UK Trident vote today

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Open to the floor- if Russia launched a serious invasion of Estonia, would you start nuking Russian cities?

[Dauphin]

Salami.

If we are to believe the Cuban missile crisis was about to trigger Armageddon but for the grace of God, it is conceivable an invasion of Estonia would trigger it due to NATO obligations. The Russians would therefore be invading by calling a bluff. An escalation using conventional weapons in the first instance may counter this notion and lead to withdrawal. If you have no nukes there is no bluff and no withdrawal. Only war.

Would I nuke the moment Russia invaded? No. But I sleep well knowing others make the tough call.

I am ambivalent on the wider issue. I'd prefer to just pay the Americans to upkeep their arsenal, or go shares with the French.

[Giancarlo]

Russia is presently tied down in Syria and they want increased cooperation, though their goal is to preserve Assad's regime. They aren't going to invade Estonia. Nuclear escalation is reckless and stupid. JFK knew, for example, we couldn't escalate during the Cuban missile crisis.

[Dauphin]

Well done for pointing out that MAD is predicated on escalation being retarded.

[Ben Kenobi]

Open to the floor- if Russia launched a serious invasion of Estonia, would you start nuking Russian cities?

Great question. Probably would give Putin a "leave Estonia by the end of the month", warning. Then escalation to a full on conventional war. If that failed or Putin continued to keep rolling, probably would drag the nukes out if they cross into Poland.

[Dinner]

Open to the floor- if Russia launched a serious invasion of Estonia, would you start nuking Russian cities?

Hopefully not but the deterrent effect of keeping Russia from doing so cannot be ignored or dismissed with a wave of the hand. Look, I can understand the desire to freeload and try to make the US pay for everything but the UK is one of the few EU countries to actually pull its own weight so it is time to act like adults instead of children who don't pay their fair share. ****, Belgium recently sold off all of its tanls with no plans to buy more because they felt the US would cover them so why not blow the cash on give aways which help politicians win elections? If you folks keep thos up eventually the Americans are going to stop footing the bill and tell you to sink or swim on your own.

[C0ckney]

well, i'm sure the belgians will feel very silly when russian tanks are rolling through brussels.

[Elok]

It seems to me that, from Putin's POV, Turkey would be a far more desirable target than Estonia. He's been posturing as the Champion of Orthodoxy for some time; on a recent visit to Mt. Athos, he even sat in a chair reserved for the Byzantine emperor. Now, as to whether Turkey is, or will in the foreseeable future be, a weak enough target for Putin to mug, I don't know. I suspect not. But we're less likely to fight Russia over Turkey than over any state inhabited by white people, and the PR bonus for taking Constantinople would be roughly comparable to what an Israeli politician would get for knocking down the Dome of the Rock. He's got to be tempted, even if it's not practical.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Hopefully not

It's a NATO member, and you're getting cold feet about using those nukes to defend them?

[Dauphin]

I would think people are less concerned about Russia invading conventionally and having no nukes to respond with, than they are of Russia having nukes that they can use with impunity as no one has any countermeasures..

[Dinner]

It's a NATO member, and you're getting cold feet about using those nukes to defend them?

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. No one is talking about using nukes just maintaining a nuclear deterrent.
Russia has a nuclear force and it is an aggressive expansionist country which is currently invading one of its neighbors. You are talking about unilateral disarmorment because you think the US will maintain its nuclear deterrent and you see an opportunity to freeload. Is it really so hard to understand that Americans dislike being taken advantage of, do not want more freeloaders, and would like their supposed allies to actually carry their fair share of defense spending?

If you really want to save some money rather than building specifically new British missile submarines and missiles just build contract versions of US missile submarines and missiles as that would maintain the British deterrent yet cost less than designing a whole new sub class and missile system which would consist of just four submarines built.

[Dauphin]

Seems that all you need to take out a nuclear sub is a merchant vessel.

[Aeson]

The possibility that the US might not use nukes to defend you is precisely the reason to have a nuclear deterrent of your own. Both to defend yourself if it came to that, and to make it less likely to come to that. An aggressor might suspect the US isn't going to protect you (as it could result in a much worse fate for the US and the rest of humanity), but they'd have to know that when faced with annihilation, you would use your own nukes. So instead of leaving the door open to the possibility of someone calling a bluff, there is obviously no bluff. Any aggressor who was counting on not getting nuked in return would have to conclude that they can't invade. Whereas, if they feel the US is bluffing, they could invade. And if they do invade, whether the US is bluffing or not ... it's going to really suck for you.

[Dauphin]

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. No one is talking about using nukes just maintaining a nuclear deterrent.
Russia has a nuclear force and it is an aggressive expansionist country which is currently invading one of its neighbors. You are talking about unilateral disarmorment because you think the US will maintain its nuclear deterrent and you see an opportunity to freeload. Is it really so hard to understand that Americans dislike being taken advantage of, do not want more freeloaders, and would like their supposed allies to actually carry their fair share of defense spending?

If you really want to save some money rather than building specifically new British missile submarines and missiles just build contract versions of US missile submarines and missiles as that would maintain the British deterrent yet cost less than designing a whole new sub class and missile system which would consist of just four submarines built.

If you will never be willing to use them, they are pointless and not a deterren. You can be squirmish about using them to counter a ground invasion or salami attack. Would you use them in response to an enemy's use of nuclear weapons, be it all out or as a limited to a tactical strike on a single location. If you would, you have a deterrent.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You are talking about unilateral disarmorment because you think the US will maintain its nuclear deterrent and you see an opportunity to freeload. Is it really so hard to understand that Americans dislike being taken advantage of, do not want more freeloaders, and would like their supposed allies to actually carry their fair share of defense spending?

Telling people what they think is never a smart move. I'd be delighted if the US unilaterally ditched nukes tomorrow.