-
Agreed. Was his only real stumble of the evening and he should have been ready with a snappy one liner that allows him to move on. Aside from that he did pretty well I thought.
May was spluttering variations of her favourite slogans every time she got flustered. -
He should still have a better answer ready though.
Agreed and it doesn't need a great deal of analysis to pull it apart.
a) There are no conceivable circumstances in which the UK will be the sole target of a pre-emptive nuclear strike by a conventional force.
b) That being the case, there are no conceivable circumstances in which the US wouldn't deploy it's vastly superior nuclear arsenal against the aggressor (because they would also be threatened).
c) So our "nuclear deterrent" is 1) no deterrent and 2) unnecessary.
Our "rational" enemies (Russia and China) are so vast in terms of both geography and population, that even the total deployment of our nukes is of no concern to them.
Our "irrational" enemies (Iran, Pakistan and North Korea) either lack the capability to attack us or don't consider us a primary target (Iran/Israel, Pakistan/India, N. Korea/S. Korea or Japan).
The most pertinent threat of a nuclear attack against us comes from terrorists deploying an unconventional nuclear weapon, ie a "dirty bomb", against which Trident is neither effective nor a deterrent: how do you launch a nuke at stateless individuals for whom their own death and the deaths of others is of no concern?
Our nuclear capability is preserved to maintain the façade of our position as a "global player" predicated on having been on the winning side in WWII (cf the permanent members of the UN Security Council) and as a result of politico-corporate circle-jerks.
The argument that we should prepare for the unknown future (where nukes somehow become relevant and necessary), ignores the known present: it's the Poor Bloody Infantry who have borne the brunt of our recent interventions and yet it's the PBI who have suffered the brunt of cuts in defence spending.
It's a nonsense to argue that billions should be spent on "what if", at the expense of known, immediate requirements.
You are reading a single comment by @WillMelling and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
edmundro
Scilly.Suffolk
@WillMelling
He should still have a better answer ready though. It's obvious he's going to be asked about it and that any equivocation is going to be pounced on.