Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKing
The question the pro-nuke guys need to answer is why it's so good to have them? If you have to use them, it's too late, if you don't have them to use the effect is the same anyway, absent deterrent, which doesn't work the way it used to. Is the cost worth it when you consider what else you could do with the money and effort? Put it into nuclear decommissioning talks with the other nuclear powers, like in the 80s? Why did that go out of fashion anyway? Rather a good idea, you can tell because the neo-cons *hated* it.
|
It's a show of strength.
Whilst I agree that, at the moment, the prospect of any nuclear attack from another state is small, and most likely would come from a terrorist organisation (possibly backed by a rogue state).
That does not mean this would always be the case. I would not fancy surrendering our nuclear capability just as the likes of Iran are set about acquiring it.
Also any rogue state the sponsered a nuclear attack could do so knowing that we could not respond in a similar manner. At least if we suffered a terrorist attack and discovered it sponsored by a rogue state we could retaliate.
Having nuclear capability will always make otheres think twice.
In a time when our Army is at it lowest level of numbers, our Navy is on its knees and our most advanced plane is actually 30years out of date. I'm happy to have it.