafting of soldiers doesn't always equate to being ahead in the arms race. I don't believe that head to head any one country was going to take down the USSR, but neither do I believe that Russia at the time was able to simply invade a country without opposition. Hell, countries can't even have a civil war without outside infuence one way or the other.
Russia required that 8-1 ratio becuase they were at arms with much of the world, and you can see were that got them.
And Russia lost the cold war, everyone else won. You don't have to be told, it's well documented history.
what is a true allience? Can you please give me a definition?
Nope - sorry - would take quite a bit of effort to come up with something water-tight that would endure the sort of quibbling present on this board.
However I would say that it ought to be long term and involve mutual respect, and social and trade relationships as well as a political treaty. The current relationship between the US and Britain would qualifty, the alliance of convenience with Russia during world war II or with Iraq during the 80s would not, since these were based merely on a shared enemy rather than any deeper mutual relationship.
Yep - the czechs got the raw end of the stick. Although it did buy the UK another year to re-arm themselves and confront Nazi Germany over Poland.
But if you want to attack Britain over this then you are on very weak ground. Since the US did absolutely nothing to defend the countries of central and eastern europe against Nazi aggression.
wtf does Canada have to do with this? The discussion is about Britain, and we are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting at your side.
When you said "leave you guys to fight in Iraq" my impression was that you are thinking I am American... But I am Canadian and I object the Iraq War...
Regarding your discussion about ture alliance... It's hard for me to come up with an example if you dont give an definition... As I understand, alliance are usually based on mutual interest, or mutual enemy. As for "long term and involve mutual respect, and social and trade relationships " I am not sure about that, how many alliance in history was base on that? Hey maybe Humanity is on a higher moral ground these days... u never know... besides the current British and American alliance which you claim it's based on that, can u give me another alliance please?
Look, from the first thread and on, all I wanted to express is that I think British should not scarp the thing that make them more secure, maybe just a little. Even if it only makes someone think twice about harming Britian. If you, as a Britian, consider it is ok for Britian to be like the other country, like Canada. Then it certainly is ok for Britian to abandon it's nuclear weapon. I really wish Canada can just take them over... but blah... we waste all our money on Libiral Advertising Campaign...
In terms of human cost, the firebombing of Tokyo killed way more people than Dresden. In fact, more people died from the firebombing in Tokyo than the atomic bomb in Nagasaki. That itself is an interesting fact in looking at this debate. The US had already inflicted massive casualties on Japanese soil before the bombs were dropped, and they had shown no sign of surrender. It was only the threat of prolonged nuclear bombardment which convinced them that they had to surrender.
No longer visiting MMORPG.com.
as for the weaker ground... well, the Munic Agreement was signed by British, France, German and Italy, more specificly by: Neville Champberlain, Edouard Dalaier, Adolfe "H", and Benito Mussolini. U.S isn't there, as were the rest of the world. U.S really can't be blamed in this matter. Why would U.S want to volunteer to fight for someone elses war, at least at that time?
A lot can be said for advanced technology and tactics. More isn't always better, and that 8-1 ratio didn't help the Russians against a few gorilla fighters in Afganastan. The manufacturing of weapons and drafting of soldiers doesn't always equate to being ahead in the arms race. I don't believe that head to head any one country was going to take down the USSR, but neither do I believe that Russia at the time was able to simply invade a country without opposition. Hell, countries can't even have a civil war without outside infuence one way or the other.
Russia required that 8-1 ratio becuase they were at arms with much of the world, and you can see were that got them.
And Russia lost the cold war, everyone else won. You don't have to be told, it's well documented history.
NATO tech hasn't defeated the guerilla's in Afghanistan either. Another little feel good fantasy there.
Although the Russian's did manage to secure a larger area of it than we have and build a bigger Afghan army. Of course the greatest and most advanced army in the history of makind also had quite a lot of trouble in Afghanistan. The British lost a whole legion.It just disappeared. I wouldn't be patting yourself on tha back too much about Afghanistan just yet if I were you.
Russian tech is great. They won the space race. NASA buys it's gear from Russia, not Russa from NASA.
Given the choice most militaries prefer Russian tech.
It's not quite true to say that Russa maintained an 8-1 ratio to NATO (or at least tried to).
Russia didn't the Soviet Union did. Both were an alliance of many nations.
No one and I mean NO ONE can see into the future and I would rather we had them and not need them, then not have them and need em. Simple as that really.
And those who think UK disarming will have any sway on these rogue states seeking them, well Naive really dosn't cover it.
The British lost a whole legion? In Afghanistan? When was that?
