Who'd have though it, Jim quite succinctly explaining why we need to maintain a stockpile of Nuclear Weapons!
Jim quite accurately explaining Nuclear Deterrents
1 of 3
Originally Posted by 21stCenturyBoy:
“Who'd have though it, Jim quite succinctly explaining why we need to maintain a stockpile of Nuclear Weapons!”
“Who'd have though it, Jim quite succinctly explaining why we need to maintain a stockpile of Nuclear Weapons!”
When was this defence?
He's a match for pious I know it all Liz, that's for sure. Whether he's right or wrong I don't care as long as he keeps putting the lid back on her.
As much as it pains me to say it, he is correct. As nice as it would be to be live in a world without nuclear weapons they are the reason that there hasn't yet been a World War 3.
Originally Posted by Flo71:
“He's a match for pious I know it all Liz, that's for sure. Whether he's right or wrong I don't care as long as he keeps putting the lid back on her.”
“He's a match for pious I know it all Liz, that's for sure. Whether he's right or wrong I don't care as long as he keeps putting the lid back on her.”
^^ this .
She is one of those who preaches the platitudes without much thought or reason behind them.
Originally Posted by Veri:
“When was this defence?”
“When was this defence?
”
Because one country disarming doesn't mean every other country will.
If one of the US/ USSR hadn't had weapons back in the Cold War, you can bet the other would have used them without fear of return fire.
They've been used only once- the USA against (non-Nuclear) Japan.
They're needed as a deterrent for as long as countries are armed.
Originally Posted by 21stCenturyBoy:
“Because one country disarming doesn't mean every other country will.
If one of the US/ USSR hadn't had weapons back in the Cold War, you can bet the other would have used them without fear of return fire.
They've been used only once- the USA against (non-Nuclear) Japan.
They're needed as a deterrent for as long as countries are armed.”
“Because one country disarming doesn't mean every other country will.
If one of the US/ USSR hadn't had weapons back in the Cold War, you can bet the other would have used them without fear of return fire.
They've been used only once- the USA against (non-Nuclear) Japan.
They're needed as a deterrent for as long as countries are armed.”
I didn't mean what was his defence; I meant when did he say it / when did viewers see it?
Originally Posted by Cornchips:
“^^ this .
She is one of those who preaches the platitudes without much thought or reason behind them.”
“^^ this .
She is one of those who preaches the platitudes without much thought or reason behind them.”
I think she has thought and reason behind her opinions, she is just too idealistic and immature.
Nuclear bombs are needed they have kept the piece for the last 50 years! That Liz is a typical feminist journo that uses her position to spout rubbish like lets all love each other, animals, lets turn the world into one big nanny state! it don't work like that and never will. Nuclear bombs are very much needed in todays world.
Originally Posted by Veri:
“I didn't mean what was his defence; I meant when did he say it / when did viewers see it?”
“I didn't mean what was his defence; I meant when did he say it / when did viewers see it?”
On last nights show.
Originally Posted by 21stCenturyBoy:
“Who'd have though it, Jim quite succinctly explaining why we need to maintain a stockpile of Nuclear Weapons!”
“Who'd have though it, Jim quite succinctly explaining why we need to maintain a stockpile of Nuclear Weapons!”
Nuclear weapons that are costing us countless billions while other things in this nation that need money are being cut.
Sad but true. We do need nuclear weapons, it's a kind of Mexican stand off. You hit me, I'll hit you, no winners.
One thing I can say about Jim is that the troops overseas tend to love him. He's done many a stint for our troops to bring some light hearted entertainment. PR or whatever, at least he's prepared to go and put on a show for them. Same as Katherine Jenkins, I take my hat off to those pair and many others that do that. It's good for morale.
One thing I can say about Jim is that the troops overseas tend to love him. He's done many a stint for our troops to bring some light hearted entertainment. PR or whatever, at least he's prepared to go and put on a show for them. Same as Katherine Jenkins, I take my hat off to those pair and many others that do that. It's good for morale.
How have they kept the peace for the last 50 years when you have had conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, most of the continent of Africa and most recently Iraq and Afghanistan? All of which the US and Soviet Union have taken sides.
