Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tycho102
England (right now, anyway) doesn't really need a strategic deterrent. I'm not speaking ideologically -- I'm speaking realistically. Katie bar the door for whomever flips one at England. There would be an American response, by which I mean ICBM's, with or without England's consent. Same would go for Australia.
So, the reality of the situation is that Australia and England just don't need them, and I'm not really pissed about them MOOCHING off us. :rotfl:
|
Would you bet your life on it ?
What happens if nuclear retaliation for a variety of reasons goes against the us strategic interests (in the future) ?
Its a very very big bet to put all your eggs in the same basket, and giving the us that kind if political power over the united kingdom is just that.
De Gaulle understood that over 40 years ago, and was one of the reasons why he kicked Nato HQ out of France, together with the dual key control on nuclear missiles (as was the case in italy, turkey, england).