Sorry to Hijack...
somewhere in the late 19th century, if i remember correct..
to put things simple, i will just say countries with nukes have them for the purpose of saying "mine are bigger than yours".
The idea is that other people don't proliferate nuclear arms. Not us.
One of the reasons other countries let our inspectors in, is because we have nukes and they don't. Our airforces can bomb them without fear of reprisal if they don't so as we say.
If you don't like that non proliferation treaty, if it makes you feel hypocritical, we could always withdraw from it. It's no big deal. It's not exactly working for us anyway. Israel, Pakistan and Korea still went nuclear. Saddam tried it but was only stopped by a non signitory, Israel. If it upsets you, that's all the reason I need to withdraw from it.
Take away our nukes, and we have nothing to negotiate with. No weapons to mutually disarm, no threat of total distruction to make them feel they want to.
If you aren't holding any cards, you're not in the poker game.
A lot can be said for advanced technology and tactics. More isn't always better, and that 8-1 ratio didn't help the Russians against a few gorilla fighters in Afganastan. The manufacturing of weapons and drafting of soldiers doesn't always equate to being ahead in the arms race. I don't believe that head to head any one country was going to take down the USSR, but neither do I believe that Russia at the time was able to simply invade a country without opposition. Hell, countries can't even have a civil war without outside infuence one way or the other.
Russia required that 8-1 ratio becuase they were at arms with much of the world, and you can see were that got them.
And Russia lost the cold war, everyone else won. You don't have to be told, it's well documented history.
NATO tech hasn't defeated the guerilla's in Afghanistan either. Another little feel good fantasy there.
Although the Russian's did manage to secure a larger area of it than we have and build a bigger Afghan army. Of course the greatest and most advanced army in the history of makind also had quite a lot of trouble in Afghanistan. The British lost a whole legion.It just disappeared. I wouldn't be patting yourself on tha back too much about Afghanistan just yet if I were you.
Russian tech is great. They won the space race. NASA buys it's gear from Russia, not Russa from NASA.
Given the choice most militaries prefer Russian tech.
It's not quite true to say that Russa maintained an 8-1 ratio to NATO (or at least tried to).
Russia didn't the Soviet Union did. Both were an alliance of many nations.
You are correct. I mean to say cold war USSR, or the Soviet Union of that time.
You are right, Nato tech isn't defeating the Afgahn gorillas. US tech is, and doing so without Nuclear weapons. And my point was that those gorilla fighters were able to hold of the Soviet fighters without being apart of any arms race.
Russian arms being sold to Nato is in no way a sign of superior tech. How about a reduced Russian army and an excess of stockpiled weapons combined with a dwindeling economy creating a need for quick incoming resulting in CHEAP arms supplied to by Russia? Don't know what the deal was during the cold war, but that wasn't fantasy post cold war. Russia was sellign everying and anything they could to anyone willing to buy shorty after the collapse of the Soviet union. BTW, those weapons and body armor the Lebonese were using sure looked American made to me. Didn't dupont create kevlar?
Unified Soviet Socialist Republic doesn't exactly scream alliance to me. I'm almost certian those countries handed to the Soviet union at the end of WW2 weren't so thankfull to become a part of the alliance. Seemed like there were a lot of countries quick to disolve that alliance at the end of the cold war. (Edit: had WW2, meant cold war) Typically isn't an alliance something that 2 or more groups agree to? Not really sure I could count occupied countries as willing allies.
And I never mentioned Nato.
Nonsense those guerilla fighters got their heads kicked in by the Russians just as they are getting their heads kicked in by Brits Canadians and Yanks.
The wore the Russians down by a 20 year campaign of snipers, landmines, roadside bombs and suicide attacks. The same things they are still doing to us today, that we can't defend against either.
They didn't defeat them on the open battlefield.
BTW, it's not just the Russian army that has reduced in size. We all have.
Russia has always been selling everything to anyone. Everything that is except it's latest generation tech; and to anyone that is who isn't allied to NATO.
There are two factions fighting in Lebanon. One faction is supplied with American arms, the other with Russian arms. The Russian armed side is winning and just fought off the entire American armed Israeli army, navy and airforce to boot.
Many of those countries liberated by the Russians were very pleased to be freed from Nazi rule. To have the death camps closed. The Gestapo shot in the street.
Those countries captured by the Russians who started those death camps and killed all those millions of innocent Russians, probably didn't like it so much.
You might notice that there have been a few countries quick to dissolve their alliances with the U.S. too. Vietnam, China and Iran for example.
A few like India and Egypt, quite pleased to get away from Britain too.
Where are you going with this?
