English votes on English issues? .

[tony1851]

@ Randers; But a lot of the non-nuclear aligned countries are part of NATO, and the doctrine is that if any one country gets attacked, then it's regarded as an attack on them all. And two of those NATO countries have independant nuclear weapons.

Trident (and other nuclear systems) is a step change in weaponry, just as the tank and dreadnought were a century ago. They make everything that went before obsolete. As it is almost the ultimate weapon, then perhaps potential aggressors think twice before starting any trouble.

However you look at it, there has been no total war between the major powers for seven decades - quite possibly because of the deterrent effect of these weapons.

Sure, Trident could be scrapped, but the money saved won't go on boosting conventional forces, it'll go on better housing for asylum seekers, more foreign aid, and increased salaries for MPs.

 

[JBR]

Sure, Trident could be scrapped, but the money saved won't go on boosting conventional forces, it'll go on better housing for asylum seekers, more foreign aid, and increased salaries for MPs.

I can well believe it!

And without America (see my last) and the British and French nuclear weapons, NATO would have no teeth. Anyone could walk in.

Mind you, they seem to be doing that already!

 

[randers]

Since there's a long long list of countries which don't have nukes and which they also haven't attacked, that isn't 'evidence' of a nuclear deterrent working.

There can be other reasons for lack of Russian expansion through Europe in the 50s/60s - could it not be e.g. lack of money to support a war industry (since most of their trade at the time was with other Soviet-bloc nations which also lacked Western-level economies), plus with the Soviet Union sometimes struggling to feed itself anyway how would it have expected to fare if the majority of it's agricultural workers were conscripted and diverted into a fighting force? And how would it being an effective deterrent stack up against the Cuba crisis when the U.S. nuclear weapons made conflict more likely not less so since without the U.S. nukes there'd have been no reason for Cuba to be armed and it'd have in all likelihood been left as a small nation posing no threat to a large one, and the large one pretty much ignoring it as a consequence, so leaving each of them to go about their business.
To get back to the point, I don't see what having Trident is saving us from since disasters aren't befalling those countries which don't have it. If anything we have more conflict than most of them. And I see the 'fire insurance' analogy you made, but who does without other things to buy the most expensive insurance available, when others visibly do OK with a cheaper insurance? I agree with where you say the savings would be spent tho - the MPs would see a gain for themselves in it!

 

[AronSearle]

So it's just an assumption that it's down to nukes. The evidence that they acted as a deterrent is 'cos you think they did'.

No, I have given you historical examples, these seem to have just gone over your head. You can google this as well, lot's of historians talk about how Stalins red army was 'discouraged' from further expansion into Europe due to nukes, both American and British intelligent after the war acknowledged that soviet forces could not be stopped with conventional force (you can look up about Churchill secret plans at the time to attack Russian forces after the fall of Germany).

So no, it is not 'cos I think', you are the one pulling rubbish out yer ass.

but lots of non-nuclear non-aligned countries didn't get attacked either.

Which ones, you have yet to name any?

Germany was part of NATO and has nuclear weapons on its soil.

The other two countries you named are insignificant and surrounded by NATO countries.

 

[randers]

you are the one pulling rubbish out yer ass.

If you don't make a convincing case then just get angry/get insulting? Then I'm canning the discussion now.

Which ones, you have yet to name any?

Well just about every other country in the world, how about China/Mongolia Japan Iran all border onto Russia, were non-nuclear and didn't get attacked. Countries which don't border Russia (like we don't and Germany don't) would include the whole of Africa, whole of South America. And non-Soviet parts of Asia and the Middle East were hovering on the edge of the Soviet sphere. That's the majority of countries in the world.

The other two countries you named are insignificant.

That's a new distinction brought in is it not?

 

[jeds]

Yo're probably more expert on this than I am Tony1851, but the point I was trying to make was that the countries which don't have a deterrent haven't been getting attacked either, so on that basis it's hard to see what difference having no Trident would have made - why would we have been attacked and others not? It would however have let us have a bigger conventional army if that's what people wanted (as in the WW1 example).

Just to get this right; you are saying the stable, non-threatening Countries of the World should get rid of nuclear arms whilst all the unstable, threatening Countries build more? Or maybe you were thinking the non-stable Countries would ditch theirs as well. If so I spot a flaw in the plan.

No, I'm saying that...

I presume you mean no, you don't think the unstable threatening Countries will ditch nuclear arms. How will that leave the rest of us then if we get rid of ours? Are you confident in 10, 20, 30 years time those unstable nutcases will not be looking to expand. We'd have no defence in your plan.

 

[mark vincent]

Nationalism of any kind whether Welsh, Scottish or English will only cause more problems, Nationalism destroyed Ireland, Germany , Italy , Spain ect. it only leads to tears in the end.

I'm afraid I don't understand that. Ireland gained its independence from the UK in, I think, 1922, but from whom did Germany, Italy and Spain gain their independence?
In fact, if I remember my history correctly, both Germany and Italy became countries due to the union of a previous collection of smaller principalities, duchies, etc in the 19th century.

I was thinking more of Ulster, 30 year terrorist campaign by extreme nationalists left 3,500 people dead and caused billions of pounds worth the damage.

