there are cheaper options than Trident though
and while we are on the same side as the USA, they've got plenty of nukes to go around.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:06, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

except the USA
aren't exactly the most reliable of allies. I'd rather keep our own nukes thanks than rely on them.

They are a deterrent, and they are also a prestige item.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:19, Reply)

Yup
I mean ultimately the USA don't care about us and would happily sell us down the river for a quick buck..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:20, Reply)

and there are loads of countries without Nukes
and they don't get nuked willy nilly. Most of Europe for example. All African Countries, All South American Countries, Australia and surrounding countries, Mexico, Japan all nuke free. We do not need nukes.
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:50, Reply)

BUT WE MIGHT!!!!!!1!!!

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:52, Reply)

OMG UR RITE!!!!!1!!!

( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:57, Reply)

Ahem.
If you recall, Japan has been nuked a little bit. Understandable oversight, it was a while back after all, but still...
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:56, Reply)

Yup and their response rather than "We must get a deterrent so it doesn't happen again"
was to stick a monument at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a message that it should never happen again to anyone.
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:59, Reply)

Being a bit obtuse there really,
I mean they were utterly decimated by the war, so of course they weren't able to immediately develop a deterrant. Do you not think if they themselves had nukes Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have happened?
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:07, Reply)

Different time altogether
and they have had 70 years to develop/buy one
( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:13, Reply)

That's why I felt it's not a good example
Japan are not an aggressive country at all now so you could class them as being under little threat from other countries.

We on the other hand have been stomping around for generations, not least recently in the middle-east where there are some prickly characters.

If our disarmment of nuclear weapons co-incided with our enemies acquiring them there could be room for worry there in an area you don't really want to be pissing about..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:20, Reply)

Of course nobody gets nuked now without that much conflict
but say for example Iraq had nuclear weapons a few years back and we didn't and we openly get involved in a war with them?

Or even if we have no Nukes and China/India/Pakistan/Iran/N.Korea developed Nuclear weapons? I would say they would have somewhat heavier bargaining power than ourselves if push came to shove.

It's not as if wars cannot happen with developed nations(Falklands/Iraq).
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:06, Reply)

Lots of countries without Nukes were in the coalition that invaded Iraq

( Peej, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:08, Reply)

I'm meaning if Iraq had nukes
that alone would be a deterrant to not give them any shit!
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:17, Reply)

Watch for the friendly fire though

( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:19, Reply)