Russians are poor, weak, stupid and evil, but Americans are rich, strong, clever and righteous?
I did a little research and couldnt believe how many are opposed to this. Why? Sounds like it's all money related. Here is what I found:
Quote:
Many Labour MPs think they are being rushed into a decision before Blair goes later this year, that there is no longer any justification for nuclear defences in a post-Cold War world and that the huge amount of money could be better spent elsewhere.
Almost two-thirds of Labour MPs who took part in a poll released on Sunday opposed the plan.
The 51-year-old Griffiths, a member of parliament for Edinburgh for 20 years, said he would make a statement to parliament later setting out the reasons for his resignation.
Blair’s office said only that it had received his resignation letter and would "acknowledge it in due course".
Defence Secretary Des Browne said on Sunday he was confident the government would win over rebellious legislators.
The new submarines would enable Britain to keep a nuclear deterrent into the 2050s, replacing existing nuclear submarines due to go out of service in around 2024. LINK
We are way off the topic here, but.
The soldiers that were fighting the Isralis recently, can't remember the name, were wearing US made kevlar body armor and M16's, along with AK47 assualt rifles. It wasn't as cut and dry as one side used russian and one side used US weapons. They were using both.
You're debating a FACT. The gorillas with US aid, in the form of training and supplies, were able to hold off the Soviet army in Afganastan. Whether a portion of that country fell to the Russians I can not comment on as I do not know, but the fact remains that Russia was unable to take all of the country as they intended to do. I would call that a victory on the gorillas part. Who do you think was running the country after the Russiand pulled out, were do you think Bin Laden came from, or why those guys are so pissed at the US. Because we left after the Russians did. Also the coalition of forces in Afganistan have been able to wrest control of the morgity of that country away from the Taliban, something the USSR was unable to do.
You got way off of the point that was being made about the USSR and the alliance of nations that made up that country. I wasn't refering to an alliance of independent countries, but the "alliance" of countries unified under the rule of communist dictators. You're altering words to make your own point.
Those countries handed over to the USSR were independent countries with thier own government prior to the Nazi invasion. I'm sure they were happy as a pig in crap to fall under the rule of a communist dictator named Stalin who starved his peoples to the point they had to resort to canabalism to survive. You're really up on your history there guy. Not to mention those countries didn't have a say in the matter, and it was decided upon by 3 leaders that had nothing to do with the countries other then trying to gain a larger control in western Europe at the expence of the east.
And what's up with the edit at the end of your post? When did I even remotely imply any of that?
Edit: One other thing. During the space race, The US's magor concern wasn't the USSR it was Cuba and it's nuclear capabilities. The cold war existed, but did so in a much dif. state at the time. We weren't concerned with bombs coming from russia, it was nukes coming from Cuba. For some reason people seemed to think that the magority of the things we dealt with in the early 60's to 80's was more to do with Russia who was thousands of miles away and unable to deliver a rocket to US soil. Cuba is just a few miles off the coast and was quite capable of deploying rockets at the US east coast, and while we had an eye on the USSR we had a much more aware of Castro and that tiny little tropical country to the south with big nuclear weapons POINTED at us.
I did a little research and couldnt believe how many are opposed to this. Why? Sounds like it's all money related. Here is what I found:
Quote:
Many Labour MPs think they are being rushed into a decision before Blair goes later this year, that there is no longer any justification for nuclear defences in a post-Cold War world and that the huge amount of money could be better spent elsewhere.
Almost two-thirds of Labour MPs who took part in a poll released on Sunday opposed the plan.
The 51-year-old Griffiths, a member of parliament for Edinburgh for 20 years, said he would make a statement to parliament later setting out the reasons for his resignation.
Blair’s office said only that it had received his resignation letter and would "acknowledge it in due course".
Defence Secretary Des Browne said on Sunday he was confident the government would win over rebellious legislators.
The new submarines would enable Britain to keep a nuclear deterrent into the 2050s, replacing existing nuclear submarines due to go out of service in around 2024. LINK
Blair is going to be relying on tory votes to push this through lol. Labour rebels seem to jump on any band wagon to hit at blair. Before this there was the detention of terror suspect holding period.
Trouble is they are making labour apear even more split then ever.
Oh yes, I'm sure they would all attack you, especially Israel and the US. Definitely.
How delusional are you? What incentive would the US/Israel ever have to attack your country (or seize any of it's assets)? You're not that economically significant, nor could you ever pose a threat as your country's motives/ideals are absolutely entwined with the US'.
The US seizing anything from Britain is like a mother taking candy from her own baby.
That kind of nonsense is no different from uneducated Americans spouting jingoistic garbage in the south....
