Theresa May calls snap election in June

Clay Bingham posted:
fatcat posted:

Plus one.

Quite few suggestions on who might attack the UK, but none of them plausible. Nobody is going to attack the UK, we don’t need Trident.

On the other hand, it could be argued North Korea do need a nuclear deterrent. From the early part of the 20th century to the second world war, Korea was occupied by the Japanese. After the WW2 North Korea was invaded by the USA, (under the guise of UN), who where subsequently kicked out by the Chinese, who subsequently withdrew. The USA still have thousands of troupes, military hard wear and air bases in the south and in Japan.

Who’s in more danger of invasion, the UK or North Korea.

Might I suggest you Google Korean War for an update on who started what. If not already a US citizen allow me to extend a welcome. You'd love our Department of Alternative Facts.

Google " US occupation of South Korea"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Government_in_Korea

Feel free to post a link to something that happened before the above, which would be pre 1945.

 

Innocent Bystander posted:
ynwa250505 posted:
Eloise posted:
Don Atkinson posted:
Eloise posted:
SKDriver posted:

What I find scary is the naivety when it comes to potential foes and the notion that we will never be under threat. Russia is being run by an ex Cold War KGB agent who has already proven his expansionist mentality by annexing Crimea. The Russian psyche is and always has been that of a Great Power, and they will not rest until they can compete both economically and militarily with 'the West'. Can you not see that?

My thinking is though ... if a leader of a foreign power thinks so little of life (of their enemies non-combatants) that they will drop nuclear weapons; are they likely to care what retaliation happens on their own people?

War didn't happen over the Cuban missile crisis not because US and USSR faced mutual destruction but because both leaders came to their senses and compromise.

Does Kim Jong-un really work to better his people's lives and fate?

Would this nice outcome (ie sensibility and compromise) have been the same if, for example, the USA had at some previous time unilaterally scrapped its nuclear weapons ?

Well yes ... as the USA wouldn't then have been placing their weapons in European countries to threaten the USSR!

Threaten the USSR? You really are from another planet aren't you ... choose some different experts or read some different books ...

Our understanding/beliefs, at least of very recent history, are all a product of whatever is the propaganda in the country or area or society or political environment (mowt likely a combination) in which we were brought up, modified by whatever questioning, challenging and research (what sources?) we might have done, so it is inevitable that a variety of genuinely believed 'truths' will abound. And depending on the subject and its sensitivity to distortion in any way the more different those truths are. And we never really know what the real truth is, except that when a wide concensus from all these different influences says the same thing it might just be. 

But certainly the impression I had was that the USSR was the aggressor, in that they may very well have attacked/invaded more countries had the NATO alliance and its associated forces not rallied and presented an enduring show of radiness to defend.

Regardless of who "started it", my point was that BOTH SIDES came to their senses and a compromise was reached because BOTH SIDES had a nuclear deterrent.

Of course it would be nice if NONE of US had nuclear weapons or anything equivalent. And from time-to-time we have managed to reduce our mutual stockpiles. But we are still dependent on sensible leaders making compromises and reaching diplomatic agreements.

Don

My understanding of the Cuba crisis differs from yours, (although I haven’t consulted google, so I could be wrong).

I don’t think there was any compromise. The Americans blockaded Cuba and wouldn’t let soviet ships through, the soviets backed down, turned their ships around stopped building missile sites on Cuba.

You’re correct about needing sensible leaders, unfortunately, I don’t think Trump can be regarded as sensible.

 

Innocent Bystander posted:
But certainly the impression I had was that the USSR was the aggressor, in that they may very well have attacked/invaded more countries had the NATO alliance and its associated forces not rallied and presented an enduring show of radiness to defend.

My understanding was that the Cuban missile crisis came about after Cuba requested help from USSR following the Bay of Pigs invasion by the USA.  USSR were also upset about the USA placing missiles in Italy and Turkey.

The conclusion to the missile crisis resulted in USA having to promise not to try to invade / interfere in Cuba again as well as (secretly) them removing the missiles located in Italy and Turkey.  USSR on the other hand withdrew threats of placing missiles on Cuba.

It also lead to the creation of the Washington - Moscow "hotline" to try to improve communications and prevent a repeat.

