Nuclear Weapons

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm failing to see the point in Trident, especially at a time when peoples jobs are being cut left right and center by the bankers party after bankers screwing everything up.

Having nuclear weapons.
The only real point in them is to act as a deterrent for attacks on Britain. But nobody is going to fire their nukes at Britain without knowing that other strong nations would fire on them too so they would be dead. But Britain would be dead too.
If Britain didnt have nuclear weapons. Nobody is going to nuke them because they know other strong nations will fire theirs to get rid of the threatening country. So Britain would be dead.

So the outcome isnt really that much different....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yeah, EU is a big economic power, enough to rival America easily
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Don't bring 9/11 conspiracies here or we'll never get back on topic :D

Suprised there isn't a thread for it already (probably one from ages back somewhere)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
@The stupid opinion.

Germany was not at fault for the start of WW1. Yes, they have admitted to being at fault, however in most civilised countries, statements made under Duress aren't really valid. I would say that threat of invasion counts as duress. In my opinion the fault was more Austria-Hungary's and the fault of the alliance system in general.

WW2 was Germany's fault that is true, but people turned to extremism in desperation due to the harshness of the treaty of versailles and the great depression.

WW2 was Germany's fault, does that mean we shouldn't trust them?

How many countries did Britain invade and conquer for no good reason? How many wars were started because of our greed?

We were involved in the slave trade a lot.

To me that seems there is plenty of reasons that Britain should not be trusted and kicked out of Europe according to your ideas.

Now, on nuclear weapons. I strongly disagree with the idea that we should give them all to Europe, as I strongly dislike the European Union as a whole, but that is a separate issue.

I think we should keep our independent nuclear deterrent, or at least pretend to have one.

I think it's unfair to just say 'WW2 was germany's fault'

After all, who burdened them with impossible penalties? They could never have paid that off.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think it's unfair to just say 'WW2 was germany's fault'

After all, who burdened them with impossible penalties? They could never have paid that off.

It was predicted that Germany would've paid it off by 1988. You shouldn't forget the German public was backing Hitler's regime.

Germany decided they'd rather conquer Europe than be in debt for 69 years. (though, at the time, there may not have been this prediction.)

Defenition of Fault:- mistake; a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention.

The Treaty could be seen as the first move, but it could've been resolved by Germany that avoided the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Those deaths were Germany's fault.


Sources:- Wikipedia and history class.

OT- Trident is costing us far too much to maintain. All it acts as is a REVENGE button. Anyway; perhaps if we didn't shoot back it would be a greater revenge than if we did. The people at the bomb's destination would die a slow agonising death, rather than a quick painless one in an inferno.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
All it acts as is a REVENGE button. Anyway; perhaps if we didn't shoot back it would be a greater revenge than if we did. The people at the bomb's destination would die a slow agonising death, rather than a quick painless one in an inferno.

it also acts as a deterrent. This means we can't be pressured by other nuclear nations and that we seem more ppowerful. It could also act as revenge, but I don't think thats the main outcome the military hopes for.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It does seem like the only outcome for all these nuclear weapons will be a catastrophe.

More nukes than ever are on the scene now, and all it takes is 1 to get fired before another world war starts. The likes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nowadays would attract global attention and be on the news for months. Look at 9/11... 2 towers and they have a remembrance day for it. Imagine what a nuke could do...

I can't really see a clear cut way out of this hole we're digging. If the UN decided "no more nuclear weapons" then the likes of Russia, China and USA would just say "no we're keeping them, what you gonna do about it?" Even if they don't do it in public it'll be widely known that they have them.

The real problems will come when the UK + USA underestimate a country and then try and take them on. The middle east weren't a threat to them; but they might be now if they decided to turn around and attack, especially with all the supplies we've given them.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
it also acts as a deterrent. This means we can't be pressured by other nuclear nations and that we seem more ppowerful. It could also act as revenge, but I don't think thats the main outcome the military hopes for.

We wouldn't believe them if they threatened us with nuclear weapons. They shoot a nuke at us, the US and EU shoots nukes back.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
We wouldn't believe them if they threatened us with nuclear weapons. They shoot a nuke at us, the US and EU shoots nukes back.

Then there are the argument, would another country risk all to help an ally.

A shared nuclear deterrent might be an idea, but it would involve working very closely together
 

DeletedUser613

Guest
I think it's unfair to just say 'WW2 was germany's fault'

After all, who burdened them with impossible penalties? They could never have paid that off.

Well, they had enough money to fund a massive war machine. Of course it's their fault.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It was predicted that Germany would've paid it off by 1988. You shouldn't forget the German public was backing Hitler's regime.

Germany decided they'd rather conquer Europe than be in debt for 69 years. (though, at the time, there may not have been this prediction.)

Defenition of Fault:- mistake; a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention.

The Treaty could be seen as the first move, but it could've been resolved by Germany that avoided the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Those deaths were Germany's fault.


Sources:- Wikipedia and history class.

OT- Trident is costing us far too much to maintain. All it acts as is a REVENGE button. Anyway; perhaps if we didn't shoot back it would be a greater revenge than if we did. The people at the bomb's destination would die a slow agonising death, rather than a quick painless one in an inferno.


I meant in 1 go... Not in a century.

Germany was to pay for all the destruction. Destruction caused by both sides. It was illogical and unfair for them to be burdened with this pay. Along with a depression they felt like they were treated wrong and obviously were angry. And when people are pushed in a corner like that, they'll take anything that looks like it could save them from the dark pit.

The victor is always the one to put the penalty on the loser, but imo, it backfired greatly..

Don't forget that the allied forces turned a blind eye when Germany went on practice war in Spain. Why? They wanted to avoid another war at all costs. That's also why they put up such a high penalty for Germany... Unfortunately for the allied forces, both of that backfired.

Now, you may continue to say how that's all Germany's fault... And yes, it was partly their fault, but not all of it imo.. All of it could have been avoided. By both sides, not just Germany.
 
Top