Not really. In the first case you plant the seeds of future conflicts in the other you use the opportunity to work with the defeted nation towards a more secure future (for both). This is a trully big difference

Why don't you tell us what the relevance of "created" versus "forced" was vis a vis WWII.

I don't get it.

Do you envision Japan crafting future retaliation conflicts against the US?

And which country was it that nurtured Japan back to health after the Japanese were "forced" to make peace?

Everything depends on respect. When the Second World War finished the USA followed a different model in the management of peace in comparison with the model France and Great Britain followed after the First World War. The whole idea was in helping the defeted nations to stand tall again and feel they are equals (well almost at least) with the victors. I was not talking about Japan in my previous messages. What I meant was that in today's world using nuclear weapons or even heavy handed tactics can lead to "messy" situations where military powerfull nations cannot inforce the peace they wish. Examples can be found in Iraq, Afghanistan and unfortunatelly Israel and the rest of the Arab States in the region. I'm sorry if I missled you with my previous statements.

How does any of this rebut the point that nukes were used and did create peace, which is what we were discussing?

Definately, we should definately have a nuclear arm...

Now...I'm not a major fan of nukes...the whole thought of the buggers gives me the shivers, but...we shouldn't have rely on others for our strategic deterrant...we are a small island nation, we can defend ourselves conventially against conventional force...but aside from ABMs (which we don't yet have) the only way to prevent nuclear destruction is the capability to launch a retalliation on the country which launched on you....MAD...Mutually Assured Destruction.

Admittedly, having ICBMs isn't going to prevent a CBN attack by Bin and co, who are Britains main and closest threat at the moment (well...unless you count Brussells or Westminster ;) ) as nuclear weapons are a strategic weapon, not particularly a tactical one (although Tac nukes do exist, obviously...but not the ICBM types....and I'm not 100% sure the UK has Tactical nukes...I think they went the same way as the Vulcan...)

Well I don't really agree with you. When nuclear weapons were used they did not create peace. They just saved precious american lives. Japan was either way up for total surrender and nothing could have saved her. The Bombs did speed up the end of the war but did not contibute to the outcome. That's why I do not agree with the idea that nukes were used and brought peace.

I am not one to get involved in the internal politics of another nation so I will not do so now. The people of Britain through their freely elected representatives will do that. That being said, I have a take on nuclear weapons.

Following the US use of atomic weapons on Japan, ending WWII, and the development of thermo-nuclear packages, there has been a debate as to their further development and usefulness as a weapon. Strictly speaking, as a tactical weapon nuclear bombs are of little or no value. The destruction, loss of human life and denial of territory make their logical use in tactical warfare nonexistent.

Strategic, also known as existential warfare, is another story entirely. During the so called ‘Cold War’ each side knew that the use of nuclear arms would lead to the destruction of the other, also known as ‘Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD). During the ‘Cold War’ both sides endeavored to reduce the threat of total destruction through treaties and rhetoric. Although many fought to minimize the threat to both sides through propaganda (Doomsday Clock) and proxy wars (Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and others on the African Continent), nuclear weapons did not cease to exist. The acceptance of nuclear weapons must exist because nuclear weapons exist and the technology to make them will not be forgotten……….one cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

As nuclear weapons exist today, as they did during the ‘Cold War’, are existential in nature. That is, if the existence of a nation as a people, culture, and civilization is in jeopardy, that nations nuclear weapons can and ultimately will ensure its survival.

"Should Britain have nukes?"

Should Europe have nukes?

100% yes.

So Britain should have nukes.

France as well.

I would like to see other European core-nations, especially Germany, guaranteeing a certain nuclear deterrant as well.

That Britain even debates about the question, is no good sign.

On the other hand: should European nations that within the next decades will be more and more influenced by Islam should have nukes...?!?!? After the Lebanon war last year Italy and France had nothing better to do than to deliver most modern european SAMs to Lebanese army. But Hezbollah does not operate combat planes, only spy drones. And knowing that or not: equipping the Lebanese army with these weapons means to equip Hezbollah with them as well. Hezbollah may not operatecombat planes - but it knows somebody who does, and that is it'S archenemy. While Europe does not seem to be aware, that Europeans also operate european combat planes with European pilots aboard... But doesn't that mean that... BINGO!

So the question is valid: should European nations that within the next decades will fall victim to more and more Muhammedan influence should have nukes - if they already helpt to arm Muhammedan "extremisms" (what should that be?) right now, and have funded terror organisations there for years? Maybe we should start to shoot down our own airplanes instead, and wage a NATO war against Israel. That way, the thing would be much clearer and easier to understand.

Someone (Kozloff) apparently never read the treaty.:roll:


Time for a school lesson:


No where does it say that a already nuclear state/country cannot develop or research more nuclear weapons. Read ALL of it in this link provided:


---> LINK <---


School's out.

True.

Was this a true or false question?

Huh?

As before, you can have your nukes if we can too:smug:
The fact is Finland is living in a neigbourhood that isnt safe if a big conflict arises.
The Kola peninsula, Northern Fleet, St Petersburg, Baltic Fleet, oil terminals at Vyborg, gas pipe going through Gulf of Finland to Europe.
These are all within 20-200km behind our 1500km long Eastern border!
Major build of forces starting in the Leningrad military district.
We are not in NATO and i dont think theres any sense in joining.
The allies wouldnt have anything to send here, do you see anyone of your countries sending troops and dying for Finland?
We could get exterminated as a nation and ethnicity being the NATO outpost.
Maybe someone would make a poem afterwards.:roll:

MAD worked great under bilateral circumstances like we had in the Cold War. Sadly now every Joe Dictator wants a slice of the nuclear pie. Going nuclear deters foreign intervention, which means you can gas your people or pick on your neighbours and the world powers must think long and hard before getting involved.

I believe as BMD makes progress that nukes for liberal democracies like the UK aren't as important. Reduce stockpiles as long as BMD is becoming more reliable/being implemented. If ABM ever becomes reliable enough to completely defeat a large-scale attack (which I am admittedly pessimistic of) then perhaps countries like the UK won't need nukes; eliminate the first strike threat, and you don't need second strike potential beyond conventional means.

Your wish is my command :smug:

Hope it fits your mood... I red it first when I was a juvenile in the 80s: Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles.

One of my favourite authors.