So yes, USSR was the aggressor, but they were responding to previous aggressive acts committed by the USA.

Eloise posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
But certainly the impression I had was that the USSR was the aggressor, in that they may very well have attacked/invaded more countries had the NATO alliance and its associated forces not rallied and presented an enduring show of radiness to defend.

My understanding was that the Cuban missile crisis came about after Cuba requested help from USSR following the Bay of Pigs invasion by the USA.  USSR were also upset about the USA placing missiles in Italy and Turkey.

The conclusion to the missile crisis resulted in USA having to promise not to try to invade / interfere in Cuba again as well as (secretly) them removing the missiles located in Italy and Turkey.  USSR on the other hand withdrew threats of placing missiles on Cuba.

It also lead to the creation of the Washington - Moscow "hotline" to try to improve communications and prevent a repeat.

So yes, USSR was the aggressor, but they were responding to previous aggressive acts committed by the USA.

Great summary of the wiki entry Eloise ... excepting the last sentence - which is simply your opinion ... and entirely wrong ....

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

I've always thought that nuclear weapons are just a way of buying/sustaining our place as one of the 'major' International powers. Whether we want to do that is of course a moot point. Post Brexit our place in international affairs will of course be somewhat altered anyway.

Bruce

 

The primary obligation of our (and, I would submit, any) Government is the Defence of the Realm - everything is secondary to that. So, clearly, it behoves our Government to be at the forefront (as best it can) of any technology that maximises that ability. The UK is a major international power and, in today's world, possession of nuclear weapons is a significant military and political asset.

The UK has a glorious military history and we should do everything to sustain that tradition. It stands us in good stead and, in many ways, defines our nation.

Brexit (imho) is irrelevant to the above.

That is an interesting argument. Personally I would like a modern Britain to be defined not by its military history. Preserving that tradition appears mighty expensive. Of course it is also unclear that being a nuclear power actually makes you safer; perhaps it just guarantees your destruction?

I believe that they are primarily a political asset. The debate should perhaps be of the value of that vs the cost?

Maybe we could be defined by disarmament, humanitarianism and the promotion of more positive policies around the world.

Bruce 

ynwa250505 posted:
Eloise posted:

So yes, USSR was the aggressor, but they were responding to previous aggressive acts committed by the USA.

Great summary of the wiki entry Eloise ... excepting the last sentence - which is simply your opinion ... and entirely wrong ....

Its a great summary of the facts ynwa!

But if you disagree with my summary, which part of my comments are you disagreeing with?

Did the USA place missiles in Italy and Turkey which were directed at USSR?

Did the USA invade, by covert operations, Cuba a sovereign state?

Both are arguably aggressive actions.

(PS. You realise don't you, that my criticism of USA does not mean I believe what USSR did was justified or without criticism?)

 
Bruce Woodhouse posted:

That is an interesting argument. Personally I would like a modern Britain to be defined not by its military history. Preserving that tradition appears mighty expensive. Of course it is also unclear that being a nuclear power actually makes you safer; perhaps it just guarantees your destruction?

I believe that they are primarily a political asset. The debate should perhaps be of the value of that vs the cost?

Maybe we could be defined by disarmament, humanitarianism and the promotion of more positive policies around the world.

Bruce 

Nuclear weapons are obviously a military asset as well as political. However, the value cannot be quantified - there is no ROI justification for preserving the country's safety - so we simply stump up what we can and try to stay ahead of the game. This applies not just to "today", but also to future decades/centuries when the opponents/issues will be very different (but currently unknowable).

I guess we "could" be anything. However, we are what we are and that is defined by the accumulated experiences of our history, which over the centuries has created a very unique national culture and one to be proud of.

Disarmament is just stupidity. I think the UK is definitely humanitarian and definitely a promoter of positive policies around the world - I don't see how those can be denied. We're not Sweden though. Fortunately ...

SKDriver posted:

I was going to leave this argument but...

Whilst all weapons are military assets, they are in fact political tools; the Strategic ones perhaps more so - Clausewitz said so. It must be true.

Agreed. And as I said on page 3 of this thread :-

"Just what is our military asset all about, if it isn't to influence others ?"

Add Reply

×
×
×
×