@1RadicalOne That is an incredible narrow point of view. The simple matter of fact is that there are nations in this world that would use such weapons indiscriminately to further there political aims. The reason they don't is due to nations like ourselves that use such weapons as a deterrent against such a threat. Those missiles do more to prevent war than any other single thing in our military.
One, there is the possibility of developing immunity, such as through Reagan's infamous "Star Wars" program. That would have made the protected country not afraid of retaliation.
Two, those who do not fear - or even want - death and destruction. Such as the religious fundamentalists in the Middle East and south US.
@1RadicalOne Point one falls apart because it asserts that "if" some condition were to become true then the argument falls apart. But that condition is NOT true so the argument stands. In todays world Nuclear deterrent IS effective because there is no 'immunity' Don't get me wrong I would love to see it. Make nukes obsolete would be a great thing. The second point is well taken. It is a current strategic problem. However it does not mean that the deterrence does not exist.
How does deterrence exist when the other side knows that if they launch, they will be destroyed, their ultimate goal? What is there to stop them from launching?
@1RadicalOne Yep as I said I concur with you that against a radical group deterrence as it exists today is not particular effective. However today it really takes a national level of resources to "launch" an ICMB per se. I find it very hard to believe that any group secular or religious can galvanize to whole nation to voluntary self destruction. No the real threat today are man portable bombs in the kilo-ton range. And for that deterrence is not a viable strategy.
There is this place called Iran ruled by a maniac, who has both the intelligence and the necessary beliefs.
And this nearby place called Israel that is under the idea it can act with absolute impunity, causing as much death as it wants.
And there are these people called End-Timers in the US who want the entire Middle East to become a big smoking pit and who actively work towards that goal by stirring unrest.
I think the French show wisdom and the British are fooling themselves. Didn't DeGaulle in the 1960's say that France had to defend herself from enemies everywhere? Look at today. Iran, North Korea, a resurgent China. The French should maintain their vigilance as the United States does. With the resources of the globe shrinking a strong defense is vital to any nation.
@cutterschoicenotmine The premise seems to be that Great Britain should let its defense rest under the American nuclear umbrella. Remember the 1950's when France, Britain and Israel attacked Egypt; America demanded they all cease their invasion and they stopped immediately. What sovereign nation would ever allow its freedom to be subject to another power???
@cutterschoicenotmine They are fooling themselves by pursuing a nuclear disarmament without paying attention to the resurgent Russia and China who, not only that are not pursuing a disarmament, but they are developing new nuclear weapons. Just check out Russia's new RS-24 and Bulava ICBMs. Those are in terrible contradiction with the disarmament treaties.
There is something that puzzles me. In Britain there has been a strong movement against the UK having its own nuclear deterrent but, as far as I am aware, there has been no such movement in France. Can anybody tell me why this is?
@jetaddicted Thank you for replying to my question and yes, I see now that the historical experience in France would give people there a different perspective on such matters. Pacifists in Britain are people who take freedom for granted, never having known anything else. My opinion on pacifism is that is an indulgence for those who dwell securely
M51 missile
francepatriote1 10 months ago
'
where this missile fly to where hit
bestamerica 10 months ago
it looks like a big vibro..
zobzobby 1 year ago
Sure does look like a Trident D5.
22reTOYOTA 1 year ago
Impressive, but abhorrent. A device designed to do nothing but murder millions of civilians.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne That is an incredible narrow point of view. The simple matter of fact is that there are nations in this world that would use such weapons indiscriminately to further there political aims. The reason they don't is due to nations like ourselves that use such weapons as a deterrent against such a threat. Those missiles do more to prevent war than any other single thing in our military.
kjdavey 1 year ago
The deterrence argument fails on two counts.
One, there is the possibility of developing immunity, such as through Reagan's infamous "Star Wars" program. That would have made the protected country not afraid of retaliation.
Two, those who do not fear - or even want - death and destruction. Such as the religious fundamentalists in the Middle East and south US.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne Point one falls apart because it asserts that "if" some condition were to become true then the argument falls apart. But that condition is NOT true so the argument stands. In todays world Nuclear deterrent IS effective because there is no 'immunity' Don't get me wrong I would love to see it. Make nukes obsolete would be a great thing. The second point is well taken. It is a current strategic problem. However it does not mean that the deterrence does not exist.
kjdavey 1 year ago
How does deterrence exist when the other side knows that if they launch, they will be destroyed, their ultimate goal? What is there to stop them from launching?
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne Yep as I said I concur with you that against a radical group deterrence as it exists today is not particular effective. However today it really takes a national level of resources to "launch" an ICMB per se. I find it very hard to believe that any group secular or religious can galvanize to whole nation to voluntary self destruction. No the real threat today are man portable bombs in the kilo-ton range. And for that deterrence is not a viable strategy.
kjdavey 1 year ago
There is this place called Iran ruled by a maniac, who has both the intelligence and the necessary beliefs.
And this nearby place called Israel that is under the idea it can act with absolute impunity, causing as much death as it wants.
And there are these people called End-Timers in the US who want the entire Middle East to become a big smoking pit and who actively work towards that goal by stirring unrest.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
I think the French show wisdom and the British are fooling themselves. Didn't DeGaulle in the 1960's say that France had to defend herself from enemies everywhere? Look at today. Iran, North Korea, a resurgent China. The French should maintain their vigilance as the United States does. With the resources of the globe shrinking a strong defense is vital to any nation.
fairgirl7 1 year ago
@fairgirl7 You neglect to tell us how The British are fooling themselves.
cutterschoicenotmine 1 year ago
@cutterschoicenotmine The premise seems to be that Great Britain should let its defense rest under the American nuclear umbrella. Remember the 1950's when France, Britain and Israel attacked Egypt; America demanded they all cease their invasion and they stopped immediately. What sovereign nation would ever allow its freedom to be subject to another power???
fairgirl7 1 year ago
@cutterschoicenotmine They are fooling themselves by pursuing a nuclear disarmament without paying attention to the resurgent Russia and China who, not only that are not pursuing a disarmament, but they are developing new nuclear weapons. Just check out Russia's new RS-24 and Bulava ICBMs. Those are in terrible contradiction with the disarmament treaties.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@fairgirl7 Don't forget about the resurgent Russia. And if you ask me, the US doesn't maintain its vigilance the way it should be.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@fairgirl7 Truth has never been told better.
kitolad 3 months ago
There is something that puzzles me. In Britain there has been a strong movement against the UK having its own nuclear deterrent but, as far as I am aware, there has been no such movement in France. Can anybody tell me why this is?
atticana 1 year ago
@atticana there is of course, an antinuclear movement in france.
pacifism has no boundaries.
but then warmongerism neither.
having been defeated and occupied not so long ago gives us another perspective i guess.
and knowing that whoever attacked us today would become an ashtray is somewhat reassuring
jetaddicted 1 year ago
@jetaddicted Thank you for replying to my question and yes, I see now that the historical experience in France would give people there a different perspective on such matters. Pacifists in Britain are people who take freedom for granted, never having known anything else. My opinion on pacifism is that is an indulgence for those who dwell securely
atticana 1 year ago