 

[JBR]

So it's just an assumption that it's down to nukes. The evidence that they acted as a deterrent is 'cos you think they did'.

No, I have given you historical examples, these seem to have just gone over your head. You can google this as well, lot's of historians talk about how Stalins red army was 'discouraged' from further expansion into Europe due to nukes, both American and British intelligent after the war acknowledged that soviet forces could not be stopped with conventional force

Indeed. I have seen details (text and graphics) making it quite clear that at that time NATO (including the US) was heavily outnumbered by Soviet conventional forces, and have read expert testimonies that it was only our possession of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons that deterred them from sweeping across Europe, something that was reckoned to be more rapid than the Nazi conquest of France a few decades earlier.

NATO's defence strategy was to attempt to hold them up long enough for us to persuade them not to proceed. If that failed (most likely) tactical nuclear weapons would be used on their front lines and supply chains, and if that failed ICBMs, SLBMs and long range bombers would be used, initially in a limited way, but Russia would be bound to retaliate. Hopefully, after one or two major cities had been obliterated on both sides, Russia would realise that expansion into Western Europe would not be worth it.

That's nuclear deterrence.

 

[JBR]

Nationalism of any kind whether Welsh, Scottish or English will only cause more problems, Nationalism destroyed Ireland, Germany , Italy , Spain ect. it only leads to tears in the end.

I'm afraid I don't understand that. Ireland gained its independence from the UK in, I think, 1922, but from whom did Germany, Italy and Spain gain their independence?
In fact, if I remember my history correctly, both Germany and Italy became countries due to the union of a previous collection of smaller principalities, duchies, etc in the 19th century.

I was thinking more of Ulster, 30 year terrorist campaign by extreme nationalists left 3,500 people dead and caused billions of pounds worth the damage.

Ah, I understand that and I agree that 'the troubles' have done nothing to benefit the IRA; just caused misery for many people on both sides.

But how did nationalism destroy Germany, Italy and Spain?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Fascism was not beneficial.

 

[AronSearle]

China/Mongolia Japan Iran all border onto Russia {snip} Middle East

Another display of sheer ignorance, and you wonder why I insult you?

China was a Russian ally.

Japan had a security treaty with the USA, a nuclear power.

Russia invaded Afghanistan (maybe you missed the Rambo film, I reference that as proper history doesn't seem to be your bag).

The other two countries you named are insignificant.

That's a new distinction brought in is it not?

I already explained why they were bad examples for you to give (Sweden and Switzerland), your response to this?

No, quite, you simply moved on, therefore making your examples/argument insignificant as you can't/don't counter defend them.

 

[Micilin]

Nationalism of any kind whether Welsh, Scottish or English will only cause more problems, Nationalism destroyed Ireland, Germany , Italy , Spain ect. it only leads to tears in the end.

I'm afraid I don't understand that. Ireland gained its independence from the UK in, I think, 1922, but from whom did Germany, Italy and Spain gain their independence?
In fact, if I remember my history correctly, both Germany and Italy became countries due to the union of a previous collection of smaller principalities, duchies, etc in the 19th century.

I was thinking more of Ulster, 30 year terrorist campaign by extreme nationalists left 3,500 people dead and caused billions of pounds worth the damage.

Just to clarify, do you mean 'nationalists ' or 'Nationalists' ? ( ie all protagonists, or just the Republicans)

 

[Micilin]

So it's just an assumption that it's down to nukes. The evidence that they acted as a deterrent is 'cos you think they did'.

No, I have given you historical examples, these seem to have just gone over your head. You can google this as well, lot's of historians talk about how Stalins red army was 'discouraged' from further expansion into Europe due to nukes, both American and British intelligent after the war acknowledged that soviet forces could not be stopped with conventional force

Indeed. I have seen details (text and graphics) making it quite clear that at that time NATO (including the US) was heavily outnumbered by Soviet conventional forces, and have read expert testimonies that it was only our possession of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons that deterred them from sweeping across Europe, something that was reckoned to be more rapid than the Nazi conquest of France a few decades earlier.

NATO's defence strategy was to attempt to hold them up long enough for us to persuade them not to proceed. If that failed (most likely) tactical nuclear weapons would be used on their front lines and supply chains, and if that failed ICBMs, SLBMs and long range bombers would be used, initially in a limited way, but Russia would be bound to retaliate. Hopefully, after one or two major cities had been obliterated on both sides, Russia would realise that expansion into Western Europe would not be worth it.

That's nuclear deterrence.

Nicely put.

Also, the fear that the side losing the limited strikes exchange would go for broke rather than defeat and we ended up with MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

We also need to remember the various 'Wars by proxy' that we have had,where the Cold War went hot in other territories.

Eg Afghanistan, Korea, Angola, Nicaragua

 

[joe-90]

The UK has but one Trident armed sub at sea at any one time. The Ruskies will know exactly where it is and could obliterate it with impunity whenever it suited them.

 

[AronSearle]

The UK has but one Trident armed sub at sea at any one time. The Ruskies will know exactly where it is and could obliterate it with impunity whenever it suited them.

You need to work on your trolling joe, when you say something too stupid it becomes to obvious.