Military Discussion Thread, Discuss Military Matters In Here Options

[Blackbuck]

Same as the politics thread really, new thread for matters of a military nature because the Politics part of the P&M thread was such a hit it's got it's very own thread now

So...

In this thread members can discuss any new developments in the field of warfare, discuss current and past conflicts etcetera. Please keep it civil, no "What Gun Am B35T etcetera"


Please Conform To the Forum Rules!


Also keep in mind that posts from a staff member of our website do not represent the whole site. They are posting their personal opinion, which everyone is entitled to!

[D@V£]

Yes. Because, clearly, with the global political climate what it is nowadays, a nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money...

[/sarcasm]

[BigglesTrevor]

Yes. Because, clearly, with the global political climate what it is nowadays, a nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money...

[/sarcasm]

Yes it is. Other nations act as the deterent on our behalf, thats the hole point of the UN and more particularly NATO. Its seems to go pretty fine for other countries...

Its pretty much pissing away £75 billion over the next 30 years whilst getting absolutly nothing back, nothing at all. The past 30 years of British nuclear deterent have all but proved that. Nuclear politics is such a limited philosophy really reserved for super power relations, and perhaps even more reserved when it is so. Useful for Britain? It really worked wonders on freezing the Argentines claims to the falklands, not to mention keeping Russia and the Middle East in check over cartelling there energy reserves.

This post has been edited by BigglesTrevor: Jul 14 2009, 15:20

[D@V£]

Yes it is. Other nations act as the deterent [sic] on our behalf, thats [sic] the hole [sic] point of the UN and more particularly NATO. Its seems to go pretty fine for other countries...

Its pretty much pissing away £75 billion over the next 30 years whilst getting absolutly [sic] nothing back, nothing at all. The past 30 years of British nuclear deterent [sic] have all but proved that. Nuclear politics is such a limited philosophy really reserved for super power relations, and perhaps even more reserved when it is so. Useful for Britain? It really worked wonders on freezing the Argentines claims to the falklands [sic], not to mention keeping Russia and the Middle East in check over cartelling [sic] there [sic] energy reserves.

That's only because the government doesn't seem to appreciate how awesome it is to have the power to destroy up to 12 targets on earth with the press of single button...

Besides, you seem to be forgetting that this money is not only going towards the trident missile system, but also provides technological and scientific understandings that better the lives of the common citizen.

As for Nuclear Deterrents as a whole being useless. The UN has shown it's completely useless by their attempt to prevent war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and NATO has never tried to prevent a war. You can't tell me it's merely a coincidence that hasn't been a major war in Europe since nuclear weapons were first deployed.

As for your "other countries don't need nuclear deterrents" crap. Well... let's look at the facts, shall we?
1. Korean War - Would North Korea have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
2. Vietnam War - Would North Vietnam have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
3. Chinese invasion of Tibet - Would China have invaded Tibet if they were nuclear capable?

[BigglesTrevor]

That's only because the government doesn't seem to appreciate how awesome it is to have the power to destroy up to 12 targets on earth with the press of single button...

As for Nuclear Deterrents as a whole being useless. The UN has shown it's completely useless by their attempt to prevent war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and NATO has never tried to prevent a war. You can't tell me it's merely a coincidence that hasn't been a major war in Europe since nuclear weapons were first deployed.

I didnt say "Nuclear Deterrents as a whole being useless", i said in terms of super power relations they were limited, Only someone with no grasp of international politics would say otherwise.

I have suggested Nuclear Deterrent has been useless to Britain, which when you look at the political circumstances the past 35-40 years is not exactly unfair to suggest. The argumant that NATO has not tried to prevent a war is completely irrelevant to the point i was making, NATO is a collective defence, Britain is a member and as such benefits from the nuclear deterent provided by the USA. Im not trying to deny nuclear deterrent has deferred conflicts in Europe (and in Asia), the spheres of influence that nations in Europe are alligned under have almost certinly prevented a number of open conflicts. Your showing plain ignorance to the content of my post, i really shouldnt have to repeat myself.

Im questioning the purpose of a independant British nuclear deterrent when our international political position has not moved significantly in the last 65 years, and shows no imminant threat of doing so many decades to come. Lets take the plunge like South Africa, join Austrailia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Spain, Italy, Germany and Holland. I dont see any Chinease, Russians, North Koreans, Iranians or French walking all over there faces.

This brings me to my next point, whats the point of spending this enormous sum of cash on a nuclear detterant when we would never use them independantly without the USA's backing anway? Its madness, its pretty much paying the USA to station an extension of there detterant in the UK.

Besides, you seem to be forgetting that this money is not only going towards the trident missile system, but also provides technological and scientific understandings that better the lives of the common citizen.

Excuse the fact that i have had to pull it from wiki, but im pretty sure the top 10 share some sort of corrolation. Now im not trying to suggest thats becuase they dont have nuclear arsenals, but it hardly hurts quality of living not too. But i have to agree with you to an extent, the internet that is allowing us to have this debate was a technological advantage that came of the back of nuclear programs.

As for your "other countries don't need nuclear deterrents" crap. Well... let's look at the facts, shall we?
1. Korean War - Would North Korea have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
2. Vietnam War - Would North Vietnam have invaded the South if they were nuclear capable?
3. Chinese invasion of Tibet - Would China have invaded Tibet if they were nuclear capable?

This is comical, your asking me to look at facts by providing questions formed from completely invented hypothetical situations. Not even to bring up the fact they share no similarity with the current situation that the UK finds itself in in 2010 and that you have once again deviated with an argumant against a quote which appears no where in the content of my post. Christ start living in the here and now, Maybe we should spend that 25 Billion on helping France extend the Maginot line to the North coast of France, would Hitler have planned a Blitzkrieg through the low countries if there was an extended Maginot line? Better yet, would North Korea have invaded South Korea if the US officers (in rather junior positions it must be noted) accepted the entire surrender of the Japanease forces on the Korean penisula rather than seeking Russian involement for conveniance? Like i said, Im talking about Britain, not Tibet or Sri Lanka or Barbados. Anyway in responce :

Falklands War - Would Argentina invade an overseas territory of the United Kingdom if it was nuclear capable? Yes - (Fact)

China - Did all the prowess of a nuclear deterrant prevent an invasion of North Korea occupied by UN forces or the consistance shelling of Taiwan islands? No - (Fact)

Nuclear detterant is not a magic wand of invulnerability, is more a barganing chip on the craps table of international politics, on which Britain was never reserved a seat. The view of this Citizen is that its time for Britain to cash up that chip and improve its decade neglected military of an overdraft.

Oh i left some spelling mistakes so you could do the [sic] stuff, you seem to like playing the English teacher. Go crazy.

This post has been edited by BigglesTrevor: Jul 14 2009, 20:45