Perhaps the Nationalists should worry more about there own failings when it comes to the children of the less well off getting access to a University place?
It is true to say that no country with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked, but it is also true to say that no country with nuclear power has ever been attacked - simply because, logistically speaking, bombing and occupying of a country with nuclear power stations would be a logistic nightmare. To cut a long story short - only 3rd World countries get attacked, either by other 3rd World countries - or by others claiming to do it in the interests of speading democracy. If there were ever a major war in the World - then it is a safe bet to assume that the Americans will be involved in it. It is also fair to say that Britain is identified as being 'in the service of the USA' in this capacity - so, what raises the danger of attack to Britain is not Trident itself, but rather that it is seen as being 'in the service of the USA' just as all US. military establishments in the UK. raise the possibility of attack (once such a war has actually started). We have reached a state where the USA. is so far ahead in terms of conventional weaponry that the only way that countries can 'take a short cut' is by going nuclear. Personally, I would scrap Trident - remove all US. military personnel from the UK. and also withdraw from NATO.
No country with a Nuclear Power station has been attacked because they have those power stations, but because they are countries of such a size and with allies that there is no-one that can attack them.
You can leave out the sarcasm about carrots and whittling pegs thank you very much. Iran has nuclear power stations which are their only real security against attack - and precious few allies. My place of residence is also of no relevence here. I do not want American forces in Germany either - their function is over - nor do I want to be a part of a NATO organization which plants missiles on Moscow's doorstep but accuses the Russians of aggression when they react. If the Americans had withdrawn their forces from the old West Germany then the Russians would have done the same in the old GDR. as was the case in Austria, which had been occupied by both powers.
) something similar with leaving nuclear bombs (nuclear material) lying around so bombing us would first negate invasion and secondly possibly leave a nuclear cloud roaming the earth (a random danger to the attackers).
The point about nuclear power stations is that having attacked a country it is normally necessary to occupy it - the existence of nuclear power stations in such a scenario (within a war zone) is unthinkable for obvious reasons, and also for not immediately obvious ones eg. withdraw and sabotage. Whether or not I dislike the USA. (and I speak about the regime, not the people) it is probably true to say that they are the most disliked country on this planet (for various reasons, and by various groups) - it raises the level of danger to Britain that we are so closely associated with them. What reason could anyone have for attacking Britain - does it have a wealth of natural resources ? I think not. The only reason could be strategic ie. to knock our military (and nuclear) capacities out - as an extension of actions against the USA. For what other reason would anyone be dopy enough to invade our foggy island ?Cologne I won't argue the toss over Ukraine or Israel
But you raise something I had thought about. How can you make your country unsavoury? I thought that if we disposed of Trident we could ensure SAS cells were embedded not only in the UK but in other parts of the world. And have subs (nuclear powered so they could remain undetected for long periods) loaded with non nuclear missiles. Thus if we were invaded we could fight a war based on terrorism. Bit like ISIS but on a bigger scale.
You describe (not saying you are promoting it
Is either less savoury than having nuclear weapons roaming the oceans? I'm not sure?
And how effective they would be I'm not sure if we look at two scenarios:
1). The attacker is a religious nut case who thinks he is going to a glorious heaven
2). The attacker is motivated by a lack of food due to a natural or otherwise disaster (magnified by the out of control population growth).
a complex and fascinating topic.
Must say cannot share your anti US approach. Never seen any evidence that ignoring problems makes them go away. The more dialog with the states the better in my opinion. An isolated US I believe would be very dangerous (as their ability to vote Trump in as president I think clearly demonstrates).
You've certainly stimulated a few thoughts for the rest of my day
Shia vs Sunni has been raging for centuries and has been waging across borders, not much will change there. But this was a discussion over country states attacking other country states - governments may fund rebels (or freedom fighters depending on your political view) in another country, but they are not likely to go ahead with an all out war. By kicking ISIS out of Iraq and Syria, the Kurds effectively have their own country, it may not be recognised, but Turkey will do nothing about it for fear of the backlash in the West. They are already struggling with the drop in tourists and it would only take a few Western Governments to put Turkey on their "do not travel to " lists and Turkey will be a basket case.
Reigious takeover may be in the heads of a few nutters, but we could have a nuclear arsenal the size of America and it would not defend us against a tragedy such as in Manchester.
I agree that the quote of mine was not very well thought out - there are many counter examples. It is, of course, entirely possible that Saudi will be encouraged by the USA to attack Iran - this would come over well in the present White House. Just as Iraq was encouraged all those years ago. As for Erdogan - he is not interested in censure from the West, he turns it to his own advantage.