Originally Posted by BlueStreak:
“Sad but true. We do need nuclear weapons, it's a kind of Mexican stand off. You hit me, I'll hit you, no winners.
One thing I can say about Jim is that the troops overseas tend to love him. He's done many a stint for our troops to bring some light hearted entertainment. PR or whatever, at least he's prepared to go and put on a show for them. Same as Katherine Jenkins, I take my hat off to those pair and many others that do that. It's good for morale.
”
“Sad but true. We do need nuclear weapons, it's a kind of Mexican stand off. You hit me, I'll hit you, no winners.
One thing I can say about Jim is that the troops overseas tend to love him. He's done many a stint for our troops to bring some light hearted entertainment. PR or whatever, at least he's prepared to go and put on a show for them. Same as Katherine Jenkins, I take my hat off to those pair and many others that do that. It's good for morale.
”
I disagree. We're wasting goodness knows how many billions on these things on the TINY POSSIBILITY that we MIGHT get attacked.
Britain's independent nuclear capability has never been, and could never be, great enough to achieve MAD, (mutually assured destruction) in relation to The old USSR or China. Fear of retaliation would not deter a rogue state with irrational leadership. The cold war has been over for more than 20 years. I'm not sure what Jim was getting at. Maybe he is stuck in the 70s.
Originally Posted by zx50:
“I disagree. We're wasting goodness knows how many billions on these things on the TINY POSSIBILITY that we MIGHT get attacked.”
“I disagree. We're wasting goodness knows how many billions on these things on the TINY POSSIBILITY that we MIGHT get attacked.”
However small the possibility don't you think it is better to be prepared just in case that tiny possibility may happen? It would be far too late after the event wouldn't it? A country knowing we are more or less defenceless could chance their arm.
Of course, that is only my opinion, but it's an opinion many would share.
Originally Posted by Flo71:
“He's a match for pious I know it all Liz, that's for sure. Whether he's right or wrong I don't care as long as he keeps putting the lid back on her.”
“He's a match for pious I know it all Liz, that's for sure. Whether he's right or wrong I don't care as long as he keeps putting the lid back on her.”
There is that. I don't actually agree with him but he shut that cow up fast.
Originally Posted by Angelsbaby:
“How have they kept the peace for the last 50 years when you have had conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, most of the continent of Africa and most recently Iraq and Afghanistan? All of which the US and Soviet Union have taken sides.”
“How have they kept the peace for the last 50 years when you have had conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, most of the continent of Africa and most recently Iraq and Afghanistan? All of which the US and Soviet Union have taken sides.”
How many of those countries have nuclear weapons? As far as I am aware the USA and Soviet Union have never used their nuclear warheads in those countries.
The UK nuclear deterrent is less about security and more about politics. While we continue to have a deterrent, our position on the UN permanent security membership is assured. In other words it gives us greater influence in the world and allows us to "play with the big boys". Any security benefits the deterrent may offer are purely a secondary bonus.
Originally Posted by AMS13:
“How many of those countries have nuclear weapons? As far as I am aware the USA and Soviet Union have never used their nuclear warheads in those countries.”
“How many of those countries have nuclear weapons? As far as I am aware the USA and Soviet Union have never used their nuclear warheads in those countries.”
The point of using the bomb against Japan was to end the war without any further loss of life to the soldiers fighting in the far east. But over the last 50 years there have been many conflicts over the world that the countries with the warheads sent their soldiers to fight and die in many numbers.
So what is the point of claiming nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Originally Posted by Angelsbaby:
“How have they kept the peace for the last 50 years when you have had conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, most of the continent of Africa and most recently Iraq and Afghanistan? All of which the US and Soviet Union have taken sides.”
“How have they kept the peace for the last 50 years when you have had conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, most of the continent of Africa and most recently Iraq and Afghanistan? All of which the US and Soviet Union have taken sides.”
Non-nuclear conflicts; which is the point. The post 1945 taboo on the use of nuclear weapons continues at governmental level; the real danger is non-state actors getting their hands on this kind of weaponry - because they have no regard for this taboo. From that standpoint, it could be argued that the deterrent is ineffective; but it has certainly proved a successful inter-governmental deterrent.
1 of 3
