The assumption that the UK or any other nation in the West should be allowed nuclear weapons while those in another parts of the world are not 'safe' enough to have them, comes from the colonialist mentality that the west is more 'civilised'. The truth is that anyone who has them is capable of using them, whether you label them as a 'deterrent' or not.
i give it 200 years and humanity will either be extinguished completely or have fallen into barbarism because of nuclear weapons. You can't predict what international relations will be like in 10 years time, let alone 100, but nuclear weapons will always be there, hanging above us like Damocles' sword.
pop up. Like, what other countries are not allowed to have these weapons? Is Pakistan, Israel, Russia or North Korea allowed to have them? Or are we only talking about countries planning on making these weapons in the future? What if my home country (Denmark) plans on getting one of these weapons. Is that safe?
moving the a future battlefield away from England to mainland Europe.
The point I'm making is that Iran has every right to point at these statements and say: "Well, if you felt obliged to make this type of reasoning, namely deterence, 20 to 30 years ago why should we not able to do the same".
I'm not advocating that Iran gets any nuclear weapons. But if we begin to bomb Iran to make them stop producing these weapons under the idea that they are not allowed to posses them, many questions will
@topperheartramada. I'm not defending any regimes that I find horrible. Indeed, the regime of the Soviet Union was terrible. It imprisoned, tortured and killed any citizen who was accused of wanting a different political system with more individual freedom and choice.
I loathed that type of regime just as much as anyone.
But whether my political stance is to "the left" or not is the issue of what Margaret Thatcher is talking about. She is talking about deterrence and the possibility of
So Iran could make the same argument; that they will develop nuclear weapons such that conventional warfare can be deterred.
Oh yeah we cannot deny history. That the Russians and Americans (in collaberation with The U.K.) deployed many tactical medium and short range nuclear weapons in West Germany, East Germany and Polen in order for the war to be fought on a battlefield as far away as possible. Yes, this woman was really giving the Germans their freedom!
@Goodash21 Are you mental? I love how you leftist cunts always find the most ridiculous excuses for the most horrible regimes. Why is that? What mental illness urges you to turn things upside-down and always side with the most horrible regimes nd countries and then use these pathetic arguments to make the countries that least deserve it look like monsters? with your logic there would be no freedom. wait, of course. the left hates freedom. there's a clue.
Saying we expanded our nuclear weapons program for "deterrence" sounds about as convincing as when the Russians use the same argument. This just looks like a bad joke today. Cannot believe how much BS this woman sold to the public.
So if the threat of millions of tons of conventional bombs didn't deter our grandparents' leaders from dropping millions of tons of conventional bombs on our grandparents, why should the threat of nuclear weapons stop the arseholes who currently rule the world from nuking us?
@groinhat Because Nuclear weapons can wipe out a nation, conventional weapons can cause damage, Nuclear weapons are the Ultimate threat, the only way to secure against the ultimate threat is to have the ultimate threat, Thats why M.A.D. has kept us alive, as soon as one nation steps down they are at risk!
because even if we where nuked we would still be able to launch back because the nuke sub is always out at sea, How would we know where it came from, Because it shows up on radar and where the nuke was launched, Take your finger out your arse and have a think about it
The assumption that the UK or any other nation in the West should be allowed nuclear weapons while those in another parts of the world are not 'safe' enough to have them, comes from the colonialist mentality that the west is more 'civilised'. The truth is that anyone who has them is capable of using them, whether you label them as a 'deterrent' or not.
LUCIAINURFACE 1 week ago
i give it 200 years and humanity will either be extinguished completely or have fallen into barbarism because of nuclear weapons. You can't predict what international relations will be like in 10 years time, let alone 100, but nuclear weapons will always be there, hanging above us like Damocles' sword.
benehan 1 month ago
pop up. Like, what other countries are not allowed to have these weapons? Is Pakistan, Israel, Russia or North Korea allowed to have them? Or are we only talking about countries planning on making these weapons in the future? What if my home country (Denmark) plans on getting one of these weapons. Is that safe?
Goodash21 2 months ago
@Goodash21 In the hands of the wrong President , any nuclear nation could become a dangerous nation.
SukhdevZomer 2 months ago
moving the a future battlefield away from England to mainland Europe.
The point I'm making is that Iran has every right to point at these statements and say: "Well, if you felt obliged to make this type of reasoning, namely deterence, 20 to 30 years ago why should we not able to do the same".
I'm not advocating that Iran gets any nuclear weapons. But if we begin to bomb Iran to make them stop producing these weapons under the idea that they are not allowed to posses them, many questions will
Goodash21 2 months ago
@topperheartramada. I'm not defending any regimes that I find horrible. Indeed, the regime of the Soviet Union was terrible. It imprisoned, tortured and killed any citizen who was accused of wanting a different political system with more individual freedom and choice.
I loathed that type of regime just as much as anyone.
But whether my political stance is to "the left" or not is the issue of what Margaret Thatcher is talking about. She is talking about deterrence and the possibility of
Goodash21 2 months ago
So Iran could make the same argument; that they will develop nuclear weapons such that conventional warfare can be deterred.
Oh yeah we cannot deny history. That the Russians and Americans (in collaberation with The U.K.) deployed many tactical medium and short range nuclear weapons in West Germany, East Germany and Polen in order for the war to be fought on a battlefield as far away as possible. Yes, this woman was really giving the Germans their freedom!
Goodash21 3 months ago
@Goodash21 Are you mental? I love how you leftist cunts always find the most ridiculous excuses for the most horrible regimes. Why is that? What mental illness urges you to turn things upside-down and always side with the most horrible regimes nd countries and then use these pathetic arguments to make the countries that least deserve it look like monsters? with your logic there would be no freedom. wait, of course. the left hates freedom. there's a clue.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
Saying we expanded our nuclear weapons program for "deterrence" sounds about as convincing as when the Russians use the same argument. This just looks like a bad joke today. Cannot believe how much BS this woman sold to the public.
amcd981 4 months ago
Wow... That's the kind of intellectual leadership that's been missing in the West for 20 years.
RonJohn63 6 months ago
@RonJohn63 Agreed. We are falling apart. That woman had more balls than all the current European prime ministers put together.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
jon snow!
pragmatismnotidealis 11 months ago
So if the threat of millions of tons of conventional bombs didn't deter our grandparents' leaders from dropping millions of tons of conventional bombs on our grandparents, why should the threat of nuclear weapons stop the arseholes who currently rule the world from nuking us?
groinhat 1 year ago
@groinhat Because Nuclear weapons can wipe out a nation, conventional weapons can cause damage, Nuclear weapons are the Ultimate threat, the only way to secure against the ultimate threat is to have the ultimate threat, Thats why M.A.D. has kept us alive, as soon as one nation steps down they are at risk!
crazyrichf 1 year ago
because even if we where nuked we would still be able to launch back because the nuke sub is always out at sea, How would we know where it came from, Because it shows up on radar and where the nuke was launched, Take your finger out your arse and have a think about it
SuperDanielclark 1 year ago
Scaring. I'm glad to be born shortly before Germanies reunion. That kind of narrow-minded thinking would have broken my patience.
Gorthaur26 1 year ago
love mt
hurry19 1 year ago