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!

[BigglesTrevor]

That's what you said. You said the point of the UN and NATO was to avoid war. Actually, you quoted that in your own post there, so I don't see why I bothered repeating you.

I fail to see how this is a description of MAD. I feel that you pasted it thinking incorrectly that it was something I posted. Why you had it on your clipboard I don't know. I can only assume you were attempting to edit your previous post to cover up that sentence. You failed at that too.

Go look up the meaning of nuclear deterrent. That post was in direct responce to :-

a nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money...

MAD is the fundamental principle behind a nuclear deterrant. I think you understand the principle philosophy that is the centre of this debate [sarcasm]. I commented that for some NATO members the fact they come under the protective branch of a military alliance is good enough for them not to need there own individual nuclear deterrant. I understand that deterrent can refer to discouraging a conventional attack, but with your referral to the current political climate (I assumed eg. N. Korea, Iran) i really think the debate orientates around the deterrent of nuclear attack as oposed to conventional attack. A conventional nuclear deterrant can work for sure, but in the case of Britain its really not a serious concideration due to the favorable position (geographically and politicly) that our nation enjoys.

You're saying we should just sit back and wait for the US to come riding in whenever we're in trouble.

Where did i say this? Im saying we should take advantage of some of the defence they already offer us. Once again you take my words and spin your tabloid headline. You should concider a job with the Daily Mail, you like to blow things out of all proportion in order to pursuade others to your agenda. I merely suggested when would we ever use the nuclear arsenal without the backing of the United States? Besides, The last time we flexed are muscles to any degree without US backing was in Suez, nothing short of a political disaster.

Unless you're some kind of socialist-hippie then you can't deny that the trident system is an essential part of the UK's defence network.

oooohhhhh, applause for bringing out the "everyone who dosnt agree with me is a leftie" agrumant, highly original. Frankly, what your saying here is a complete bunch of tosh if you take any interest in British politics. However right now im not really expecting anything better from you.

So, why should the UK maintain it's nuclear arsenal? As a deterrent. You might as well ask why we have Armed Forces as a whole, because, frankly, that's what you're argument amounts too.

Please elaborate. Nations who do not have nuclear arsenals dont have armed forces? I really dont understand how my argumant amounts to this, quite frankly.

I've already given you undeniable evidence that Nuclear weapons in Europe has stemmed the inevitable "Let's have a huge war every 20 years for no reason" school of thought in the continent.

Yes, the political map and super power relations (which includes the use of nuclear deterrant) have prevented a major war, as well as nearly potentially caused it in the early 50's. I dont dispute this. I agree, but it has nothing to do with Britains individual nuclear deterrant, its the collective arsenals of the west and east.

I know they left the Eastern Bloc equivalent (name escapes me right now)

They are partner members in some shape or form, it really translates to prospective members. Just to confuse things a little bit more Russia actually share similar status.

This post has been edited by BigglesTrevor: Jul 15 2009, 10:29