Oh yeah, we can bomb anyone without asking the US.
In theory. In practice, explain the circumstances in which this would happen please. I think it’s much more likely that we would decline to join US use of nukes than use them alone. Just my opinion.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
In theory. In practice, explain the circumstances in which this would happen please. I think it’s much more likely that we would decline to join US use of nukes than use them alone. Just my opinion.
I think you're just looking for a row, but ok.
A scenario, quite unlikely, but nonetheless possible would be that early strikes have wiped out communications from our allies and our subs are instructed to launch by our leaders.
There are other possible scenarios too.
The main point is that you said we couldn't and I simply pointed out that you were wrong (I know this tends to make you narky
).You're also wrong about us declining to use our nuclear weapons if NATO is attacked. We would.
Ok let me revise. In what scenario would we make a policy decision to use nukes when the US had decided not to? That’s what I meant by my question, not some hypothetical in which we assume the US are using their bombs.I think you're just looking for a row, but ok.
A scenario, quite unlikely, but nonetheless possible would be that early strikes have wiped out communications from our allies and our subs are instructed to launch by our leaders.
There are other possible scenarios too.
The main point is that you said we couldn't and I simply pointed out that you were wrong (I know this tends to make you narky
You're also wrong about us declining to use our nuclear weapons if NATO is attacked. We would.
And there is a very obvious scenario which I’m sure you will tell me about.
I have no problem with you telling me I’m wrong, obviously. I find it rather reassuring.
Glastonbury doesn’t see any borders.
Apart from the watchtower and metal apron around their elite event to keep out those without a right to be there.
The irony was clearly lost on them.
6
Apart from the watchtower and metal apron around their elite event to keep out those without a right to be there.
The irony was clearly lost on them.
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
6
*BREAKING NEWS*
Reports coming in that Yevgeny Prigozhin has died after sadly falling out of a 10th floor window tomorrow morning.
Reports coming in that Yevgeny Prigozhin has died after sadly falling out of a 10th floor window tomorrow morning.
Yes, disagreeing with you is also reassuring at times.
This is like being back at school.....'come on now, you know you know this......'
The UK keeps the scenarios purposely vague, to ensure their deterence is maximised. They're used every day in that sense.....as a deterant.
Yes, disagreeing with you is also reassuring at times.
This is like being back at school.....'come on now, you know you know this......'
The UK keeps the scenarios purposely vague, to ensure their deterence is maximised. They're used every day in that sense.....as a deterant.
Col, don’t try and be intellectually superior towards anyone on anything. It’s a miracle you know how to put your socks on in the morning.
“Deterant” indeed.
Well, as Cristopher Hitchens said, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. I’m not asking for the official UK protocols I’m asking you when you think the UK government would use nukes without US support (and not in some Dr Strangelove ‘by mistake’ kind of way).Yes, disagreeing with you is also reassuring at times.
This is like being back at school.....'come on now, you know you know this......'
The UK keeps the scenarios purposely vague, to ensure their deterence is maximised. They're used every day in that sense.....as a deterant.
What war was Ben Wallace in?
Not trying to be intellectually superior in any way.
I know a bit about this stuff.
Well done with spotting my phone misspelled something. Ooooh!
He'd have a better understanding than the other candidates is what I meant, having served.
Yes, he hasn't actually been to "war", although he did serve in NI.
Ok, if a rogue state, having acquired nukes and with a nutter in charge launched against the UK, we would retaliate independently. However, as you know, an attack on any member of NATO is considered an attack on all.
If the US decided we were on our own (perfectly possible under the idiot Biden) we would respond in my opinion.
Obviously it's all hypothetical, but that's why it's called a deterrent.
(Hope the spelling is up to scratch for young twatty bollocks).
You must log in or register to see images
I’m intrigued. Not intrigued enough to read any further of course.
Steelsy for whatever military job is being offered
Gets him off those tall structures
How do you ‘know a bit about this stuff’? Inside knowledge or reading of publicly available material ie a hobby? The distinction is quite important for you as a source of authority.
Thanks. That’s all I was asking for. I’d only say a nuclear attack (I was thinking more dirty bomb, or tactical nuclear weapon) from a rogue state or a terrorist organisation on one country might demand a response from NATO, but not necessarily a nuclear response, particularly if that would expose more countries to nuclear attack.
Anyway, that’s that one dealt with.
Yes, I agree about the 'dirty bomb' scenario.
Unless we could prove it was state sponsored I don't think we'd launch, as we wouldn't have a specific target.
Terrorists deploying this stuff is a real nightmare scenario, as who do we target? In that instance it's perfectly possible that we wouldn't use nuclear weapons.
I'm not trying to be a "source of authority", just giving my opinion the same as you.
Kings Fund report comparing the health systems of 19 wealthy countries confirms what we all know, the U.K. is near the bottom of the table in the only important measure, actual health outcomes like cancer survival rates. We are also near or at the bottom of the table on numbers of clinical staff and hospital beds per head of population. And we spend less than the others on health care as a % of GDP (in the past this has been used to claim that we are ‘efficient’). Nothing that I have heard either this government saying or Labour proposing can change this in the short or even medium term.
You get what you pay for I suppose. I’d like to say something like ‘time for a radical rethink’ but it’s not going to happen.
You get what you pay for I suppose. I’d like to say something like ‘time for a radical rethink’ but it’s not going to happen.