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I think his agument wasn't about the likelyhood of the attacks tomorrow, but what would occur if the instance does occur...
And also, Relations between country does change, maybe what's impossible today isn't that far out of reach 20 yrs down the road.
Peace
How about the French. Could we win a fight with them? no.
The Germans, hmm maybe maybe not.
How about the French plus the Germans. Ahh no chance.
How about the EU. Nope no chance.
how about the Russians. Nope.
The Americans? Nope.
In fact I think it's safe to say we are surrounded by rival nations who we can't defeat/defend against without nuclear weapons.
NATO is a treaty. A piece of paper. We had one of those with Hitler too. Words that are not backed up by strength have no value.
And America has a history of NOT coming to Britains rescue.
When we need them, they don't come. They come when they need us, and not before. Never have, never will. Count on them at your folly.
Our nuclear umbrella doesn't just protect us, it protects all those who have come to our when we needed them. All those who did show up. All those who have always shown up. Canada, Australia, New Zealand. We have an honour debt. We neeed every inch of muscle to protect our wide and varied intrests worldwide.
I read the whole debate, but I couldn't decipher whether this was sarcasm or not.Rival nations?
The last time I checked France, Germany and the UK were in the European Union. The European Union is nothing like the flimsy League Of Nations, because the EU has strict humanitarian and democratic requirements.
The EU is a voluntary union of democratic countries. To have joined this voluntary union you need to have accepted it's laws(the first supernational legal system). And to break it's laws is to leave the union.
The league of nations was a forced union of countries with leading countries that wanted to restrict anything and everything that could threaten them... and failed bysmally.
If Britain were the lone wolf you describe, it would have never joined the EU. It would have done like Norway or Switzerland.
In the age of information people are beginning to feel more unified not by nationality, but by state of mind and universal ethics(although nationalism is a state of mind that can unify people
For the actual topic. France has nukes. Germany has nukes. Why does Britain need nukes? Also. If the EU crumbles, Britain will have enough time and resources to rearm themselves. The coming of a new European dictatorship/fascists state will be a gradual and easily percieveable thing... Unless the UK decide to skip out of the EU and unite with the rest of the english speaking world in an usvsthem xenophobe fest. Then Britain does need new nukes.
The only thing that's assured if Britain's nuclear arsenal is renewed is more mistrust and xenophobia among nations.
Nonsense. They never held off the Russians at all. The Russians captured and held far more of Afghanistan than Nato has managed. Not suprising really since they had an army 10 times the size and a short land linked logistical train enabling them to bring in their heavy equipment en masse.
It's no more factually correct to say the Taleban held the Russians off than it is to say they held NATO off. Far less in fact.
Bin Laden came from Saudi. He operated on the borders of Afghanistan during the Russian occupation where he was a fund raiser. I have no idea why they were so pissed with the U.S. I suspect it has more to do with the U.S. military presence in Saudi and it's support of the Saudi king than it does with the mutual funding of common allies.
After Russia pulled out, Afghanistan continued to be run by a local tribal warlords. Just as it had been all the way through. Only the capital cities were run by Russia and it's puppet government; just as only (some of) the local capital's are run by NATO and it's puppet government. It's a feudal society. There is no effective central government. No "one" runs it.
And the Coaliton has by no means captured the majority of Afghanistan. Just a few key towns. There is only 40,000 troops there. They don't have the manpower to capture the place. Just little bits.
Last year was the first time Coalition forces had even entered the provinces. Up until last year the Coalition's tactics have not been to capture anything at all. They predominately used special forces to reinforce local warlords. Pitting indigineous troops against other indigineous troops. They didn't capture anything. They manipulated tribal rivalries to overthrow the Taleban alliance. And mounted search and destroy missions against suspected Al Quaida bases.
The Lebanese held off the Israeli's with anti-tank and artillery missiles, not M16's. Soviet tech that rendered Abrams based designs dead and the Isreali populous in range of retaliation.
For what it's worth, Germany, Austria, Japan were all independant nations before before we captured them too.
In Cuba, the Russians simply countereds your deployment of medium ranged missiles in Turkey. The called your bluff. You backed down and removed the missiles in Turkey were removed. You threatended them and they were prepared to go all the way.
Lol "Kruschev blinked!" LMAO. Kennedy didn;t like a taste of his own medicine. He didn't like where what he had started was going to end.
Another defeat sold to the masses as victory.
With every sentence. All I'm getting from you is how inferior and evil Russia is in everyway and how Superior America is. All the "facts" of their failures in the face of America. A long detailed list of examples of this with no point or relavence to any subject other than this end.